I haven't verified the claims in the article, but some of them seem worth highlighting:
1) No one is arguing that Khalil is or was in the US illegally or without documentation.
2) He is in the US as a permanent resident with a green card and has a pregnant American wife.
3) Neither his wife nor lawyer have been told why he was arrested or where he is currently being held.
4) When his wife tried to visit him in New Jersey after his arrest, she was told he had been moved, possibly to Louisiana.
5) Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”
As with a lot of the rest of what’s going on: there was a right way to (try to) do this, and the truly alarming part isn’t that they tried (that could amount to a policy disagreement, and that’s why we have systems for resolving that stuff) but that they’re going about it blatantly illegally, like, not even credibly attempting to follow the law.
They’re doing that because they need to move fast for this whole project to work. They haven’t captured so much of the government that they won’t get bogged down if they do it the right way. They need momentum and progress rolling into April 20th (due date for the “should I invoke the insurrection act?” reports Trump ordered to be created—takes time to get the wrong people out of the way so orders to send the military into “sanctuary cities” to enforce immigration law won’t be resisted, so they couldn’t do it immediately; and they may just use the threat of it, backed by the reports, to get cities to do the Feds’ jobs for them on the cities’ dime, I guess that’s the “if we’re lucky” outcome)
It doesn't really look like this administration is super concerned with following the law or doing things "the right way" or whether something is blatantly illegal. Who is going to stop them?
I didn’t write that it’d be political opponents. I think they’re going to use military mobilization, or threat thereof (perhaps after a couple cities are made examples of) to push some of the enormous cost and manpower requirements of the mass deportations they want, onto cities and states instead of the federal budget and personal.
I don’t think this will make the deportations as effective as they say they want, but it might accomplish some major political goals (very-visibly stick it to cities, and give red state politicians the opportunity to curry favor and gain points with MAGA by burning local and state tax dollars) and effect some amount of what they want on the deportation front.
This is the most charitable and non-alarmist reason I can think of that Trump would have ordered the reports re: the appropriateness of invoking the insurrection act. I also think it’s the most likely.
[edit] but maybe the reports (from members of his own cabinet) will come back and be all “nah, not justifiable” and he’ll be all “yeah, that’s cool, I didn’t really have any use for it in mind anyway”
I would say that we differ on the meaning of "political opponents". I am exactly referring to the same group as you: millions of non-whites distributed in some proportion of native citizens, naturalized citizens, documented (legal) immigrants and undocumented immigrants. I think "political opponents" is an appropriate term for them, just as how Poles, Romani, Jews, etc were political opponents of the last great instance of attempted mass deportation.
Of course, we know what happened once it became apparent that there's no way to create the infrastructure for mass expulsion. Nobody ever solved the problem: where do you deport them to?
I can’t imagine what else he’s thinking of doing with the insurrection act any time soon, that’s not far crazier.
If I wanted to do what he’s said he’s trying to do I’d want 1) to browbeat others into doing the work for me, at their expense, bonus points if it’s folks my supporters want to see brought to heel, 2) create an atmosphere of fear so people leave on their own (that’s free!), and 3) raise a large force to handle the logistics of actual mass deportation, which will be a huge job, bonus if some of their cost is already in the budget (the military).
Insurrection Act makes sense as a tool to achieve that.
[edit] to what you’re getting at with the suggested… alternative solution, let’s say, yes, I think there’s a real chance for things to get a ton worse in any of several ways, but I think most of that’s a year or more out and I hesitate to guess where we’ll be in 12 months.
There's no need to use existing laws when you can invent new ones. Under the process of Gleischaltung, many new laws were passed in a five-month window that didn't have any historical precedent including:
* Disbarring every lawyer and judge
* Requiring that all new bar exams could only be attended by NSDAP members of over two years who possessed certificates of "ancestral hygiene"
* Arresting every state governor (turns out the Weimar Republic was also a federal republic) and replacing them with NSDAP officials
* Reconstituting the party seat allocations of every state legislature to match the party seat allocations of the federal legislature
I think they have some interest in operating quasi-legally, at least for now. It reduces resistance, especially among those receiving the orders. They haven’t had time to purge the entire military leadership yet, just the ones at the top. If they want to act soon, they need it to look at least kinda legal.
Again, idk where this is going, it’s way up in the air as far as I’m concerned, I am just looking at what I see happening, and I see a request for reports on whether it’s appropriate to invoke the insurrection act, and I look at why he might want that now, and I see the promised mass deportations and what he’s done with trying to extort Adams into enforcing immigration law in NYC, and this is what I come up with. I think he wants it for bodies to help carry out deportations, and to at least threaten cities with soldiers on the streets to get them to do it some of the work for him. Beyond that? God, who knows.
> there's no reason to suspect the possible illiberal mass arrests of political opponents in the future
No reason, from the man who was already threatening targeted illegal arrest of political opponents?
No reason, from the man who keeps making "jokes" about being president for life?
No reason, from the man who sent lawyers to the supreme Court to argue that he could order the military to assassinate his rivals and it wouldn't be a crime?
No reason, from the man who said he needed generals more like Hitler's?
No reason, from the man who promised the largest deportations in American history?
No reason, from a man who argued his election loss justified "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"?
If green card holders/permanent residents don't have the ability to engage in constitutionally protected speech, doesn't this create a perverse incentive given that it creates a class of lawful residents that have circumscribed speech?
I haven't seen a lot of legal pushback on this stuff as opposed to a lot of the other stuff that has been injuncted.
The US immigration system doesn’t allow supporters of the Nazi regime, for example. There is a direct question in the citizenship form - “Have you ever been a member of a group such as…”.
The Supreme Court generally allows exceptions to Constitution rights if the government can’t implement an otherwise legal law that the government is entitled to implement - like screening immigrants.
Just as when Kenneth Walker was summarily denied his constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and the neofascists cheered it on. Lofty American ideals like natural rights don't actually matter to them - the harm is the point.
But at least Joe Biden got the message of what we thought about his Israel policies!
Regardless of politics there's no way this is constitutionally defensible.
It feels like the perverse incentive is the goal. After all, if only American citizens retain the right to protest certain policies they don't like, they have a strong incentive to have less American citizens.
What do you mean by "constitutionally defensible" ? Like how many IBC totes of ink the Subservient Court is going to spill writing a tortured justification for this particular plain infringement of our natural rights?
Legalities aside, I don’t get the logic of engaging political protests while on a foreign visa. No one is forcing you to live in the country you hate so much.
I haven't verified the claims in the article, but some of them seem worth highlighting:
1) No one is arguing that Khalil is or was in the US illegally or without documentation.
2) He is in the US as a permanent resident with a green card and has a pregnant American wife.
3) Neither his wife nor lawyer have been told why he was arrested or where he is currently being held.
4) When his wife tried to visit him in New Jersey after his arrest, she was told he had been moved, possibly to Louisiana.
5) Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”
As with a lot of the rest of what’s going on: there was a right way to (try to) do this, and the truly alarming part isn’t that they tried (that could amount to a policy disagreement, and that’s why we have systems for resolving that stuff) but that they’re going about it blatantly illegally, like, not even credibly attempting to follow the law.
They’re doing that because they need to move fast for this whole project to work. They haven’t captured so much of the government that they won’t get bogged down if they do it the right way. They need momentum and progress rolling into April 20th (due date for the “should I invoke the insurrection act?” reports Trump ordered to be created—takes time to get the wrong people out of the way so orders to send the military into “sanctuary cities” to enforce immigration law won’t be resisted, so they couldn’t do it immediately; and they may just use the threat of it, backed by the reports, to get cities to do the Feds’ jobs for them on the cities’ dime, I guess that’s the “if we’re lucky” outcome)
This is one of those things that has a lot of bipartisan support.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, which they've adopted, circumscribes speech that is critical of Israel, even if true, as antisemitism.
That type of hate speech legislation isn't usually applied to states but is fairly bilaterally supported in American politicians fever dreams.
Unfortunately, none of this is acceptable so long as the first constitutional amendment stands.
Could you expand on where the April 20th date comes from?
It doesn't really look like this administration is super concerned with following the law or doing things "the right way" or whether something is blatantly illegal. Who is going to stop them?
[flagged]
I didn’t write that it’d be political opponents. I think they’re going to use military mobilization, or threat thereof (perhaps after a couple cities are made examples of) to push some of the enormous cost and manpower requirements of the mass deportations they want, onto cities and states instead of the federal budget and personal.
I don’t think this will make the deportations as effective as they say they want, but it might accomplish some major political goals (very-visibly stick it to cities, and give red state politicians the opportunity to curry favor and gain points with MAGA by burning local and state tax dollars) and effect some amount of what they want on the deportation front.
This is the most charitable and non-alarmist reason I can think of that Trump would have ordered the reports re: the appropriateness of invoking the insurrection act. I also think it’s the most likely.
[edit] but maybe the reports (from members of his own cabinet) will come back and be all “nah, not justifiable” and he’ll be all “yeah, that’s cool, I didn’t really have any use for it in mind anyway”
I would say that we differ on the meaning of "political opponents". I am exactly referring to the same group as you: millions of non-whites distributed in some proportion of native citizens, naturalized citizens, documented (legal) immigrants and undocumented immigrants. I think "political opponents" is an appropriate term for them, just as how Poles, Romani, Jews, etc were political opponents of the last great instance of attempted mass deportation.
Of course, we know what happened once it became apparent that there's no way to create the infrastructure for mass expulsion. Nobody ever solved the problem: where do you deport them to?
Ah, ok. Then yes, them.
I can’t imagine what else he’s thinking of doing with the insurrection act any time soon, that’s not far crazier.
If I wanted to do what he’s said he’s trying to do I’d want 1) to browbeat others into doing the work for me, at their expense, bonus points if it’s folks my supporters want to see brought to heel, 2) create an atmosphere of fear so people leave on their own (that’s free!), and 3) raise a large force to handle the logistics of actual mass deportation, which will be a huge job, bonus if some of their cost is already in the budget (the military).
Insurrection Act makes sense as a tool to achieve that.
[edit] to what you’re getting at with the suggested… alternative solution, let’s say, yes, I think there’s a real chance for things to get a ton worse in any of several ways, but I think most of that’s a year or more out and I hesitate to guess where we’ll be in 12 months.
There's no need to use existing laws when you can invent new ones. Under the process of Gleischaltung, many new laws were passed in a five-month window that didn't have any historical precedent including:
* Disbarring every lawyer and judge
* Requiring that all new bar exams could only be attended by NSDAP members of over two years who possessed certificates of "ancestral hygiene"
* Arresting every state governor (turns out the Weimar Republic was also a federal republic) and replacing them with NSDAP officials
* Reconstituting the party seat allocations of every state legislature to match the party seat allocations of the federal legislature
I think they have some interest in operating quasi-legally, at least for now. It reduces resistance, especially among those receiving the orders. They haven’t had time to purge the entire military leadership yet, just the ones at the top. If they want to act soon, they need it to look at least kinda legal.
Again, idk where this is going, it’s way up in the air as far as I’m concerned, I am just looking at what I see happening, and I see a request for reports on whether it’s appropriate to invoke the insurrection act, and I look at why he might want that now, and I see the promised mass deportations and what he’s done with trying to extort Adams into enforcing immigration law in NYC, and this is what I come up with. I think he wants it for bodies to help carry out deportations, and to at least threaten cities with soldiers on the streets to get them to do it some of the work for him. Beyond that? God, who knows.
> there's no reason to suspect the possible illiberal mass arrests of political opponents in the future
No reason, from the man who was already threatening targeted illegal arrest of political opponents?
No reason, from the man who keeps making "jokes" about being president for life?
No reason, from the man who sent lawyers to the supreme Court to argue that he could order the military to assassinate his rivals and it wouldn't be a crime?
No reason, from the man who said he needed generals more like Hitler's?
No reason, from the man who promised the largest deportations in American history?
No reason, from a man who argued his election loss justified "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution"?
... What needs to exist for you to be suspicious?
/s was apparently necessary, after all.
If green card holders/permanent residents don't have the ability to engage in constitutionally protected speech, doesn't this create a perverse incentive given that it creates a class of lawful residents that have circumscribed speech?
I haven't seen a lot of legal pushback on this stuff as opposed to a lot of the other stuff that has been injuncted.
Logically this could never work.
The US immigration system doesn’t allow supporters of the Nazi regime, for example. There is a direct question in the citizenship form - “Have you ever been a member of a group such as…”.
The Supreme Court generally allows exceptions to Constitution rights if the government can’t implement an otherwise legal law that the government is entitled to implement - like screening immigrants.
How long should the screening process be?
You seem to assert it's indefinite, which is clearly not constitutional.
While a guest in someone's house one should endeavor not to be divisive and cause problems. It's a good way to be uninvited.
Maybe that's the reason for the wait on citizenship.
Until they have citizenship?
Until you are a citizen.
Until that time, you are an immigrant with temporary permission to reside in the US.
Just as when Kenneth Walker was summarily denied his constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and the neofascists cheered it on. Lofty American ideals like natural rights don't actually matter to them - the harm is the point.
But at least Joe Biden got the message of what we thought about his Israel policies!
Regardless of politics there's no way this is constitutionally defensible.
It feels like the perverse incentive is the goal. After all, if only American citizens retain the right to protest certain policies they don't like, they have a strong incentive to have less American citizens.
What do you mean by "constitutionally defensible" ? Like how many IBC totes of ink the Subservient Court is going to spill writing a tortured justification for this particular plain infringement of our natural rights?
Legalities aside, I don’t get the logic of engaging political protests while on a foreign visa. No one is forcing you to live in the country you hate so much.
Protesting isn't about hating your country, it's free speech and a form of political expression.
[flagged]
Not sure where you're looking, but the title of thread and the title of the article are the same.
Yes, op or mods updated it. It originally said "ICE abducts.."