Khalil gets his own thread
-
Jeannine Pirro pulled the statute and read it on The Five.
All Rubio has to do is have his staff draw up the papers and sign it. It is a non-judicial, non-reviewable decision.
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 22:01 last edited by@Jolly said in Khalil gets his own thread:
Jeannine Pirro pulled the statute and read it on The Five.
All Rubio has to do is have his staff draw up the papers and sign it. It is a non-judicial, non-reviewable decision.
As it should be. Khalil is here at the pleasure of the American government and people. He's not an American citizen and he isn't covered by any laws the US doesn't want him to have. And this is the same way with any other country--if they decide for whatever reason you are person non grata then you have to go. Nothing special here.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 22:17 last edited by jon-nyc 3 Dec 2025, 00:03
FIRE’s take.
tl;dr:
If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 22:52 last edited by
It's not worth the kerfuffle to try to get rid of him, but obviously I can think of better things to worry about than non-citizen residents FAFOing with anti-government protests.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 23:36 last edited by jon-nyc 3 Nov 2025, 23:58
Yeah. Seems like they’d be better off deporting actual law breakers and not make any new 1A martyrs.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 23:50 last edited by
So, technically - if someone was pro hamas on this forum (as a green card holder), they’d be about as guilty as this guy?
Is there more to it? Did he break other laws? I haven’t really followed this.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 23:59 last edited by
They’re not accusing him of breaking any laws.
-
wrote on 11 Mar 2025, 23:59 last edited by
Read the FIRE piece I linked
-
wrote on 12 Apr 2025, 03:22 last edited by
-
wrote on 12 Apr 2025, 16:57 last edited by
I have thought of a compromise...We'll let him stay in the country, but he's under house arrest for 60 months, confined to a 15 mile circle around Jena.
Pineywoods rednecks, oilfield workers, loggers and farmers.
He'll fit right in.
-
wrote on 12 Apr 2025, 18:17 last edited by
He ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. He’ll have some appeals.
The judge is right in that as the law is written it’s fine. The real question is the constitutionality of the law itself.
-
wrote on 12 Apr 2025, 19:29 last edited by
They can appeal to the Board of Immigration. They can also file for asylum.
The second is a nonstarter. Don't know about the first.
-
wrote on 12 Apr 2025, 20:03 last edited by
You can appeal the law itself.
A lower court once found it unconstitutional but since it was a lower court it didn’t set precedent. Judge was Trump’s sister.