re: More Background Information On Mahmoud Khalil:

I stated crickets as you have disregarded still to address a post in this thread (below) - not mine. Specifically, you did not respond to the copied post below from ClientNumber9 posted on 3/17/25 at 1:30 pm in this thread, even though you absolutely live on this board (except for that banned time).

Why didn't you respond to this post? Are you going to? I am guessing that would not fit into your agenda. What now are your insult terms btw? Dimwit. you people, Cajuns, etc. Again, the post is below that you conveniently chose not to respond to.

Why haven't you responded?

From ClientNumber9

Let me help you, AggieHank, because this is what I do for a living. I have two decades of enforcing federal immigration law.

Khalil does not enjoy the same 1st Amendment rights as an American Citizen. Khalil is a Lawful Permanent Resident (aka, "green card" holder). While this gives him broad rights in terms of coming and going from the US, owning property, etc., he has certain obligations that you and I don't have. For example, Permanent Residents have an expectation to "support the democratic form of government". (This link is taken directly from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website.) Khalil has been accused of directly supporting named terrorist organizations and advocating against the United States.

Another way to lose your Permanent Residency status is through willful misrepresentation. I'm certain Khalil did not mention on his immigration application that he was harbored pro-Hamas beliefs and would be working to foment rebellion against the country he was seeking to enter. (Yes, there are blanks on the form that cover this.) Therefore, the United States can argue he willfully misrepresented his purpose for entry.

Finally, take a peek at the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, specifically Section 212(a)(3)(C)(i). Under this law, the United States Secretary of State may deem a non-citizen deportable if he/she thinks their presence or activities may harm U.S. interests. Reread that sentence. Take it all in and let it wash over you.

ETA: Source- 10 years as a Border Patrol agent, 10 years working for an investigative three letter agency.

quote:

---

Permanent Residents have an expectation to "support the democratic form of government".

---

And any reasonable person would expect this entails not trespassing while creating civil disorder.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

He is being deported in violation of the First Amendment.

---

The first amendment applies to US citizens. Period.

quote:

---

Certainly, I must have missed all the videos of Khalil engaging in these various ... behaviors. Doubtless, there are hundreds of such videos, and I am just too incompetent in google search syntax to find even one of them. Doubtless, your skillset far exceeds my own. Perhaps you would do me the kindness of linking a few such videos. I would be eternally grateful.

---

Khalil was negotiating on behalf of the people doing this. He was threatening the administration that they must give in to their demands or blocking access to classrooms, occupying administrative offices, harassing other students, and/or threatening to kill Zionists would continue. And when their demands weren’t met, that behavior continued.

This is like if two people kidnap someone and a third person calls to demand a ransom. Threatening if their demands aren’t met, the kidnapping victim would be killed. The demands don’t get met and the two kidnappers kill the victim. And you are like, the hostage negotiator was just exercising his free speech rights. There’s no evidence he kidnapped or killed anybody.

He was a part of the crime as much as Khalil was a part of the blocking access to classrooms, occupying administrative offices, harassing other students, and/or threatening to kill Zionists.

Khalil was just stupid enough to think that “just being the negotiator” somehow protected him.

You can’t hold a gun to someone’s head and demand concessions and claim it’s free speech. The fact that he was threatening to use mobs of violent protesters to effectuate his goals, takes this out of the realm of free “speech.”