I don't know how the Secretary of State could miss the one outstanding example of an immigrant whose "presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States", because his actions already have met the requirements for deportation under this law--Elon Musk.
1) “Presumably lied about his Anti-Semitic beliefs” when filling out the paperwork for his student visa and
2) is known to have illegally overstayed his student visa
I don’t think either of these should be sufficient grounds for deportation without due process and yet these were precisely the reasons used to try and deport two students from Columbia this week!
Consistent application of the law seems to be a foreign idea in MAGAland!
Rubio trump so lame A tea bagger and a traitor friggin around with a college student protesting a genocide. While everyone’s attention on this , human beings , babies , children getting massacred in Ukraine and Palestine. There is absolutely no bottom for these bastards
You surprize me Mehdi! Legally, you ask? What does Trump do that is LEGAL? Law means nothing to this career criminal. Mobsters do not consider laws to be something to worry about. That's our sad reality. Even sadder is the fact that our Government doesn't seem to have the will to stop it. Dictators have been run out of their countries. Even the Shah of Iran had to flee. But here, in America, the stupid Democrats are still considering working with him, thus ensuring that we have here our American XI, Modi or Putin~ Take your pick!
I've been waiting for everyone (democrats and citizens alike) to wake up from their Constitutional bubble. From believing what is "illegal" will stop Trump because he was elected President by our Constitutional system. I agree "mobsters do not consider laws to be something to worry about." Trump has expressed this belief over and over.
While everyone is obsessing about Trump's actions, Musk has stolen our government. Whoever controls the government's Information Technology system, controls the government. He has the ability, with his DOGE organization and the number of people, loyal only to him, embedded in key positions. He could stop all payments from the Treasury Department, if he wanted.
Khalil's case is only the tip of the iceberg. This administration wants to see how far it can go with the support of the US Supreme Court, which has stacked the deck well in its favor. Next in line would be the denationalization of JINO, followed by anyone else whom the Administration doesn't like.
This is how Autocrats proceeds and the people cheering and pushing for Khalil's deportation would be next. And no one would be left to stave off the deportation of Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer along with members of Betar.
It is important to note a couple of things about the actual statute. First: "Section 237" refers to the original ACT. The relevant parts here are codified under 8 USC 1227, which is easier to find. 1227 is concerned with deportable aliens, and covers a wide range of things, including child abuse.
There are two sections that might apply to Khalil, 8 USC 1227 (a)(4)(B) (about espousing terrorism) and (a)(4)(C): about being a problem for foreign policy.
That may seem nerdy, but it is IMPORTANT. (B) does NOT HAVE the language about the Secretary of State's qualms. He has no statutory authority to order a deportation just because he thinks that someone espouses terrorism, even designated terrorists. That is for immigration court.
The idea that the Secretary of State can just decide there's a problem is stated (as you quote)
in the statute as "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."
There isn't word one in the statute about the Secretary's "personal belief." (His beliefs about endorsing terrorism, remember are simply not relevant. The terrorist provision does not provide for unilateral decisions by the Secretary of State. I can't emphasize this enough.)
The Secretary of State's belief in (C) is two-pronged and as far as I can tell both prongs are required (there is no "or" in the wording.
---first, the belief must be reasonable
--second, the belief must be that the deportable alien's action would have "serious adverse foreign policy CONSEQUENCES.
OK, what CONSEQUENCES for foreign policy arise from a student protest--remember, in this context he can actively shriek "i love Hamas;" That puts us back in B, not C. (Not there's any evidence he did so shriek)
This protest certainly didn't CHANGE foreign policy. Nothing stopped our support of Israel. Did it somehow "malign" foreign policy that had adverse consequences FOR THAT POLICY? Remember, btw, this is BIDEN's policy we are talking here. Did Biden stop trying to negotiate a peace deal because Khalil made him feel bad about it? No. Has it affected trump's policy? Assuming we know what trump's policy is, no.
There is caselaw apparently that says the Immigration court considers a Secretary of State's decision as non rebuttable.* I don't know the facts of that case, but I am willing to bet my Social Security check that it didn't have First Amendment implications. But at a minimum before it can be non rebuttable it has to meet the two prongs I mentioned. Otherwise it doesn't fit in the statute at all.
I can see why this is rarely used because it is hard to come up with something that actually has consequences for foreign policy. One might be the discovery that the green card holder is blackmailing people in the state department to get them to take positions contrary to our foreign policy. In that case I can see the Secretary of State not going into detail but simply saying "I have reason to believe that people within the State Dept are being suborned." But a ineffective protest so far as government action goes? Can't see it.
Unless somehow having people discover the downsides of our policy so that more disagree with it than did before is somehow an adverse consequence that affects...nah, what does it affect? But at this point, it is clear that disagreeing about ANYTHING trump does is going to get you punished, one way or another.
DAWN has urged the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute former President Biden, State Secretary Blinken and Defense Secretary Austin for their personal roles in aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Gaza as part of his ongoing investigation into the situations in Palestine since 2014.
Might someone clarify how Khalil's actions can be legally defined as antisemitic and supporting Hamas? Isn't there an obvious case that support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel's actions equal do not equal support for Hamas? How is pro-Hamas action being defined? He is on record opposing antisemitism and calling for Israeli and Palestinian freedom.
He's also someone who is measured. He was chosen by the best and the brightest to serve as their negotiator. He met with the trustees at Columbia U-- I don't hear a peep out of them!
Ceasefire or no ceasefire; scam or no, we cannot allow Israel to escape the legal consequences of their war crimes. The Hind Rajab Foundation has, among other things, filed a case with the ICC against 1,000 Israeli soldiers for war crimes in Gaza.
They have taken further steps in recent days, and vacations are becoming a lot more difficult for IDF soldiers, worldwide. The Hind Rajab Foundation can use our help. Please join me in making a contribution.
You might find meaningful to watch the recent interviews that Glenn Greenwald did on his Rumble platform, and Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, did with the head of this organisation, Dyad Abou Jahjah. It was very informative.
Here's a petition calling for accountability for the arrest of Ali Abunimah in Switzerland:
This provision of the INA will be used to penalize and go after green card holders and anyone with the visa, who even criticizes the US government support of “Israel”‼️
Could me gum up the works by making Rubio declare all the permanent citizens as deplorable's? My parents immigrated from Canada, surely that makes me suspect and requires the Secretary of State to deport me.
The priority should be to not undermine the constitution and free speech rights. The convicted criminal Trump is trying to get at his enemies any way possible. Musk seems to be able to interfere in elections both in the US using his billions and in Europe lauding far right parties, but then he has citizenship in three countries including Canada, South Africa and the US.
Mehdi and/or Prem--could you also discuss/comment on the claim that Khalil distributed Hamas brochures, some with Sinwar's picture on them, some threatening destruction to Israel, etc. Did this happen? If yes, would/should these acts be covered under the First Amendment?
I don't know how the Secretary of State could miss the one outstanding example of an immigrant whose "presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States", because his actions already have met the requirements for deportation under this law--Elon Musk.
Brilliant, Jeffrey.
Lets not forget that he also:
1) “Presumably lied about his Anti-Semitic beliefs” when filling out the paperwork for his student visa and
2) is known to have illegally overstayed his student visa
I don’t think either of these should be sufficient grounds for deportation without due process and yet these were precisely the reasons used to try and deport two students from Columbia this week!
Consistent application of the law seems to be a foreign idea in MAGAland!
Rubio trump so lame A tea bagger and a traitor friggin around with a college student protesting a genocide. While everyone’s attention on this , human beings , babies , children getting massacred in Ukraine and Palestine. There is absolutely no bottom for these bastards
You surprize me Mehdi! Legally, you ask? What does Trump do that is LEGAL? Law means nothing to this career criminal. Mobsters do not consider laws to be something to worry about. That's our sad reality. Even sadder is the fact that our Government doesn't seem to have the will to stop it. Dictators have been run out of their countries. Even the Shah of Iran had to flee. But here, in America, the stupid Democrats are still considering working with him, thus ensuring that we have here our American XI, Modi or Putin~ Take your pick!
I've been waiting for everyone (democrats and citizens alike) to wake up from their Constitutional bubble. From believing what is "illegal" will stop Trump because he was elected President by our Constitutional system. I agree "mobsters do not consider laws to be something to worry about." Trump has expressed this belief over and over.
While everyone is obsessing about Trump's actions, Musk has stolen our government. Whoever controls the government's Information Technology system, controls the government. He has the ability, with his DOGE organization and the number of people, loyal only to him, embedded in key positions. He could stop all payments from the Treasury Department, if he wanted.
simple dead right
Khalil's case is only the tip of the iceberg. This administration wants to see how far it can go with the support of the US Supreme Court, which has stacked the deck well in its favor. Next in line would be the denationalization of JINO, followed by anyone else whom the Administration doesn't like.
This is how Autocrats proceeds and the people cheering and pushing for Khalil's deportation would be next. And no one would be left to stave off the deportation of Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer along with members of Betar.
It is important to note a couple of things about the actual statute. First: "Section 237" refers to the original ACT. The relevant parts here are codified under 8 USC 1227, which is easier to find. 1227 is concerned with deportable aliens, and covers a wide range of things, including child abuse.
There are two sections that might apply to Khalil, 8 USC 1227 (a)(4)(B) (about espousing terrorism) and (a)(4)(C): about being a problem for foreign policy.
That may seem nerdy, but it is IMPORTANT. (B) does NOT HAVE the language about the Secretary of State's qualms. He has no statutory authority to order a deportation just because he thinks that someone espouses terrorism, even designated terrorists. That is for immigration court.
The idea that the Secretary of State can just decide there's a problem is stated (as you quote)
in the statute as "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."
There isn't word one in the statute about the Secretary's "personal belief." (His beliefs about endorsing terrorism, remember are simply not relevant. The terrorist provision does not provide for unilateral decisions by the Secretary of State. I can't emphasize this enough.)
The Secretary of State's belief in (C) is two-pronged and as far as I can tell both prongs are required (there is no "or" in the wording.
---first, the belief must be reasonable
--second, the belief must be that the deportable alien's action would have "serious adverse foreign policy CONSEQUENCES.
OK, what CONSEQUENCES for foreign policy arise from a student protest--remember, in this context he can actively shriek "i love Hamas;" That puts us back in B, not C. (Not there's any evidence he did so shriek)
This protest certainly didn't CHANGE foreign policy. Nothing stopped our support of Israel. Did it somehow "malign" foreign policy that had adverse consequences FOR THAT POLICY? Remember, btw, this is BIDEN's policy we are talking here. Did Biden stop trying to negotiate a peace deal because Khalil made him feel bad about it? No. Has it affected trump's policy? Assuming we know what trump's policy is, no.
There is caselaw apparently that says the Immigration court considers a Secretary of State's decision as non rebuttable.* I don't know the facts of that case, but I am willing to bet my Social Security check that it didn't have First Amendment implications. But at a minimum before it can be non rebuttable it has to meet the two prongs I mentioned. Otherwise it doesn't fit in the statute at all.
I can see why this is rarely used because it is hard to come up with something that actually has consequences for foreign policy. One might be the discovery that the green card holder is blackmailing people in the state department to get them to take positions contrary to our foreign policy. In that case I can see the Secretary of State not going into detail but simply saying "I have reason to believe that people within the State Dept are being suborned." But a ineffective protest so far as government action goes? Can't see it.
Unless somehow having people discover the downsides of our policy so that more disagree with it than did before is somehow an adverse consequence that affects...nah, what does it affect? But at this point, it is clear that disagreeing about ANYTHING trump does is going to get you punished, one way or another.
__________________________________________________
*I'm guessing this is where the idea of a "personal belief" comes in.
DAWN has urged the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute former President Biden, State Secretary Blinken and Defense Secretary Austin for their personal roles in aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Gaza as part of his ongoing investigation into the situations in Palestine since 2014.
https://dawnmena.org/latest/
Let’s give them our support. Perhaps at some point the Trump administration will be joined in this matter.
Might someone clarify how Khalil's actions can be legally defined as antisemitic and supporting Hamas? Isn't there an obvious case that support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel's actions equal do not equal support for Hamas? How is pro-Hamas action being defined? He is on record opposing antisemitism and calling for Israeli and Palestinian freedom.
He's also someone who is measured. He was chosen by the best and the brightest to serve as their negotiator. He met with the trustees at Columbia U-- I don't hear a peep out of them!
Ceasefire or no ceasefire; scam or no, we cannot allow Israel to escape the legal consequences of their war crimes. The Hind Rajab Foundation has, among other things, filed a case with the ICC against 1,000 Israeli soldiers for war crimes in Gaza.
https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/perpetrators/hind-rajab-foundation-files-historic-icc-complaint-against-1000-israeli-soldiers-for-war-crimes-in-gaza
They have taken further steps in recent days, and vacations are becoming a lot more difficult for IDF soldiers, worldwide. The Hind Rajab Foundation can use our help. Please join me in making a contribution.
https://buy.stripe.com/cN228hbY5g7jaM84gg
You might find meaningful to watch the recent interviews that Glenn Greenwald did on his Rumble platform, and Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, did with the head of this organisation, Dyad Abou Jahjah. It was very informative.
Here's a petition calling for accountability for the arrest of Ali Abunimah in Switzerland:
https://chng.it/8D4pkxPhWS
Please sign the petition and share widely.
This provision of the INA will be used to penalize and go after green card holders and anyone with the visa, who even criticizes the US government support of “Israel”‼️
This is a kidnapping; Warrant not signed, ICE breaking every US law. These men need to be held accountable.
If it walks like a fascist...
What would Abbey Hoffman do?
Could me gum up the works by making Rubio declare all the permanent citizens as deplorable's? My parents immigrated from Canada, surely that makes me suspect and requires the Secretary of State to deport me.
The priority should be to not undermine the constitution and free speech rights. The convicted criminal Trump is trying to get at his enemies any way possible. Musk seems to be able to interfere in elections both in the US using his billions and in Europe lauding far right parties, but then he has citizenship in three countries including Canada, South Africa and the US.
Elon Musk is not a US citizen.
According to my information, he became a US citizen through naturalization in 2002.
Mehdi and/or Prem--could you also discuss/comment on the claim that Khalil distributed Hamas brochures, some with Sinwar's picture on them, some threatening destruction to Israel, etc. Did this happen? If yes, would/should these acts be covered under the First Amendment?
I'd like to see proof of that.
Any joiners to the cause?
I get handed brochures every day. If I already agree I read them. If I don't I trash them.
Freedom dies under autocrats.
I address the difference between "espousing terrorism" and what Rubio can do in my comment just now posted.
These men are in plain close. How is anyone able to say who’s arresting him? Refusing to give a name is against the law.
My mistake on the citizenship. Apologies.