21 Apr 2025 11:26 am
Cannonpointer » 20 Apr 2025, 6:29 pm » wrote: ↑ Trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil is a direct attack on free speech. He threatened no one. He broke no law. He participated in zero sit-ins. He just wrongthinks - plain and **** simple.
This matter of Mahmoud Khalil is an interesting case. Rubio apparently used a law, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that authorizes the secretary of state to personally order the deportation of people whose presence in the U.S. the secretary believes "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. I'll admit, I've never heard of this law. Nor, have I even considered whether someone in the U.S. has the same rights to freedom of speech and/or freedom to espouse political ideologies as do US Citizens. This is new, so I think its sort of interesting. However, there is a question of whether Khalil lied on his visa application as to why he wanted to be in the U.S. Visa applications can be denied if the person appears to be coming to our country merely to start trouble.
Still, if all Khalil did was individually express his ideas of Hamas, Israel, Jews, etc., then I do tend to think the Constitution will afford him with the freedom to do this. If, however, he was involved in organizing protests, disseminating propaganda materials prepared by Hamas or others, then this activity goes beyond mere freedom of expression. He is a guest in the US and his right to be here can be revoked. I would want that to be the case with ALL foreign nationals who visit our country, regardless of who they are.
My bottom line on this - I can see both sides. I think it will be tested in the Supreme Court. I will be interested to read the opinions that come out of that battle.
As to Trump's demands of universities, he is insisting they "introduce lasting changes to 'end' anti-Semitism."
Trump has the right to ask and insist anything he wants. After all, Trump is an American Citizen and as such unquestionably has the right to express himself and speak freely. However, I think if Trump threatens to withhold money to force a school or university to regulate speech, this would be a violation of the 1st Amendment and possibly even other laws. Now, if he threatens to withhold money to safeguard a religious group from violence on their campuses, I do not see this as regulation of free speech. Honestly, I'm not sure what it is or how it would be viewed from a Constitutional perspective. I'm open to reading intelligent opinions about this.
There are several problems with this, the first and most obvious being who gets to define anti-Semitism.
I agree - no argument from me there.
The next problem with it is what role the Constitution gives a president in telling the **** public what to think and how to think it.
Like I said, I think the President, like any individual US citizen, has the right to tell people what he thinks, or even what they should think. That is Trump's right to freedom of expression. However, if that "expression" turns to threats with physical or economic consequences, then I think it crosses the line and is no longer just Trump talking.
REAL anti-Semitism would apply to both Arabs and Jews.
I agree with you on this. But, I see such a discussion or debate position devolving into a debate merely about semantics and definitions.