News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I have read conflicting sources on his citizenship. Some have said he's a naturalized citizen, and if that is the case why wouldn't the first amendment apply to him? How can anyone be secure in their status as a citizen if it can be revoked for reasons that only apply to non-citizens?
They absolutely should!!
No "should" needed. The first amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of citizens", it says shall make no law period.
Constitutional rights are based on personhood, not citizenship. Mahmoud Khalil's 1A rights were violated, plain simple.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
I'm sure that he's not. It's established case law that (a) US citizen cannot be denied entry to the US and (b) that a legitimately-granted citizenship cannot subsequently be constitutionally revoked by the government; revocation must be voluntary. Like, this wouldn't be an argument were it not.
kagis
https://time.com/7266683/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-green-card/
Yeah. If you have a green card, you're on the path to citizenship...but you do not yet have citizenship.
EDIT: WRT my above statement:
SCOTUS ruling that involuntary removal of citizenship is unconstitutional: Afroyim v. Rusk.
His wife is a citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Khalil_(activist)
However, SCOTUS has ruled that the right of a US citizen to enter the United States does not extend to a non-citizen spouse:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-says-u-s-citizens-don-t-have-right-to-bring-noncitizen-spouses-to-u-s/ar-BB1oFzGW
Thank you for finding a better source than whatever my search engine was throwing at me. It didn't make any sense that they'd start with someone granted citizenship, and all the sense that they're going to make an example out of an immigrant still seeking citizenship.
No problem. I should add that immigration law is complicated as all hell, and sometimes very unintuitive, and the situation has changed over the years. And I'm not an immigration lawyer, so I'm just giving my best layman's understanding from what past case law and history I've read.
I'd also reiterate that it's not as if SCOTUS has said "the First Amendment doesn't protect the guy" against deportation for his speech. It just hasn't ruled that it does: there's been no ruling to define the scope of the Constitution on the matter that I'm aware of.
I'd also bet that there are a lot of wrinkles there. The rationale that the Executive Branch has used in the past to justify use of speech as a filter for permitting entry to the US is "national security". But I think
without looking into the matter
that it's likely difficult to characterize the guy as a threat to US national security. Israel's national security, maybe. But the US's? I think that that's a harder case to make. So...I'm not actually sure that even if SCOTUS takes a case and rules that you can use speech as a criteria for disallowing entry for non-citizens to the US on national security grounds, that it'd agree with the Executive Branch on this guy being deportable.