A Thread for Democrats Being Useless

[Donal]

Not if they convict him of a felony first.

Like I said, it will be illegal.

Anyway, color me disappointed. I'm 100% of revoking student visas and deporting foreign students who promote terrorism and terrorist groups. But it's a colossal screwup to target an ex-student green card holder for the flagship case. Can't get it right for getting it wrong, it seems. But this isn't the thread for Republicans being useless. Maybe we should declare Khalil an honorary Democrat, and examine whether he's being useless or not.

You don't think the the "disappear someone for executing the First Amendment Rights" is a problem? Citizenship status is just their way of making us not care.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Back to the topic at hand: Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was renditioned by ICE over the weekend. They said they were revoking his student visa due to his involvement in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university last year. One little problem. Khalil has a green card, not a student visa. That means he is a permanent resident. ICE had no jurisdiction over him. That didn't stop the agents, who refused to identify themselves or present the alleged warrant to Khalil, from threatening his pregnant wife. she is a full fledged citizen by the way. Khalil was shipped off to an ICE detention center in Louisiana, despite there being 2 such facilities in the Greater New York area.

Keep in mind, there is no evidence or even formal accusation of any crime. Khalil is being punished with illegal deportation for simply voicing an opinion the government doesn't like. Vague accusations of being a "Hamas supporter" are all they can provide.

The response from Democratic leadership has been crickets:

Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader and senior Senator from New York : nothing
Kirsten Gillibrand, junior Senator from New York: nothing
Hakeem Jeffries, House minority leader: nothing
Adriano Espallait, who represents the district Columbia is in and where Khalil lives, who not too long ago proclaimed "I will never bend the knee to this administration": nothing
Columbia University: nothing

It doesn't matter what your opinion of the Gaza conflict or Khalil are. He committed no crime to be apprehended by any law enforcement agency and ICE had no business touching him. This is a trial balloon. If they can make a green card holder disappear, how much longer until they can do it to an American citizen?

Fortunately, at least the courts are doing something that resembles protecting our freedoms. A federal judge has halted his deportation for now

And you know this is just the first one. It's a trial case to see what they can get away with. Once a precedence is set without opposition, deporting people for exercising freedom of speech will become the norm.

Edit: I see the cult approves of this, too. Colour me unsurprised.

 

[Donal]

That remains to be seen. We haven't seen the case against him yet, so we cannot evaluate its merits.

What merrits? The jackboots didn't present a warrant. ICE has no jurisdiction in this case. It would either be FBI or NYPD.

Either the Khalil case is on topic, or it's not. If it's not, why are you complaining to me? I didn't bring it up. And if it is, sorry, but you don't get to claim only one side is on topic.

Plus, pointing out that you were engaged in ridiculous and false hyperbole isn't excusing fascism. It's pointing out that you were engaged in ridiculous and false hyperbole. Note that you haven't actually tried to argue that they did in fact disappear him. You've basically conceded my point, you're just butt hurt that I made it.

I bet that sounds really good in the original 1930s German.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think the the "disappear someone for executing the First Amendment Rights" is a problem?

Again, no one has been disappeared. No one is going to be disappeared. Deporting someone isn't disappearing them.

 

[Donal]

And you know this is just the first one. It's a trial case to see what they can get away with. Once a precedence is set without opposition, deporting people for exercising freedom of speech will become the norm.

Edit: I see the cult approves of this, too. Colour me unsurprised.

That's why they picked a Muslim immigrant after a year and half of Republicans, Democrats, and the media demonizing the campus protests. Make it easier for the general public to swallow

 

[Donal]

Again, no one has been disappeared. No one is going to be disappeared. Deporting someone isn't disappearing them.

Is he with his wife? No. When his lawyer got the writ of habeas corpus, did she walk out with him? No. BECAUSE THEY SHIPPED HIM ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

But hey, they can look him up on the ICE website! That's good enough, right? I mean, ICE has no jurisdiction in this case and there have been no actual criminal charges presented. But that is just silly little Fourth Amendment stuff.

You can nitpick about whether a person who has been disappeared has in fact been disappeared. You have to. Otherwise, you have to go full mask off bigot to support this. You certainly can't argue the actual merits. I guess if it will sooth your feelings, we can go with "rendition".

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Let's also remember that the Germans started putting people in camps while Germany still had a somewhat functional justice system. In fact, several concentration camp guards were found guilty and sentenced for mistreating and killing prisoners before Hitler finally managed to take over the judicial system. If America can do all the horrible things it's doing right now, and has done in the past (illegally detaining/kidnapping people and torturing them, anyone?), imagine what they've got planned once they've fully taken over the justice system.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is he with his wife? No. When his lawyer got the writ of habeas corpus, did she walk out with him? No. BECAUSE THEY SHIPPED HIM ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

But hey, they can look him up on the ICE website! That's good enough, right? I mean, ICE has no jurisdiction in this case and there have been no actual criminal charges presented. But that is just silly little Fourth Amendment stuff.

You can nitpick about whether a person who has been disappeared has in fact been disappeared. You have to. Otherwise, you have to go full mask off bigot to support this. You certainly can't argue the actual merits. I guess if it will sooth your feelings, we can go with "rendition".

He isn't disappeared. He's just unlawfully detained and would be deported, if not for a judge that is bold enough to uphold the law.
So, it's okay. Trying to break the law is okay!

 

[Resume]

He isn't disappeared. He's just unlawfully detained and would be deported, if not for a judge that is bold enough to uphold the law.
So, it's okay. Trying to break the law is okay!

Breaking the law is okay for this felon.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Small-government conservatives: "If the government does it, it's not illegal."

 

[theprestige]

Like I said, it will be illegal.

You don't think the the "disappear someone for executing the First Amendment Rights" is a problem? Citizenship status is just their way of making us not care.

Deporting a visitor who supports terrorism isn't disappearing them.

Arresting a permanent resident on suspicion of supporting terrorism isn't disappearing them.

 

[Donal]

Deporting a visitor who supports terrorism isn't disappearing them.

That's not what we're talking about.

He isn't supproting terrorism.

He's not a "visitor".

He did not commit a crime.

Arresting a permanent resident on suspicion of supporting terrorism isn't disappearing them.

It is when they can't be physically presented and there are no charges. You know, that pesky Constitution thing.

 

[theprestige]

That's not what we're talking about.

I'm talking about both things: the new policy of seeking deportations for foreign students in who support terrorismn; and this incident. Neither of which involve disappearing anyone.

He isn't supproting terrorism.

He's not a "visitor".

He did not commit a crime.

Arrest precedes the criminal determination.

It is when they can't be physically presented and there are no charges. You know, that pesky Constitution thing.

I bet you think the constitution entitles you to speak with your lawyer before you consent to being arrested, too.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You think the police can, legally, arrest people without cause?

 

[Donal]

I'm talking about both things: the new policy of seeking deportations for foreign students in who support terrorismn;

then go find a discussion about that because this ain't it

and this incident. Neither of which involve disappearing anyone.

Again, where is he?

Arrest precedes the criminal determination.

Criminal charges are supposed to precede arrest. And again, say it with me: ICE has no jurisdiction here.

I bet you think the constitution entitles you to speak with your lawyer before you consent to being arrested, too.

I bet the constitution affords me to know what the charges are within 24 hours of my arrest.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's not what we're talking about.

He isn't supproting terrorism.

He's not a "visitor".

He did not commit a crime.

It is when they can't be physically presented and there are no charges. You know, that pesky Constitution thing.

Notice that Prestige completely ignored the "he isn't supporting terrorism" part of your post.
Prestige, how did this person support terrorism?

 

[Ziggurat]

You think the police can, legally, arrest people without cause?

I think the determination of whether or not an arrest is legal generally happens after the arrest, not before.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can nitpick about whether a person who has been disappeared has in fact been disappeared.

Do you even know what that term means? Because you act like you don't. I think you might actually not know what it means.

 

[Donal]

he's not with his family, there have been no formal charges, the apprehending agency has no jurisdiction, and his lawyer's writ of habeas corpus has not been executed. Again, you quibble about the word "disappear" because you are too morally and intellectually bankrupt to actually discuss this.

 

[theprestige]

You think the police can, legally, arrest people without cause?

I think you have a very mistaken idea of what due process entails. Like you probably aren't aware that an arrest is followed by a preliminary hearing, where among other things the court determines whether there is probable cause for the arrest. Formal charges don't even get filed until after probable cause has been found at this hearing.

So, yes, I do think the police can legally arrest people long before the question of cause is even examined.