Khalil, in particular was instrumental in creating the threatening atmosphere against Jewish students at Columbia. In keeping with Mr. Gelfand’s argument, is it really a good idea to allow people into America who aren’t citizens to foment that kind of hatred coupled with physical threats to American citizens? I think not.
Inciting violence is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Should US citizens who create a threatening atmosphere against some group or another be deported? Or only if they incite violence?
"Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam]are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission,under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
To criticize child marriage would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction it. And by what standard could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behaviour of terrorists or child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's. So what now? If you read the treaty that was supposedly signed by the Jews and the Christians and then allegedly broken by them, allowing Muhammad to then burp his “kill them wherever you find them” verse, it is a blasphemy of Islamic invention. No Jew or Christian would have signed it. The treaty states that the signer is accepting Muhammad as the ARBITER between the signer and God. That is blasphemy. For the Christian that replaces Jesus with Muhammad. And for the Jew, it gives Muhammad power over them and their access to God and salvation. It defies Mosaic law. No Jew or Christian would sign that. EVER. And i do not believe that the Jews or the Christians could break a treaty they did not sign. OR that the treaty would have EVER prevented Muhammad from doing what bandits who raid their own tribe would do. Murder, pillage, rape, and enslave. That was Muhammad's whole economy. And that is how he used "religion" to sanctify his bandit culture. So the weak excuse is simply a way to sanctify what Muhammad did. Because nothing that Muhammad did can be criticized. If it could be then murdering those who criticize Muhammad could also be criticized... and then the whole religion would unravel... including the murder of those who leave Islam.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
I love having them in the US. I have known so very many people who came to the US and complained non-stop about how awful the US is. And then the become citizens and live here. "Why did you not go back to your home country?" "Because it is so much better in the US." I'm secure enough in our culture that I appreciate outspoken immigrants. Are you not so secure and are worried that our culture can't survive anti-west bigots?
You are using ideas about free speech in the constitution that speak about the bedrock of our democracy and what rights citizens should have to support the proposition that non-citizens on student's visa expressing support for terrorism should be protected. This is entirely different issue. Why should the freedoms given to US citizens within the framework of our rights as citizens be extended to those here on student visa abusing the freedoms our country. None of those you mentioned are citizens and none have shown the civic commitment that citizens in a democracy are tasked with. You have unwittingly made an argument for their deportation. I am not sure that was your aim but that is what you in effect have done.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." No law, at all. None. It does not say "Congress may make a law restricting speech, so long as it only applies to non-citizens". Our unifying creed (the thing that makes us US Americans) is that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The US government doesn't endow rights. Everybody has them. Congress may not make any law that takes them away. Also, if civic commitment is the test for 1st amendment protection, many of my fellow US citizens would not qualify.
Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States…”Second, section 212(a)(3)(C)(iii) provides for a similar, yet broader, exemption to that found in section 212(a)(3)(C)(ii). Section 212(a)(3)(C)(iii) exempts an alien not described in section 212(a)(3)(C)(ii) from being removed under section 237(a)(4)(C) because of his or her “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States…” However, the Secretary of State may nevertheless seek to remove such an alien if the Secretary determines that the alien “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” -In such a case, the Secretary of State is required under section 212(a)(3)(C)(iv) to notify specific committee chairs in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate of the decision. This is simply not a free-speech issue within the vein of classic liberalism.
Sometimes Congress makes laws which violate aspects of the Constitution. In some cases SCOTUS finds the law not valid. I'm surprised how many people are so certain they know what is right and what isn't. Classic liberalism has more humility than I'm seeing in many of these comments.
The law is explicit that foreign citizens here on visas are subject to deportation on the judgement of the Secretary of State, while obviously American citizens aren't. There's a clear distinction based on the goal of keeping out people who are harmful to this country - people like Khalil, who is a shill for Hamas and a leader of the Columbia anti-Jewish mob takeover of the campus. The most principled Founding Fathers wouldn't have blinked twice at kicking him out.
Consider also that if you apply the same standard - that every human on the planet is protected by the American Constitution - then no foreigner could ever be denied a green card or citizenship no matter how repellent their opinions or the cause that they intend to promote here. Another example of how libertarianism manages to set back the cause of liberty by taking things to idiotic extremes.
The law you cite, when invoked as Rubio did, is unConstitutional. That's the important thing. That's what makes the 1st Amendment mean something. Surely you don't think Jefferson meant to write "All people, who are of the right kind, and the right birth place, and the right parents, in the right place, with the right culture and appropriately tolerant beliefs, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", do you?
Under FIRE free speech dogma, they would have protected free speech rights. They might be deported for violating espionage laws, but if their mission was to prepare the ideological foundation and spread propaganda for later initiatives, they would be free to operate
The question should be whether or not the measures were successful, in full or in part, or harmful to the society. The matter is largely empirical, not philosophical or dogmatic. So, so French left, but what else happened?
And...where was FIRE during the COVID house arrest/quarantine, when questioning "the science" cost anyone their jobs, and not getting vaccinated could prevent you from coming into the country? Remember that? Oh, that wasn't "speech;" that was "science," which we know now wasn't very scientific at all.
I hear your frustration. I myself was in Peru during the pandemic, and lived through the world’s harshest lockdown. It was insane. I didn’t leave my apartment once for roughly six months. Others had it much worse.
For FIRE, the bright line is viewpoint discrimination. When people are punished simply for voicing dissenting views, even during a crisis, that’s where a line is crossed. And FIRE did weigh in, repeatedly.
Khalil, in particular was instrumental in creating the threatening atmosphere against Jewish students at Columbia. In keeping with Mr. Gelfand’s argument, is it really a good idea to allow people into America who aren’t citizens to foment that kind of hatred coupled with physical threats to American citizens? I think not.
Inciting violence is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Should US citizens who create a threatening atmosphere against some group or another be deported? Or only if they incite violence?
Anti-west, pro-terrorist antisemites have every right to their speech, but maybe we shouldn't be importing them from abroad.
"Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam]are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission,under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
To criticize child marriage would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction it. And by what standard could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behaviour of terrorists or child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's. So what now? If you read the treaty that was supposedly signed by the Jews and the Christians and then allegedly broken by them, allowing Muhammad to then burp his “kill them wherever you find them” verse, it is a blasphemy of Islamic invention. No Jew or Christian would have signed it. The treaty states that the signer is accepting Muhammad as the ARBITER between the signer and God. That is blasphemy. For the Christian that replaces Jesus with Muhammad. And for the Jew, it gives Muhammad power over them and their access to God and salvation. It defies Mosaic law. No Jew or Christian would sign that. EVER. And i do not believe that the Jews or the Christians could break a treaty they did not sign. OR that the treaty would have EVER prevented Muhammad from doing what bandits who raid their own tribe would do. Murder, pillage, rape, and enslave. That was Muhammad's whole economy. And that is how he used "religion" to sanctify his bandit culture. So the weak excuse is simply a way to sanctify what Muhammad did. Because nothing that Muhammad did can be criticized. If it could be then murdering those who criticize Muhammad could also be criticized... and then the whole religion would unravel... including the murder of those who leave Islam.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
That is what my work is about. When it comes to Islam, we are all Israel, weather we know it or not. https://acrosenthal.substack.com/p/i-read-the-entire-quran-all-the-hadiths?r=7xlwq1
I love having them in the US. I have known so very many people who came to the US and complained non-stop about how awful the US is. And then the become citizens and live here. "Why did you not go back to your home country?" "Because it is so much better in the US." I'm secure enough in our culture that I appreciate outspoken immigrants. Are you not so secure and are worried that our culture can't survive anti-west bigots?
You are using ideas about free speech in the constitution that speak about the bedrock of our democracy and what rights citizens should have to support the proposition that non-citizens on student's visa expressing support for terrorism should be protected. This is entirely different issue. Why should the freedoms given to US citizens within the framework of our rights as citizens be extended to those here on student visa abusing the freedoms our country. None of those you mentioned are citizens and none have shown the civic commitment that citizens in a democracy are tasked with. You have unwittingly made an argument for their deportation. I am not sure that was your aim but that is what you in effect have done.
Free speech is not only for citizens. It is for every person in this great country.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." No law, at all. None. It does not say "Congress may make a law restricting speech, so long as it only applies to non-citizens". Our unifying creed (the thing that makes us US Americans) is that all people are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The US government doesn't endow rights. Everybody has them. Congress may not make any law that takes them away. Also, if civic commitment is the test for 1st amendment protection, many of my fellow US citizens would not qualify.
Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) renders deportable “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States…”Second, section 212(a)(3)(C)(iii) provides for a similar, yet broader, exemption to that found in section 212(a)(3)(C)(ii). Section 212(a)(3)(C)(iii) exempts an alien not described in section 212(a)(3)(C)(ii) from being removed under section 237(a)(4)(C) because of his or her “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States…” However, the Secretary of State may nevertheless seek to remove such an alien if the Secretary determines that the alien “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” -In such a case, the Secretary of State is required under section 212(a)(3)(C)(iv) to notify specific committee chairs in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate of the decision. This is simply not a free-speech issue within the vein of classic liberalism.
Sometimes Congress makes laws which violate aspects of the Constitution. In some cases SCOTUS finds the law not valid. I'm surprised how many people are so certain they know what is right and what isn't. Classic liberalism has more humility than I'm seeing in many of these comments.
The law is explicit that foreign citizens here on visas are subject to deportation on the judgement of the Secretary of State, while obviously American citizens aren't. There's a clear distinction based on the goal of keeping out people who are harmful to this country - people like Khalil, who is a shill for Hamas and a leader of the Columbia anti-Jewish mob takeover of the campus. The most principled Founding Fathers wouldn't have blinked twice at kicking him out.
Consider also that if you apply the same standard - that every human on the planet is protected by the American Constitution - then no foreigner could ever be denied a green card or citizenship no matter how repellent their opinions or the cause that they intend to promote here. Another example of how libertarianism manages to set back the cause of liberty by taking things to idiotic extremes.
The law you cite, when invoked as Rubio did, is unConstitutional. That's the important thing. That's what makes the 1st Amendment mean something. Surely you don't think Jefferson meant to write "All people, who are of the right kind, and the right birth place, and the right parents, in the right place, with the right culture and appropriately tolerant beliefs, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", do you?
Or, you could say, free speech and the rights of foreign agent enemies.
Were the plaintiffs foreign agent enemies?
Under FIRE free speech dogma, they would have protected free speech rights. They might be deported for violating espionage laws, but if their mission was to prepare the ideological foundation and spread propaganda for later initiatives, they would be free to operate
That is a legal system and cultural approach I appreciate and agree with 100%.
I am curious why? I disagree with FIRE’s position that foreigners have a visa right for any reason?
The question should be whether or not the measures were successful, in full or in part, or harmful to the society. The matter is largely empirical, not philosophical or dogmatic. So, so French left, but what else happened?
And...where was FIRE during the COVID house arrest/quarantine, when questioning "the science" cost anyone their jobs, and not getting vaccinated could prevent you from coming into the country? Remember that? Oh, that wasn't "speech;" that was "science," which we know now wasn't very scientific at all.
Hypocrites.
I hear your frustration. I myself was in Peru during the pandemic, and lived through the world’s harshest lockdown. It was insane. I didn’t leave my apartment once for roughly six months. Others had it much worse.
For FIRE, the bright line is viewpoint discrimination. When people are punished simply for voicing dissenting views, even during a crisis, that’s where a line is crossed. And FIRE did weigh in, repeatedly.
https://www.fire.org/news/fire-statement-covid-19-restrictions-expressive-and-associational-rights
https://www.fire.org/research-learn/coronavirus-and-free-speech-lesson
https://www.fire.org/research-learn/covid-campus-pandemics-impact-student-and-faculty-speech-rights