Being an immigrant myself, I wholeheartedly disagree with this view.
Citizenship MUST mean something.
Citizenship must confer unique rights to an individual that also has certain duties and responsibilities to the nation-state. This is especially true of individuals that choose to become citizens via the naturalization process. Why take on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, including the obligation to defend the country, pay taxes on worldwide income, etc., if one already has all the benefits by simply being physically in the country?
This, and in fact, every nation, is built first and foremost to protect the rights of it's own citizens.
If all it were was speech, I doubt you would be seeing all that is going on. There were illegal takeovers of places of business (college buildings and grounds), massive destruction of property, some physical injuries, and nationwide intimidation of Jews qua Jews, and anyone skeptical of Hamas or supportive of Israel. All of which the “authorities” often supported and almost never disciplined.
You should be thankful it was the government that stepped in to right matters, rather than vigilantes.
"Take Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and legal U.S. resident, arrested for joining pro-Palestinian protests on campus—demonstrations that some argued were antisemitic. Or Tufts PhD candidate Rumeysa Ozturk, now facing deportation for co-authoring an op-ed critical of the university’s ties to Israel." This paragraph belies your bias. In the case of Mahmoud Khalil - he did not "join" pro-Palestinian protests - he organized and led them, including ones that became violent and caused property damage. These were IN FACT antisemitic demonstrations - the Jewish students who were there have attested to that. Furthermore, the only people who have said that Rumeysa Ozturk's deportation has anything to do with the op ed she wrote are HER lawyers. The government has said no such thing.
Canada handles immigration normally: it's their country, and if they want to kick out a non-citizen, they do it.
I'm sorry Ozturk lost her student visa, but she was certainly far more responsible for losing hers than I was for nearly losing mine.
I almost lost my student visa to Canada because the border guard in charge of granting it to me didn't know the law. We had a huge argument that lasted over an hour, while my son waited for me across town at our Canadian home. At one point, I even made the guard's supervisor laugh.
If I had lost my student visa, there would have been nothing I could have done about it and nobody to complain to. I was a guest in that guard's country. He had all the authority, and I had none. Those are the rules.
When you are a guest in someone else's country, you ALWAYS keep in mind that you are a guest. You NEVER take for granted your right to be there.
Agree with the above. Have been on board with FAIR until now. If this is your new director for Legal Advocacy, we might have to part ways. Europe has let itself be taken over by immigrants to the point that Pakistani grooming gangs are abusing UK girls. Officials looked the other way for years now and no one was allowed to say anything. If you are not a US citizen, you are a guest here. Supporting terrorist organizations that have held and killed AMERICAN hostages should not be given quarter.
Hasn't the value of U.S. citizenship been degraded enough by our own government over the years that we should allow non-citizens in our country who neither respect citizenship nor the values from which our country was created?
Why have you chosen to display a picture showing support Abrego Garcia. Maybe there is an argument with Khalil, but, this is an illegal immigrant, who is ALSO A gang member, according to 2 court findings, and has TWICE gotten an order of protection for beating his wife. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't deport this man. Are you?
I support Ozturk's right to criticize Israel, to criticize the university, even to write that Israel needs to be eliminated, though I strongly disagree with these positions. On the other hand, I think Khalil needs to be deported. He led a gang of individuals who wore masks, crossed the line, even broke the law and was intent on intimidating Jews and supporters of Israel. That's not free speech when you proclaim "free speech" for yourself but deny others the right to their opinions. Good riddance to him and to others like him. Khalil doesn't bring to the US an appreciation of first amendment rights but an approach to free speech which would be found among members of Hamas. "We can say what we want and we will kill those with whom we disagree."
It's also worth considering how much of this might have grown out of the "space to destroy" allocated to the BLM and BLM-adjacent protests just before and during COVID. Things like this don't just appear or happen in a vacuum...there are usually precedents and past examples. It's amazing how many people seem to have totally forgotten about the CHAZ in Seattle and the mayhem in places like Portland and Chicago during that time.
The argument "just because we can legally do this, we shouldn't" is not solid. You are uncomfortable with this because you have extrapolated to all the things that "could" happen. People might hold their tongues, especially non citizens. This "might" start to extend to other freedoms. These are dumb arguments. If we indulged in "what might happen" for every decision that is legally sound, we would never be able to enforce any laws.
I don't mind being lectured to or screamed at by an american citizen who frankly has skin in the game. I don't think it is prudent or polite for someone with a different citizenship to lecture me on their opinions about why my country (their host country) sucks. Especially when their positions are so extreme and out of line of mainstream American values. Become a citizen, understand and live and claim the American experience, then you can carry on all you want.
The protests were not peaceful nor civil. At the schools or in the streets. They are intimidation tactics and destructive. To pretend otherwise is naive and exactly how we got ourselves into this uncivil society. It is political unrest. We have enough of our own citizens who want to transform our country we do not need foreign agitators or their foreign monies to cause civil unrest to fear monger into submission. Using our first amendment rights to protect their actions is appalling and dangerous. Yes just take a look at Europe to se clearly where this leads.the Ivy leaders allowing anti American studies is more insurrectionist than j6 came close to.
If you have a green card, meaning that you are a permanent resident, you will have to go through a process that includes an interview. In the interview, you will have to lie to get your citizenship. That is why the argument that the same freedom of speech should apply to non-citizens doesn't make sense.
It is not very FAIR to conflate the cases of Khalil and Ozturk. As you well know the case against Khalil is an allegation of engaging in and directing criminal activity. I do think FAIR should support his case but it should not ever pretend his case is the same as Ozturk’s. Her case is very clear cut and speaks to your headline and argument. Khalil does not.
In his case the argument is about selective application of laws due to a political agenda by the government- whether any student protester would face deportation for similar alleged (not proven) low level criminal activity as part of a protest.
By failing to clearly distinguish Ozturk from Khalil from Abrego you materially undermine FAIR’s credibility.
Although this article (see citation) is from 2005, it gives a historical and comprehensive overview of the exclusionary policies against foreigners who hold extremist views versus constitutional protections for free speech -- worth checking out: https://cis.org/Report/Keeping-Extremists-Out
The intellectual class enjoy free speech (often without its consequences) but the general public pays the costs of free speech and tolerates it.
The costs of free speech include sowing hate, divisiveness, and encouraging harmful behavior and noxious habits among the populace. The media feed many sorts of political, psychological and criminal pathologies. Late 19th century Vienna suffered a spate of youthful suicide cases after a well publicized suicide by a popular young writer, after which news was censored. Senator Schumer threatens the Supreme Court with violence and spurs an attempted assassination.
Citizens’ speech is protected under a social compact that assumes they have a vested interest in the society.
It is not clear that a foreigner should enjoy these free speech protections from government action. We cannot assume that most visitors have learned or share the collection of Enlightenment and humanist beliefs we call American values. Visitors can be foreign agents funded and trained by alien and authoritarian powers to spread Islam, Marxism or other violent ideologies.
The most direct and effective way to protect the country from the evil foreign influences that our Founders certainly believed existed was to give the President the executive power to deny entry and expel such influences.
Being an immigrant myself, I wholeheartedly disagree with this view.
Citizenship MUST mean something.
Citizenship must confer unique rights to an individual that also has certain duties and responsibilities to the nation-state. This is especially true of individuals that choose to become citizens via the naturalization process. Why take on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, including the obligation to defend the country, pay taxes on worldwide income, etc., if one already has all the benefits by simply being physically in the country?
This, and in fact, every nation, is built first and foremost to protect the rights of it's own citizens.
Yes!
If all it were was speech, I doubt you would be seeing all that is going on. There were illegal takeovers of places of business (college buildings and grounds), massive destruction of property, some physical injuries, and nationwide intimidation of Jews qua Jews, and anyone skeptical of Hamas or supportive of Israel. All of which the “authorities” often supported and almost never disciplined.
You should be thankful it was the government that stepped in to right matters, rather than vigilantes.
"Take Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and legal U.S. resident, arrested for joining pro-Palestinian protests on campus—demonstrations that some argued were antisemitic. Or Tufts PhD candidate Rumeysa Ozturk, now facing deportation for co-authoring an op-ed critical of the university’s ties to Israel." This paragraph belies your bias. In the case of Mahmoud Khalil - he did not "join" pro-Palestinian protests - he organized and led them, including ones that became violent and caused property damage. These were IN FACT antisemitic demonstrations - the Jewish students who were there have attested to that. Furthermore, the only people who have said that Rumeysa Ozturk's deportation has anything to do with the op ed she wrote are HER lawyers. The government has said no such thing.
Canada handles immigration normally: it's their country, and if they want to kick out a non-citizen, they do it.
I'm sorry Ozturk lost her student visa, but she was certainly far more responsible for losing hers than I was for nearly losing mine.
I almost lost my student visa to Canada because the border guard in charge of granting it to me didn't know the law. We had a huge argument that lasted over an hour, while my son waited for me across town at our Canadian home. At one point, I even made the guard's supervisor laugh.
If I had lost my student visa, there would have been nothing I could have done about it and nobody to complain to. I was a guest in that guard's country. He had all the authority, and I had none. Those are the rules.
When you are a guest in someone else's country, you ALWAYS keep in mind that you are a guest. You NEVER take for granted your right to be there.
You have citizenship somewhere.
Nobody else owes you a single thing.
In fact, the Secretary of State specifically said the editorial is not why she was detained
Dam right! This writer is a liar and an apologist for terrorists and their supporters!
Agree with the above. Have been on board with FAIR until now. If this is your new director for Legal Advocacy, we might have to part ways. Europe has let itself be taken over by immigrants to the point that Pakistani grooming gangs are abusing UK girls. Officials looked the other way for years now and no one was allowed to say anything. If you are not a US citizen, you are a guest here. Supporting terrorist organizations that have held and killed AMERICAN hostages should not be given quarter.
Hasn't the value of U.S. citizenship been degraded enough by our own government over the years that we should allow non-citizens in our country who neither respect citizenship nor the values from which our country was created?
Why have you chosen to display a picture showing support Abrego Garcia. Maybe there is an argument with Khalil, but, this is an illegal immigrant, who is ALSO A gang member, according to 2 court findings, and has TWICE gotten an order of protection for beating his wife. I hope you're not suggesting we shouldn't deport this man. Are you?
I support Ozturk's right to criticize Israel, to criticize the university, even to write that Israel needs to be eliminated, though I strongly disagree with these positions. On the other hand, I think Khalil needs to be deported. He led a gang of individuals who wore masks, crossed the line, even broke the law and was intent on intimidating Jews and supporters of Israel. That's not free speech when you proclaim "free speech" for yourself but deny others the right to their opinions. Good riddance to him and to others like him. Khalil doesn't bring to the US an appreciation of first amendment rights but an approach to free speech which would be found among members of Hamas. "We can say what we want and we will kill those with whom we disagree."
Absolutely agree. He crossed a line, she didn’t.
It's also worth considering how much of this might have grown out of the "space to destroy" allocated to the BLM and BLM-adjacent protests just before and during COVID. Things like this don't just appear or happen in a vacuum...there are usually precedents and past examples. It's amazing how many people seem to have totally forgotten about the CHAZ in Seattle and the mayhem in places like Portland and Chicago during that time.
The argument "just because we can legally do this, we shouldn't" is not solid. You are uncomfortable with this because you have extrapolated to all the things that "could" happen. People might hold their tongues, especially non citizens. This "might" start to extend to other freedoms. These are dumb arguments. If we indulged in "what might happen" for every decision that is legally sound, we would never be able to enforce any laws.
I don't mind being lectured to or screamed at by an american citizen who frankly has skin in the game. I don't think it is prudent or polite for someone with a different citizenship to lecture me on their opinions about why my country (their host country) sucks. Especially when their positions are so extreme and out of line of mainstream American values. Become a citizen, understand and live and claim the American experience, then you can carry on all you want.
The protests were not peaceful nor civil. At the schools or in the streets. They are intimidation tactics and destructive. To pretend otherwise is naive and exactly how we got ourselves into this uncivil society. It is political unrest. We have enough of our own citizens who want to transform our country we do not need foreign agitators or their foreign monies to cause civil unrest to fear monger into submission. Using our first amendment rights to protect their actions is appalling and dangerous. Yes just take a look at Europe to se clearly where this leads.the Ivy leaders allowing anti American studies is more insurrectionist than j6 came close to.
Fantastic piece, Gabriel. Thank you for writing it.
Yes please lose the photo of Abrego, that is extremely dishonest.
If you have a green card, meaning that you are a permanent resident, you will have to go through a process that includes an interview. In the interview, you will have to lie to get your citizenship. That is why the argument that the same freedom of speech should apply to non-citizens doesn't make sense.
It is not very FAIR to conflate the cases of Khalil and Ozturk. As you well know the case against Khalil is an allegation of engaging in and directing criminal activity. I do think FAIR should support his case but it should not ever pretend his case is the same as Ozturk’s. Her case is very clear cut and speaks to your headline and argument. Khalil does not.
In his case the argument is about selective application of laws due to a political agenda by the government- whether any student protester would face deportation for similar alleged (not proven) low level criminal activity as part of a protest.
By failing to clearly distinguish Ozturk from Khalil from Abrego you materially undermine FAIR’s credibility.
Although this article (see citation) is from 2005, it gives a historical and comprehensive overview of the exclusionary policies against foreigners who hold extremist views versus constitutional protections for free speech -- worth checking out: https://cis.org/Report/Keeping-Extremists-Out
The intellectual class enjoy free speech (often without its consequences) but the general public pays the costs of free speech and tolerates it.
The costs of free speech include sowing hate, divisiveness, and encouraging harmful behavior and noxious habits among the populace. The media feed many sorts of political, psychological and criminal pathologies. Late 19th century Vienna suffered a spate of youthful suicide cases after a well publicized suicide by a popular young writer, after which news was censored. Senator Schumer threatens the Supreme Court with violence and spurs an attempted assassination.
Citizens’ speech is protected under a social compact that assumes they have a vested interest in the society.
It is not clear that a foreigner should enjoy these free speech protections from government action. We cannot assume that most visitors have learned or share the collection of Enlightenment and humanist beliefs we call American values. Visitors can be foreign agents funded and trained by alien and authoritarian powers to spread Islam, Marxism or other violent ideologies.
The most direct and effective way to protect the country from the evil foreign influences that our Founders certainly believed existed was to give the President the executive power to deny entry and expel such influences.