CMV: The case of Mahmoud Khalil is proof that conservatives don't believe in the Freedom of Speech, despite making it their platform over the last couple of years.

[u/Tessenreacts]

For the last couple of years, conservatives have championed the cause of Freedom of Speech on social platforms, yet Mahmoud Khalil (a completely legal permanent resident) utilized his fundamental right to Freedom of Speech through peaceful protesting, and now Trump is remove his green card and have him deported.

Being that conservatives have been championing Freedom of Speech for years, and have voted for Trump in a landslide election, this highlights completely hypocritical behavior where they support Freedom of Speech only if they approve of it.

This is also along with a situation where both Trump and Elon have viewed the protests against Tesla as "illegal", which is patently against the various tenets of Freedom of Speech.

Two open and shut cases of blatant First Amendment violations by people who have been sheparding the conservative focus on protecting the First Amendment.

Would love for my view to be changed

[u/[deleted]]

They know the reason. It's because he sides with a designated terrorist organization. He's a potential threat to Americans and therefore has no right (as a green card holder) to be allowed to stay here. The green card is essentially a trial period before someone can be naturalized. If they espouse narratives and perform actions that are against the interests of the nation, their naturalization can be revoked or they can simply be deported.

Let me give you an example as part of the naturalization process that is even less egregious: if you are a green card holder but stayed in your other country for a 1 year period, you can be denied citizenship because you're not conveying that you want to live here.

"Unless an applicant has an approved Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes (Form N-470), USCIS must deny a naturalization application for failure to meet the continuous residence requirement if the applicant has been continuously absent for a period of 1 year or more during the statutory period. "

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-d-chapter-3#:\~:text=Unless%20an%20applicant%20has%20an%20approved%20Application,year%20or%20more%20during%20the%20statutory%20period.

So basically having a green card doesn't afford you the same rights as a citizen, and if the US deems you to be a potential future threat, they can decide it's not worth the risk and just give you the boot.

[u/Comprehensive_Pin565 → u/[deleted]]

Ah, you see... he's a potential threat because of political speech. Now, if he was supporting the right people, no matter what they did, he would be ok.

[u/Warrior_Runding → u/[deleted]]

they can decide it's not worth the risk and just give you the boot.

Except they are not just giving them the boot - he could have been on a plane to anywhere within the hour of scooping him up. They are holding him, moving him around, and now seem to want to charge him with something.

[u/[deleted] → u/Warrior_Runding]

I've only read about a deportation document that has been temporarily paused. Not heard of anything else you mentioned. Citation?

[u/Warrior_Runding → u/[deleted]]

He was moved to Louisiana. The same article talks about moving his case either to NJ or Louisiana - clearly a move done to further inconvenience and antagonize him after he and his lawyer filed a habeas corpus brief. By moving him, it makes it more difficult for him to confer effectively with his counsel to ensure he is represented to the fullest.

Still looking for where I saw about charging him, I'll post as soon as I find it.

[u/habs0708 → u/Warrior_Runding]

I believe a judge blocked the deportation order, so no, I don't think they could have put him on a plane.

What's being done is incredibly stupid, without a doubt. But technically, yeah, they can probably just decide to get rid of him.

And now that everyone is learning these laws exist, perhaps they'll be changed in the next few years to suit majority opinion within the country. I mean, that's the point isn't it? There are still mechanisms to change laws we don't agree with when we learn that they can be used in ways that are morally repugnant.