- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It seems Mamoud khalil will likely win his immigration court hearing.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:54 pm to Ingeniero
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:54 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Personally it doesn't sound right that the executive branch can deport a green card holder for any (or no) reason, but the courts may decide differently.
Why do people keep saying this? The statute is in the thread. The secretary of state gave reasons for deportation that comply with the statute. That is far different from depirting "for any reason"
3
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:55 pm to Roaad
Does the president of the united states have to abide by the laws of the united states?
This post was edited on 4/10/25 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:55 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
I think anyone speaking definitively on this is taking some leaps, because this doesn't sound like it's settled case law. I'd expect it to make its way all the way to the supreme court before we find out.
Personally it doesn't sound right that the executive branch can deport a green card holder for any (or no) reason, but the courts may decide differently. That just sounds ripe for abuse to me. A Harris win would've meant that a legal resident could be deported for attending a pro-life rally or criticizing the US handling of Ukraine. I don't like that type of overreach
It's not settled, not at all.
The second is a good point.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:56 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The secretary of state gave reasons for deportation that comply with the statute.
What were they? Last I read, the Secretary of State said he did not break any laws.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
What were they? Last I read, the Secretary of State said he did not break any laws.
Its in this thread.
The statute does not require the breaking of laws for deportation.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:59 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Why do people keep saying this? The statute is in the thread. The secretary of state gave reasons for deportation that comply with the statute. That is far different from depirting "for any reason"
Some of the responses in the thread have been that the executive branch holds the power to rescind their status and deport for any reason. That's what that line in my post was referring to. As far as Rubio's claim that it threatens foreign relations, it seems like a weak claim and I would expect a judge to not take kindly to it, but I've also been wrong before and am not a lawyer.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 6:59 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Its in this thread.
Somewhere in the 7 pages there is a post with information that you are unwilling to share?
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:00 pm to 4cubbies
I’m sure your fat fingers can find the back arrow and scroll down
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:01 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Why do people keep saying this? The statute is in the thread. The secretary of state gave reasons for deportation that comply with the statute. That is far different from deporting "for any reason"
Well you're for sure right. The Government has coughed up a reason. What we're going to have to wait and find out is will it be enough for the courts? My guess is probably not.
I've been fascinated by this case and I've read alot about it. I can't remember alot of the finer points, but I did read that the courts are very hesitant to endorse deportation of people like Khalil over 1st amendment issues, or issues where a crime has not been committed. The threshold however for deporting visa holders is much lower.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:04 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Some of the responses in the thread have been that the executive branch holds the power to rescind their status and deport for any reason. That's what that line in my post was referring to. As far as Rubio's claim that it threatens foreign relations, it seems like a weak claim and I would expect a judge to not take kindly to it, but I've also been wrong before and am not a lawyer.
Yeah that's gonna be a tough sell for sure man. That's weak as shite.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:05 pm to Pandy Fackler
I dont know what the judge will do but combating anti-semitism seems like a legitimate foreign policy interest. Having anti-semitic protests and protests that harass Jewish students in the US seems like it reasonably undermines that foreign policy objective.
Khalil played a prominent role in those protests.
Khalil played a prominent role in those protests.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:05 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
I've been fascinated by this case and I've read alot about it
Same.The whole thing is pretty surreal.
I’m in graduate school and someone in my cohort is from Jerusalem. She is Palestinian and has shared a lot about apartheid in Israel pre-October 7. I can totally see how someone can support Palestinians without endorsing Hamas.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:14 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I dont know what the judge will do but combating anti-semitism seems like a legitimate foreign policy interest. Having anti-semitic protests and protests that harass Jewish students in the US seems like it reasonably undermines that foreign policy objective.
Khalil played a prominent role in those protests.
It's messy though. How much of all that was true anti-semitism versus anti-Isreal and furthermore, how much anti-semitism can be attached to Khalil himself? It doesn’t look like any of it can.
I'm all about deporting this guy. Deport away, but be just and fair about it. Proven anti-semitism and hate toward a religious or ethnic minority, I'm all for it, say bye bye. But protesting the actions of Israel? No, I can't support someone's deportation for that.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:22 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Same.The whole thing is pretty surreal.
I’m in graduate school and someone in my cohort is from Jerusalem. She is Palestinian and has shared a lot about apartheid in Israel pre-October 7. I can totally see how someone can support Palestinians without endorsing Hamas.
I've got no great sympathy at all for the Palestinian people but to your point, when Israel the country and her Government are publicly criticized, antisemitic fringe elements will join. The majority of these protesters have been anti-Isreal and it's policies, not pro-Hamas or anti-Jew. Reasonable people I think know this.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:24 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
You can live your entire life in the US. You can marry, you can work here, buy a home here and pay taxes here but you're going to have to live under a diluted set rights.
Very small price to pay to give your descendants the gift of living in the best country to ever exist.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:26 pm to Pandy Fackler
Let’s start with your last premise: Palestinian.
No such creature exists except in the minds of confabulation.
Correct that misnomer and we move forward with the rest please.
Thanks.
No such creature exists except in the minds of confabulation.
Correct that misnomer and we move forward with the rest please.
Thanks.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:27 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I dont know what the judge will do but combating anti-semitism seems like a legitimate foreign policy interest. Having anti-semitic protests and protests that harass Jewish students in the US seems like it reasonably undermines that foreign policy objective
I think that's fair. From reading the statute it sounds like it's Rubio's job to argue that his beliefs would compromise US foreign policy, which seems like a pretty high bar. I think it may take a little more legwork from Rubio to convince the courts that Khalil himself is responsible for antisemitism rising to the level of interfering in foreign policy. I'm interested to watch it play out.
quote:
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:38 pm to 4cubbies
quote:The laws that apply to him, yes
Does the president of the united states have to abide by the laws of the united states?
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:55 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Very small price to pay to give your descendants the gift of living in the best country to ever exist.
Exactly what my great grandparents did after 6 months on ellis island.
Made crossing a river look like a cake walk.
Posted on 4/10/25 at 7:57 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
No, I don't think so. I'm no lawyer (where's floslo?) but what I hope is that the immigration judge is typically the final word in this sort of thing, which is the right thing to do. Afterall, he is a person.
fify
Page 7 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News