Screw the conveniently movable govt. designation of who is a 'terrorist'. And definitely screw any prohibition of verbal support or criticism of the USG or out 'allies'.
Under Reagan Afghan rebels were 'noble freedom fighters'. Then they somehow became 'terrorists'.
A few years ago people burning neighborhoods and car dealer were 'mostly p…
Screw the conveniently movable govt. designation of who is a 'terrorist'. And definitely screw any prohibition of verbal support or criticism of the USG or out 'allies'.
Under Reagan Afghan rebels were 'noble freedom fighters'. Then they somehow became 'terrorists'.
A few years ago people burning neighborhoods and car dealer were 'mostly peaceful protesters' now they're 'domestic terrorists'.
People peacefully protesting a stolen election were 'insurrectionists' now they're upright citizens...
This *is* an attack on free speech and is not being done in the interests of the American people but at the behest of the small hat handlers of the US government.
It would be (has been) immoral to protect enemies of the state. Resident aliens are NOT afforded the same rights and privileges as US Citizens. Talk to me when the Administration starts locking up American Citizens for speaking out against the State (oh wait, they already speak against the State. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and so many others. Each and every day. And yet, no one has been locked up. Interesting.), and THEN we can talk. Until then, I gotta say, I am thrilled to have an administration who enforces the laws, protects its citizenry, and keeps the country safe. Break the law, pay the price. It’s about damn time.
Rumesya Ozturk has not been charged with a crime. She has not, to my knowledge, been charged with giving material support to Hamas (a crime under 18 USC §2339A). I would oppose such a charge. A mere utterance valorizing Hamas is offensive, but it does not fit the definition of "material support."
The law does make a distinction between "support" and "material support". The latter is a crime. The former is a violation of established predicates for both an immigrant visa and permanent resident status.
Exactly. It’s a visa revocation, not a criminal offense. My “locking up” comments were directed toward US citizens with the hope of exposing the fear-mongers among us. I’m not nearly as eloquent as you..
How moral is it for a person to violate the terms and conditions of their visa?
Hamas is designated a foreign terrorist organization. That's not open to dispute.
October 7, 2023 is accounted as a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. That's not open to dispute.
The terms and conditions of a visa include a prohibition on supporting terrorists, terrorism in general, and any terrorist activity. That's explicitly stated in 8 USC §1182.
If a non-citizen makes any expression which endorses or espouses terrorist activity, they violate that prohibition, which they accepted when they accepted the visa.
The visa is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted at the discretion of the State Department and it is revoked at the discretion of the State Department. Without a visa, a person is subject to deportation. The law explicitly states this.
There has never been a time in US history when this was not understood to be legitimate exercise of government authority.
No, this is not and has never been a question of Free Speech.
Screw the conveniently movable govt. designation of who is a 'terrorist'. And definitely screw any prohibition of verbal support or criticism of the USG or out 'allies'.
Under Reagan Afghan rebels were 'noble freedom fighters'. Then they somehow became 'terrorists'.
A few years ago people burning neighborhoods and car dealer were 'mostly peaceful protesters' now they're 'domestic terrorists'.
People peacefully protesting a stolen election were 'insurrectionists' now they're upright citizens...
This *is* an attack on free speech and is not being done in the interests of the American people but at the behest of the small hat handlers of the US government.
How moral or MAGA is *that*?
It would be (has been) immoral to protect enemies of the state. Resident aliens are NOT afforded the same rights and privileges as US Citizens. Talk to me when the Administration starts locking up American Citizens for speaking out against the State (oh wait, they already speak against the State. CNN, MSNBC, PBS, CBS, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and so many others. Each and every day. And yet, no one has been locked up. Interesting.), and THEN we can talk. Until then, I gotta say, I am thrilled to have an administration who enforces the laws, protects its citizenry, and keeps the country safe. Break the law, pay the price. It’s about damn time.
I do want to make one essential clarification:
Rumesya Ozturk has not been charged with a crime. She has not, to my knowledge, been charged with giving material support to Hamas (a crime under 18 USC §2339A). I would oppose such a charge. A mere utterance valorizing Hamas is offensive, but it does not fit the definition of "material support."
The law does make a distinction between "support" and "material support". The latter is a crime. The former is a violation of established predicates for both an immigrant visa and permanent resident status.
Exactly. It’s a visa revocation, not a criminal offense. My “locking up” comments were directed toward US citizens with the hope of exposing the fear-mongers among us. I’m not nearly as eloquent as you..
I understood your point, and you made it quite well.
I also understand how fear-mongers love to pick nits. I figure sometimes it is a good idea to get there first and take away their talking point.
How moral is it for a person to violate the terms and conditions of their visa?
Hamas is designated a foreign terrorist organization. That's not open to dispute.
October 7, 2023 is accounted as a terrorist attack on Israeli civilians. That's not open to dispute.
The terms and conditions of a visa include a prohibition on supporting terrorists, terrorism in general, and any terrorist activity. That's explicitly stated in 8 USC §1182.
If a non-citizen makes any expression which endorses or espouses terrorist activity, they violate that prohibition, which they accepted when they accepted the visa.
The visa is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted at the discretion of the State Department and it is revoked at the discretion of the State Department. Without a visa, a person is subject to deportation. The law explicitly states this.
There has never been a time in US history when this was not understood to be legitimate exercise of government authority.
No, this is not and has never been a question of Free Speech.