A mob of roughly 30 masked protesters at UC Davis attacked a tent for a conservative student group, the UC Davis chapter of Turning Point USA. It proceeded to destroy the tent and displays without any intervention from campus police, who were shown standing nearby. The police followed the rampaging mob and did not attempt to detain anyone. The mob appears to have been led by Antifa members, a violent anti-free speech group.
Dressed in their signature black with masks and umbrellas, the group tore down the tent and assaulted some of the students by shoving and grabbing them. They actually returned to finish the job. The protesters carried a large banner with the words “ACAB,” which stands for all cops are bastards.
The university said in a news release that it is investigating. However, the university insisted, “The event with the guest speaker took place on schedule and was completed without further incident. The university protected the free speech rights of the campus community throughout the event.”
“Without further incident” has that feel of asking “other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
One question is whether Davis will look into why the campus police stood and watched these protesters assault students and tear down a tent without trying to detain a single person. They merely walked behind the mob as it carried off the bits and pieces of the displays and tents.
The student group was about to host Brandon Tatum, a black conservative and former police officer.
TPUSA stated that the “Our ‘Prove Me Wrong’ tabling event was utterly destroyed:
“They stole the canopy, ripped down banners, smashed foam boards, and even tried to steal the iPad and laptop of a @tpusastudents field rep. TPUSA students were shoved and had objects thrown at them—while police did nothing,” the organization stated. “Only after the damage was done did law enforcement finally form a perimeter. This is the reality of free speech on campus.”
Political violence from the left is on the rise across the nation, fueled by the rage rhetoric of Democratic leaders and commentators.
As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Antifa began as a movement in Germany decades ago:
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally.
As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
The increasing political violence from the left continues on a daily basis with only cursory coverage from the media. Even a department head was shown this week destroying a table of conservative students.
This is the sense of license that comes from an age of rage. The fact is that this video shows how these groups are enabled by the culture in higher education.
It is reminiscent of the defiance shown by arrested Antifa member Jason Charter, who declared “The Movement is winning” after his own arrest.
It is a movement that has been further enabled by government officials who rationalize their actions or offer little deterrence to their conduct. For example, molotov cocktail throwing lawyers in New York were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.
Then there was Thomas “Tas” Alexander Starks, 31, of Lisbon, N.D., a self-avowed Antifa member took an axe to the office of Sen. John Hoeven’s in Fargo on Dec. 21, 2020. Federal sentencing guidelines suggested 10–16 months in prison but he was only sentenced to probation and fined $2,784 for restitution . . . he then reportedly mocked the FBI for returning his axe. After his light sentence, Starks posted last month that it was all effectively a joke: “Look what the FBI were kind enough to give back to me!”
Scenes like the one on the campus of UC Davis will only encourage further attacks. The police acted as mere pedestrians as a mob engaged in political violence against students.
Jonathan: In a previous comment I pointed out that your claims about the UC Davis protesters–that they were led by Antifa– is not supported by any evidence on your part. This is important because the DJT regime is also making claims about the Venezuelan immigrants flown to a notorious prison in El Salvador that it can’t back up with facts.
Today, Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis ordered that the government return Kilmar Obrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador by Monday, April 7 at 11:59 pm. Xinis found the government committed an “illegal act”– the government admitted to the judge that OG was legally in the US under the TPS system and his removal was an “administrative error”. But DOJ lawyers argued they can’t bring OG back because he is out of the jurisdiction of the court–in the gulag in El Salvador! To add insult to injury the DOJ attorneys told Judge Xinis that she should take it on faith that OG is a member of the MS-13 criminal gang. To which Judge Xinis responded: “That’s just chatter. I haven’t been given any evidence…In a court of law when someone is accused of membership in such a violent and predatory organization, it comes in the form of an indictment, a complaint, a criminal proceeding that then has robust process, so we can assess the facts”.
Now I would put your claims against Antifa into the kind of “chatter” Judge Xinis was talking about. You column is full of allegations about Antifa but short on any facts or evidence to back it up. But we have come to expect that in your columns.
Dennis, before running away to hide like the coward he is: Jonathan: In a previous comment I pointed out that your claims about the UC Davis protesters–that they were led by Antifa– is not supported by any evidence on your part.
Jonathan: your good name Dennis comes to do his daily Lie ‘n Dash, because the last time he attempted to defend and confirm his BS was his legendary “An AR-15 would TOTALLY destroy a deer if you hunted with it!”
Jonathan, there is no evidence that Dennis has ever had any credibility whatsoever. Leading to the obvious question: when nobody here believes him, when you won’t even acknowledge his presence:
Who pays Dennis to come here and lie, and then run and hide while composing his next piece of BS?
Dennis- I agree but we always have to understand who pays Jonathan Turley to write this blog. It’s not George Washington University as a “independent “ unbiased law professor but his contract with FOX news pays him a handsome sum of cash each year. Just ask him!!!! Or google it!
Funny that not that long ago he worked for NBC with a completely different set of views! I remember those days.
Keep it going!
Dennis, vanity, all is vanity. You should be storing true treasure in Heaven.
Dennis,
as usual you severely misrepresent claims.
No one is asking that a court take it on faith that Garcia is an MS13 gang LEADER – that was the finding of a US court under Biden and a US appeals court under Biden. It is a finding of FACT of Biden’s courts. It is outside the authority of other courts to question.
Garcia was ordered deported – as a member of MS13 – By the Biden administration.
Garcia appealed and the appeals court rejected his claim and sustained the Deportation order – by the Biden administration.
After that Garica asked for TPS – I am not clear how he got it, by failing to continue his appeals it is now a FINDING OF FACT by the courts that Garcia can no longer challenge that he is an MS13 member.
Regardless the basis of his TPS claim was that Rival Gangs in El Salvador would kill him if he was returned BECAUSE HE IS A MEMBER OF MS13.
I am having some trouble getting clarity on how Garcia got TPS status – as TPS is something that the president can offer via executive order.
But the reporting I have heard says that Garcia was given TPS status by a judge. TPS is not something within the power of the Judiciary,
While not the same as a pardon, it is similar in that it is granted by the president or atleast through others in the executive.
Regardless somehow Garcia – an acknowledge MS13 LEADER was given TPS status.
As mentioned before – TPS is an excercise of presidential power and as pretty much everyone who has seen any news would know Trump has by EO revoked all TPS grants of the Biden administration. So NO Garcia does NOT have TPS status.
He was NOT here legally – the courts ordered him deported DURING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION – those deportation orders were lawfully issued and never revoked, and Garcia’s TPS status was improperly granted and properly revoked.
There was an administrative error – Garcia was deported under a Valid Cort Deportation order but BEFORE his TPS status was revoked.
This is not an Illegal Act, it is quite litterally the perfect example of what the law calls Harmless error.
But lets move on. Garcia has been deported. He is currently in El Salvador. He is an El Salvadoran citizen – not a US citizen.
US Courts do NOT have jurisdiction over US citizens in foreign countries.
The do not have jurisdiction over Foreign citizens in foreign countries.
Xinis is completely incorrect – membership in a criminal gang is NOT in and of itself a crime.
It is possible that an Indictment or other criminal legal procedings might assert that someone is a gang member.
It is often part of the evidence of a criminal prosecution. But gang membership is NOT a crime in the US though it is reasonable suspicion.
Even in a criminal context Gang membership is a conclusion that the police draw all the time – without going to court.
They are free to do so based on the evidence they observe. That conclusion by police – without going to court meets the requirements of reasonable suspicion which allows them to further investigate. The conclusion of the police that a person is a member of a criminal gang is rebutable in court. But even proving the Police were WRONG would not remove the reasonable suspicion that permitted them to furhter investigate. You would have to prove the Police were KNOWINGLY wrong.
All of the above is just to point out that Xinis is either a complete idiot or is lying in court. he does not even have the determination of Gang Member status in a criminal context correct.
But this is NOT a criminal context, this is in the context of immigration law and deportation.
As I noted – being a member of a criminal gang in the US is NOT itself a crime.
But it IS a basis for deportation. You can be deported because you are a member of a criminal gang.
You can be deported if you are not a citizen but in the US legally and a member of a criminal gang.
And the standard of proof is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. It probably is not even as high as More likely than not.
Regardless, and article II immigration court has already found that Garcia was a member of MS13 and and Article III appellate court has already upheld his deportation order based on that finding.
Finally – Garcia is not in the US legally. He does not have a visa, he does not have a green card, he is not a citizen.
Breifly because of a stupid Biden administration error he had TPS status – that did NOT give him a visa and it did NOT give him legal residency.
It just temporarily stalled his deportation as an MS13 gang member.
Garcia no long has TPS status.
In the highly unlikely event that he can be successfully returned to the US,
on landing he can be loaded back into an airplane and sent to El Salvador.
While Judge Xinis could issue an order preventing that – he could NOT issue a legal order preventing that and he could not issue an order that would survive appeal.
And Again – Garcia is an El Salvadoran, in a prison in El Salvador because El Salvador wants him in prison.
Those of you on the left – and aparently Jude Xinis are confused.
TdA members are removed under AEA, they are in prison in El Salvador because Venezeula until recently refused to accept them.
TdA members are outside of US territory but they are being held in prison under agreement with the US government,
while they are outside the juurisdiction of federal judges they are still nominally in the custody of the US government.
They are essentially in a private foreign prison.
MS13 members are not being deported under the AEA. They are being deported to El Salvador – because they are El Salvadoran.
Once they land in El Salvador they are no longer in US custody in any way. El Salvador has decided – wisely to imprison them.
Donald Trump is not the president of El Salvador, a court can not order him to remove an El Salvadoran, citizen from custody by El Salvador, in El Salvador.
Once again you have a left wing nut judge way over his skis.
If you are accused of being a member of Antifa and you are not a US citizen, you can be deported for that.
Further contra Judge Xinis – the burden of proof that you are a member of Antifa for the prupose of deportation is extremely low.
The extent of due process you would be entitled to would be highest if you were being tried in an actual criminal court for a crime.
Judge Xinis does not seem to grasp that he is NOT dealing with criminal law or a criminal proceeding.
He is dealing with deportation.
It should not take a rocket scientist to grasp that the due process required to execute someone is the highest their is.
To incarcerate them for a crime is less. To send them back to their HOME is very low.
But even in deportation it varies. If you are illegally in the US – the standard of due process you are untitled to is not much more than Habeus Corpus. If you have a visa – you get slightly more, if you have a green card – a bit more still.
Garcia was in the US illegally and Biden’s immigration courts ordered him deported. Biden’s immigration courts found he was an MS13 gang member. The standard of proof for that in an immigration case is very low and was met meany times over.
This is a legal blog and Judge Xinis is a judge in a court of law.
If a person is in the US – even in the US illegally, they can not be removed without a deportation order – BY A COURT.
Immigration cases are normally handled by Article II judges/courts – often called Administrative law judges/courts.
These are distinct from Article III judges.
Regardless they follow much the same procedures, and are bound by the same rules of procedure and conduct.
After they have made their decisions – those decisions can be appealed to Article III courts.
it is extremely rare if you lose in an Article II court that you get a different outcome in an Article III court.
Regardless, the FACT – which both you and Judge Xinis either know or should know is that Garcia was removed by court order.
Because you can not remove anyone from the US without a court order.
Contra to Xinis – none of this is “Chatter”, and judges like Xinis are supposed to start from the presumption that lower courts got it right.
The burden to prove that Garcia is NOT an MS13 member AFTER the courts have issued a deportation order BECAUSE he was found to be an MS13 member, is on the plantiff – not the government.
Dennis
Do you atleast agree that Garcia was NOT in the US legally ? That he does not have a visa or Green Card ?
Do you accept that the T in TPS is for TEMPORARY. i.e. it does not last forever.
I beleive I earlier posted that Trump revoked Garcia’s TPS status – Trump did revoke alot of TPS status’s
and just as Biden could grant them – though it was supposed to be on an individual basis, Trump can rescind TPS status.
That said I beleive I misspoke regarding Garcia. His TPS status was not revoked by Trump, it EXPIRED – prior to Trump revoking many illegals TPS status. Again TPS is TEMPORARY. TPS is also a power of the president – not the courts.
Are you willing to accept at the barest minimum that Garcia was not in the US legally, and that TPS status or not, he had at best a TEMPORARY right to be here ?
You and Xinis want to fight over whether Garcia was MS13 – Article II courts under Biden found he was before issuing a deportation order.
But lets pretend that did not happen – Garcia is still subject to deportation. The only thing you are fighting is how fast he will be deported.
If there are no repercussions for bad behavior, then those committing the bad behavior will continue to do so.
The salt and pepper version of Mao’s Red Guard strikes again – OK the Black Lies contingent was absent – but this is what’s going o; hooligans, thugs and criminals, not to mention creeps, subverting the First Amendment, law and order etc and furthering The (as in Their) Revolution. They need to be prosecuted for what they are: vandals and criminals. To turn a blind eye is to become a useful idiot and your turn will come if history is any standard.
More leftist political violence:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pro-life-activist-assaulted-bloodied-during-street-interview-about-abortion
Shabbat shalom everyone. And I do mean shalom.
Um, shouldn’t that be “FORMER FBI Director Chris Wray”? He resigned January 19. That’s a bit more than a nit.
It should be “Inmate Christopher Wray,” along with all of his “Obama Coup D’etat in America” co-conspirators, for subversion, insurrection, sedition, espionage, subterfuge, treason et al.
Brandon Tatum is a genuinely good guy. Being the campus police have no courage to perform their duties Brandon should return with a cadre of retired police officers and they would be delighted to show them how to protect people. ANTIFA is not an idea but criminals who have been allowed to get away with these antics. Here’s where Patel and Bongino should exercise their office. Haven’t we had enough yet??
Tatum, like Turley, is a grifter, thankfully for these folks, there are a lot of IQ people looking to be led like sheep.
Why the “signature black with masks and umbrellas?”
Why the black masks and balaclavas? in other incidents? Why the hooded and hidden faces at the Tesla dealerships? Why the black hoods and masks of the four who stormed into the Columbia University seminar?
After all, their defense is the First Amendment. This is protected symbolic speech, comparable to student arm bands!
What do they have to worry about?
(I’m told that Walmart sold out of black bicycles.) ?
Lin, for the same reason ICE wears masks and backlavas. To conceal their identity. So…why do federal law enforcement conceal their identities? Antifa members can do the same. It protects them from later prosecuting or retaliation. They may all have jobs and they have a reason to deny others the ability to be identified.
Police during the George Floyd protests removed name tags and and identifying patches or wore masks too. What do they have to worry about? Right?
George: (I’ll let others read your comment and compare law enforcement to my cited examples, as you do.)
Good Lord, you are really something to behold…
Thanks
Lin, so you’re saying you don’t have an answer. What was your point? If law enforcement hides their identity for security reasons, why can’t Antifa? Do they have a right to anonymity like everyone esle? They may be in jobs that they could be fired from or friends and family that may not agree with their views or they could face retaliation or prosecution. Right?
“for the same reason ICE wears masks”
ICE is law enforcement they have legitimate concerns about retaliations – we have seen the left targeting judges and politicians that offend them. Separately ICE identifies themselves. There uniforms and tacticle gear are emblazoned with their identity as law enforceement.
In the event of a criminal proceding all ICE at the arrest will be identified.
Conversely ordinary people on the street have near universally been barred from concealing their identity prior to covid, and we are starting to see those laws enforced again.
If you wonder arround in public masked – people are fully justified in presuming you are dangerous and up to no good.
You are correct that the purpose is to conceal ones identity.
You are incorrect that ordinary people are allowed to do so in public.
“Antifa members can do the same. It protects them from later prosecuting or retaliation.”
The govenrment can not prosecute you merely for being a member of Antifa.
Members are concealing their identity to protect themselves from prosecution for crimes they committed – often on video.
“They may all have jobs and they have a reason to deny others the ability to be identified.”
Then do not commit crimes.
“Police during the George Floyd protests removed name tags and and identifying patches or wore masks too. What do they have to worry about? Right?”
Actually they covered name badges. They were still present. They did not cover their identification as police.
Generally police “cover” their faces as protection from attack, not to conceal their image. They where helmets and face sheilds that prevent people from hitting them in the face with rocks or other projectiles.
“ If you wonder arround in public masked – people are fully justified in presuming you are dangerous and up to no good.”
So people wearing surgical masks like the days During Covid and still today are all assumed to be dangerous. What if the mask is jsut black. Does the color denote danger? What if the masks were white?
You keep contradicting yourself here.
“ You are correct that the purpose is to conceal ones identity.
You are incorrect that ordinary people are allowed to do so in public.”
So ordinary people wearing masks for health reasons are not allowed by law? How would you determine if anyone wearing a mask is not for health reasons?
Antifa members can wear masks for the same reason law enforcement does. To conceal their identity. People have a right to anonymity, even when you’re part of a group. If you’re within a group you can be prosecuted by mere association and to protect yourself from that you can conceal your identity. J6 protesters wore masks too.
“They did not cover their identification as police.”
Yes they did. People were being grabbed by unidentified individuals sporting tactical gear using unmarked vans during those riots.
“So people wearing surgical masks like the days During Covid and still today are all assumed to be dangerous.”
Yes, there are laws against face masks in public in many places. These laws are still on the books. Enforcement was suspended during Covid, those laws are mostly in effect now. Only a moron thinks a mask is effective at stopping airborne viruses today.
But there are still lots of morons.
” What if the mask is jsut black. Does the color denote danger? What if the masks were white?”
Do not care the color of the mask – while Law enforment is allowed to establish probable cause of gang membership based on patterns of gang dress. All of us are allowed to decide you MAY be dangerous based on your attire.
“You keep contradicting yourself here.”
Not at all.
I am just not absurd as you are. Each and everyone of us evaluates every person we encounter on the streets using a variety of cues, to make determinations such as “Are you dangerous” – it is unlikely we make that determination perfectly.
It is near certain that we do reasonably well. The goal is not perfection.
There is no real penalty for assuming someone is dangerous who proves not to be.
But bad things happen when you assume someone is not when they are.
At the same time bad things also happen if you assume everyone is dangerous.
We make judgement calls.
The police are permitted to assume gang membership based on visual cues that are common among a specific gang.
They are not expected to get that perfect. Because the standard is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is probable cause.
In the midst of covid if you were wearing a mask in public – there was NOT probable cause that you were up to no good.
Before covid and now wearing a mask is probable cause you are up to no good.
People do not arrest everyone wearing a mask today (or before) – the mask si ONE of may cues that they weight to decide – need I act or not. They are not going to make that determination perfectly.
That is why an arrest is not the same as a conviction.
You can be arrested based on weaker evidence than needed to convict.
This is a legal blog – you are expected to know things like this.
If you do not, it is unwise to shoot off your mouth.
“If you do not, it is unwise to shoot off your mouth.”
George Svelaz already shot his brains out, why not his mouth?
“Yes, there are laws against face masks in public in many places. These laws are still on the books. Enforcement was suspended during Covid, those laws are mostly in effect now. Only a moron thinks a mask is effective at stopping airborne viruses today.
But there are still lots of morons.”
There are exceptions for medical reasons. How do you tell if its really for medical reasons?
“They are not expected to get that perfect. Because the standard is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is probable cause.”
A mask is proof of a gang affiliation? Probable cause requires more than that. Wearing a mask is not proof.
“So ordinary people wearing masks for health reasons are not allowed by law? ”
That varies by locality. Some places do not have mask ordinances.
Some do.
Some have exceptions.
“How would you determine if anyone wearing a mask is not for health reasons?”
By asking them, by weighing other factors. Police very rarely are suspicious of 80 yr old grannies walking stooped down the sidewalk.
It is hypothetically possible they are terrorists, even suicide bombers with RDX in their depends.
But the odds of that are low.
We have different standards specifically because of that.
The police do not need certainty to act.
They need probable cause which is far less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Antifa members are running arround with masks black umbrellas and tacticle gear – the police will assume they are antifa and dangerous.
If they are wearing a surgical mask and a business suit or bohemian attire – the police will likely conclude they are not dangerous.
999 times out of 1000 that will prove right.
“Antifa members can wear masks for the same reason law enforcement does.”
Nope.
“People have a right to anonymity”
Yes, you are not required to provide your name to law enforcement.
You are required to provide your name to a bank teller if you want to access your account.
In many places in the country you can not mask in public.
In all places that at the very least contributes to probable case you are up to no good.
“even when you’re part of a group”
Groups can do the same things as individuals.
BUT people AND law enforcement can conclude that a similarly attired group maksing their faces is more dangerous than an individual.
“If you’re within a group you can be prosecuted by mere association and to protect yourself from that you can conceal your identity.”
Stop, search, arrest prosecute convict are ALL different and all have different standards of proof.
Very minimal suspicion is needed to stop someone.
“J6 protesters wore masks too.”
Soem did. So ? That was during Covid when most of those laws were suspended.
Regardless wearing a mask does heighten suspicion.
It also can be used in court to establish “consciousness of guilt” even with J6 defendants.
“Yes they did. People were being grabbed by unidentified individuals sporting tactical gear using unmarked vans during those riots.”
Nope, most of them had garb emblazoned with ICE or DEA or ATF or Police.
Further all of them IMMEDIATELY identified themselves as police.
AS a rule you are NOT allowed to excercise your right of self defence against someone who identifies as police.
While you can against someone who is not identified – even if they are police.
Police generally do not like getting shot while making an arrest because the person they are arresting thinks they are a criminal.
So the police announce “police” before they abduct you.
Thi9s is also why impersonating a police officer is a crime.
Meds would help.
georgie thinks the greek pastry “backlava” (baklava) is worn over the face.
Jonathan: It was like clockwork. First, Fox news reports on the protest at UC Davis against Turning Point. Then it is amplified by Elon Musk on X by reposting Charlie Kirk’s post with the comment “The left is the party of violence & hate”. Then you follow up with your column. Now if I was a conspiracy theorist I would swear that was all coordinated.
Now, I watched the video posted by Kirk. You can see the protesters approach Turning Point tent, tear it down and start walking away with it. Then you see a large man with a red hat follow behind the protesters, pushing them and even shoving a young man with a bicycle to the ground. That’s all the direct physical violence you can see on the video.
But for you this one incident proves that “political violence from the left is on the rise across the nation” and “the mob appears to have been led by Antifa members”. How do you know this? Well, because many were “dressed in their signature black with masks and umbrellas”. Now you know “appears” would get you laughed out of court. You don’t have any evidence that the protesters wearing all black were in fact card-carrying “members” of Antifa. It’s all unwarranted conjecture and silly. Antifa is a political philosophy, not a membership organization like a 301(c)3.
So by labelling the protesters at UC Davis as followers Antifa you are scapegoating. It’s like how DJT handled the over 200 Venezuelan immigrants he flew to the hell-hole concentration camp in EL Salvador. ICE picked up many of those immigrants based solely on their tatoos that the agency claimed showed they were members of MS-13. We now know from court filings that the tatoos didn’t show the immigrants were members of any criminal gang. That’s what happens when you base decisions on speculation and conjecture. Jon, it’s unseemly for a law professor to do the same!
Are angry about the same thing ?
Absolutely.
I think your argument that this is coordinated or part of a conspiracy are crap.
But so what if they are ?
The problem when the left coordinates its response is that we get littlerally the exact same stupid claims by the entire MSM.
Turley is not saying exactly what Kirk or TPUSA is, or Fox is.
Each is actually thinking for themselves.
When the left is attacked for “coordination” – it is not because there is something wrong with shared opposition,
it is because they sound so much like they are right out of Orwell’s 1984.
“The left is the party of violence & hate”.
Accurate.
“Then you follow up with your column. Now if I was a conspiracy theorist I would swear that was all coordinated.”
No this does not look coordinated, but even if it was – Muck, Kirk, Turley all have their own perspective and do not come accross the same as left wing nut drones. They each reached similar but not identical conclusions – their own conslusions,
From many sources, including each other.
“You can see the protesters approach Turning Point tent, tear it down and start walking away with it”
That is theft, destruction of property, violation of civil rights.
“you see a large man with a red hat follow behind the protesters, pushing them and even shoving a young man with a bicycle to the ground.”
So if someone steals your stuff you can not respond ?
So TPUSA is not allowed to have security ?
Maybe this is hard for you to understand but the right of self defense is NOT limited to killing those trying to kill you.
When someone initiates FORCE against you – you are allowed to respond with PROPORTIONATE force.
Generally you can not use deadly FORCE against those who did not initiate deadly force against you.
But that does not mean you are barred from chasing after those who stole or destroyed your property.
“But for you this one incident proves that “political violence from the left is on the rise across the nation””
No numerous instances of political violence accross the nation justify that conclusion.
“Well, because many were “dressed in their signature black with masks and umbrellas”.”
That is a huge clue. There is not some huge cohort of non antifa affiliate people roaming arround in packs in black with umbrellas.
Garcia was initially identified as MS13 because he was constantly wearing a Chicago Buills Jersey in Baltimore, while hanging out with many known MS13 leaders also in Chicaog Bull’s jurseys’ in Baltimore.
Is that proof beyond any doubt ? No. Is it sufficient to deport someone to their home because they are likely MS13 ?
yes. There was lots of other evidence – but that is enough to start.
“Now you know “appears” would get you laughed out of court.”
Nope.
“You don’t have any evidence that the protesters wearing all black were in fact card-carrying “members” of Antifa.”
Antifa members do not carry cards. MS13 gang members do not carry cards. You identify membership by things like Tattoos or shared patterns of dress. Those are sufficient to prove nenbership in a group. But the shared garb, the “Colors” are not themselves a crime (except masking your face in public).
” Antifa is a political philosophy”
So is Hamas. Every terrorist organization is also a political philosophy.
“not a membership organization like a 301(c)3.” TdA and MS13 are not 501C(3)’s either.
“So by labelling the protesters at UC Davis as followers Antifa you are scapegoating.”
No it is pretty accurate.
“It’s like how DJT handled the over 200 Venezuelan immigrants he flew to the hell-hole concentration camp in EL Salvador. ICE picked up many of those immigrants based solely on their tatoos that the agency claimed showed they were members of MS-13. We now know from court filings that the tatoos didn’t show the immigrants were members of any criminal gang. ”
No We know that left wing nuts are challenging those identifications in court.
We do NOT at this time know that those challenges are correct.
If you are in the US illegally you are subject to deportation.
If you are a member of TdA you are subject under the AEA to immediate deportation.
If you are a member of MS13 you are subject to NEAR immediate deportation.
There is no requirement to prove gang membership beyond a reasonable doubt.
MS13 is a primarily El Salvadoran gang. El Salvadorans were deported to El Salvador. The choice to imprison El Salvardorans in El Salvador was made by the El Salvadoran government.
TdA members were deported under the AEA – they are being held in El Salvador because Venezeula refuse to accept them.
You are under the delusion that Deportation is like a criminal trial – I though you were a lawyer.
The standard of proof to deport is very low.
The MS13 gang members you claim are not – had deportation orders from Article II immigration courts, nearly all granted during the Biden administration.
The non-TdA members deported to El Salvador were inarguably El Salvadorans in the US illegally
“That’s what happens when you base decisions on speculation and conjecture.”
No it is what happens when the standard is probable cause, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt
OT, Trump cleverly tricks Dems into hating taxes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans are celebrating today after President Trump imposed taxes on imports, instantly tricking Democrats into hating taxes. Studies now show that 98% of Democrats say they hate taxes after hearing that Trump is for them, shocking political analysts. “We hate taxes now! Taxes are fascism!” said several paid Democrat protestors holding “STOP TRUMP’S TARIFFS’ signs outside the White House. “We won’t rest until all these oppressive taxes have been eliminated from our lives completely!”
“Democrats have played right into my hands because they’re suckers and I’m so much smarter than them,” said Trump to reporters. “Now, we can get rid of taxes and the Democrats will think they’ve won, because they’re losers and their brains are smaller than mine, which is big. I have a big brain.”
High-profile Democratic lawmakers such as Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Adam Schiff have banded together to sponsor a new bill called the “Eliminate All Taxes Forever Bill” in hopes of striking a devastating blow to Trump’s tariff plan. “We must not let this dictator tax our country into economic ruin,” said Pelosi. “My multimillion-dollar stock portfolio might not survive.” At publishing time, Democrats had announced support for taxes once again after Trump negotiated with some foreign countries and lifted them.
“ Even a department head was shown this week destroying a table of conservative students.”
He didn’t destroy a table. Turley loves to play semantics when making false portrayals. All he did was flip a table. That is not destroying a table. If that was the case the table would have been unusable. even in the video it shows he just flipped it.
Georgie, we know you’re a paid troll. Professor Turley could say, “It would be bad if the world was destroyed in a nuclear war,” and you’d take the opposite view. Enjoy your weekend.
If I set/laid out the table for a festive holiday dinner, and an uninvited guest came and flipped the table over, dumping everything (and tried to walk off with some of the fine silver), -I’d think it would be fair to say that he “destroyed it.”
No, because the word “destroy” has a specific meaning. The table was not destroyed. The DISPLAY was. Even in a court of law that distinction would be important. The table was not desroyed. It was flipped.
STFU GEORGE!!
georgie–you again boxed yourself into a corner. This is not a court of law. This is general American Public conversational jargon. Do winning football teams “destroy” the losing team? Did Trump “destroy” Biden during the debate? Clown.
This is the kind of thing that makes Georgie have zero credibility. He wants to exercise a pedantic tyranny over the professor’s word choices while ignoring the issue – the political violence carried out by the thugs while the police looked on and did nothing. A commenter like that does not deserve any respect, only scorn. If a liberal would come on here and admit that was a problem and maybe give their two cents on the bigger picture, focusing on what is important, I could respect a person like that even if I did not see eye-to-eye on every particular. I cannot respect Georgie. This is not an isolated case. It’s his MO. But then again, he’s earning a living by being a jerk here, so what can one expect.
“ This is general American Public conversational jargon. ”
Turley is a law professor, he uses legal terms all the time. “Destroy” and “flip” are two distinct definitions. Even a general American Public conversation “destroying a table” is not the same as “fliping a table”. A table being destroyed means it’s not usable after the fact. Right?
^ Sea lioning, don’t respond ^
Correct. Both are crimes.
Depriving someone of the use of their property – even for a short period of time is a crime.
George posted: Turley is a law professor, he uses legal terms all the time.
But he is not addressing his comments to a class of university law students. Right?
And you know very well you don’t have the slightest shred of credibility or respect here. Right?
You’re only here because you get sexual gratification from showing up here to always proclaim that your host is wrong and that you – the leech – are correct.
Right?
That does not change the fact that it was a crime.
BAN FOR LIFE!
The point is the authority figure’s conduct. A normal person expects a person in a position of authority to model tolerant, level headed behavior. Instead the department head encounters students who have jumped through all the hoops to obtain a permit to advocate for a state Supreme Court justice and he blows a gasket and ruins their display.
The secondary point is this intolerant behavior is not rare. It is common.
But if you think Turley using the word “table” rather than “display” excuses the department head’s intolerant conduct, then you are wasting your time.
I wonder what would happen if they had some qualified paid security. It would be worth the price and legal consequences to show Antifa cannot act with impunity. The Campus Police are a disgrace.
Unfortunately, it probably would not help. Criminals clearly have “the law” on their side. It is likely that members of paid security would be arrested subsequently and prosecuted to the full extent of the “law”. The campus police recognize this ugly reality.
Any college campus that permits masked protesters is asking for big trouble from violent thugs. They should be immediately arrested and unmasked and photographed, ID’d.
I’m not into killing anyone. I would just like to wear my own mask, knock them down, sit on their chests facing them, then drool spittle on their disclosed faces from the mouth opening on my mask.
They should be unmasked and photographed by bystanders. The Internet will ID them.
And throw their balaclava or whatever in the garbage. They can fish it out if they want to.
OT
I’m a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) parasite, and I’m really, really worried about the stock market going down.
I’m not worried in the least about owing $37 trillion and being required to pay more than $1 trillion in interest annually.
In fact, I’m not worried in the least about owing $37 trillion and $1 trillion in interest every year because I’m a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) parasite, and I know I will never be required to pay for my “free stuff” and “free status” because it would be physically impossible for me to pay those amounts of money unless I confiscate other people’s money (OPM)—that is, people who work for a living and are frugal with their money.
# oooooo, thank you. STOCK market. I thought it was much ado about the SOCK market…
If someone had shot and killed the ANTIFA members, since TPUSA members would have feared for their lives, how would the UC Davis Admin news release read? Would anyone had cared that 30 or so George Soros rent-a-mob thugs were, to use Texas Rep Jasmine Crockett (Dem) words, “taken out”?
“On March 29, it’s my birthday, and all I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down.”
https://www.newsweek.com/jasmine-crockett-fires-back-pam-bondi-over-elon-musk-warning-2049436
What the TPUSA group should do is file a federal civil rights lawsuit against UC Davis, the UC System and the State of CA for violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, for at the very least injunctive relief (As UC is a state agency/entity TPUSA cannot seek monetary damages under the 10th Amendment). That is what should happen, and there is no federal judge anywhere that is going to allow 1st Amendment violations like this with state actors doing nothing. This is exactly what we have 42 USC 1983, to stop this kind of conduct at the state level.
Antifa is the epitome of what they claim to oppose. They know this or they wouldn’t wear masks in the first place.
They try to obtain dominance through the same methods used by fascists in the 40s – to gain or retain relevance whenever they can.
They are an ‘insurrection for hire’ group with many participants, not even having a real understanding related to societal issues. Rather, it is filled with hedonistic ‘live in the moment’ types who will show up for the opening of a Wallet.
Doubtless I’ll get burned at the stake for saying this. But my father taught me that you need to put a bully on the ground and make sure he doesn’t get up. Nobody’s here to save you.
“Leftist Mob”
That’s what Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks were in 1917, right, a leftist mob?
Alternatively, this “leftist mob” is actually anti-American, anti-Constitutional, parasitic, criminal, caterwauling, communist revolutionary enemies in rebellion against the United States violently disobeying the law with impunity.
@George
Nobody cares about your gaslighting, George, no matter how many times a day you cut and paste. Sheesh. I would love to hear even a single soupçon of actual policy or solution come from the likes of you. Not gonna happen.
Your general tendency to not melt down into utter and complete emotionally-fueled nonsense tells me that you are older. That does not make you particularly smarter or wiser, especially if you have just marched in blue lockstep your entire life. Nobody cares. And accept that the likes of JFK are dead, buried, and likely turning in their graves at you all.
They would be positively ashamed of you.
. . . tells me that you are older.
It also tells me this is his job. He’s a paid troll. This is part of their profile. Another part is they never just chit-chat or say anything about themselves personally, like the genuine commenters on this board. While Gigi is hysterical and mentally deranged, she is not getting paid to do this. George and Dennis are, among others.
Soupçon—”süp-ˈsōⁿ—very nice.
Does that approximately equate with a scintilla?
James,
Dont read anything the slow and dumb one comments. It is not worth reading. I dont.
According to the Left, “silence is violence”.
Does this mean this was police-sanctioned violence?
Turley, as usual, is being disingenious with the ANTIFA narrative
“ Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
ANTIFA is not anti-free speech. They are anti-fascists. The far right fascists. The only time they engage in conflict with anothter group is when far right groups they view as fascists.
Turley doesn’t understand that the anti-free speech they are against is the far right’s anti-free speech of others besides their own. The far right and those like Trump are against free speech that is not theirs. Jon Steward fo the Daily show made the same point which ironically is the same view that ANTIFA has, His is just more clear.
Conservatives are all for free speech and the 1st amendment as long as it’s their speech and how they determine what constittutes free speech.
Trump was not defending Khalils’s right to say what he thinks of Israel or his political views. He wants to punish him and those of being antisemitic. Even if they were it would still be protected free speech, just as the KKK or neo-nazis can spew all the anti-semitic rhetoric they want without fear of government punishment.
Conservatives use accusations as reason to deny the free speech and politicla views of others. The accusation is the pretext to justify punishment. When the government is the entity making the accusations and metting out punishment without evidence it is already a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Republicans railed and wailed against mere government pressure to tamp down ideas or request social media companies follow their moderation policies. That was tantamount to outright censorship. But what they didn’t do is met out punishement or arrest and threaten investigations. Trump on the other hand has done exaclty what the right has been saying is censorship. Arresting and threatening others with punishment for exercising their free speech, especially political speech. Protesting against Israel is seen as dissent by the right and the Trump administration. Dissent is being punished and threatened. with defunding and criminal investigation. The whole purpose of such acts is to intimidate and chill speech they don’t like.
Turley has been a massive hypocrite with it comes to free speech and ignoring what the Trump administration has been doing. He’s exactly what ANTIFA says is the problem. They are not anti-free speech. They are anti-hypocrite. They are opposed to the hypocrisy of the right and their claim that they are for free speech, their speech, not that of others who don’t share the same values. They are ok with free speech as long as it’s speech it’s theirs.
Antifa is anti free speech clearly. And in fact, they are the real fascists in that regard. Any viewpoint, but their own has to be violently shut down. Khalil is being deported not because he participated in a protest, but because he violated the law and he was here as a guest. We have the right to deport anyone here as a guest who violates the law.
What law did he violate? Protesting is not against the law. Expressing political views are not against the law.
He’s a permanent resident who has the same free speech rights you do. What law did he break?
If we are talking about Khalil – he violated the laws against extortion.
When you organize and event that turns violent and takes over property.
And when you negotiate for those who have done so threatening to continue the illegal conduct ntil yourt – that is a crime.
That is extortion.
“ If we are talking about Khalil – he violated the laws against extortion.”
What law did he violate? Who was he extorting from?
“When you organize and event that turns violent and takes over property.
And when you negotiate for those who have done so threatening to continue the illegal conduct ntil yourt – that is a crime.
That is extortion.“
John you’re pulling at straws here. He was not threatening anything. Negotiating a peaceful resolution to the situation is not extortion. You don’t know what when on during those negotiations. You’re starting to make up things to make up for the lack of evidence of any wrong doing.
You can’t be held responsible for things that are not under your conrol. Khalil avoided anything that would threaten his green card. The government cannot produce anything of a criminal nature or a legitimate violation of his green card. He was targeted for his speecn Trump made it quite clear that he considers these “llegal protests”. He wants to punish those who express dissent against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
The peaceful resolution was for violent protestors who were vilolating the law to just leave.
Yes, it IS a crime for a member of a group to threaten to continue illegal conduct if their demands are not met.
That crime is called extortion.
Criminals attempt to negotiate all the time.
That does not make them not criminals.
Do you think a bank robber threatening to blow a hostages brains out if they do not get a million dollars and safe transport is just peacefully negotiating ?
There are very very few – if any circumstances in which a person can pass along threats of criminal activity if demands are not met that are NOT extortion.
One would be if you were under duress – “I will blow your daughters brains out if you do not pass on my demands”
Another MIGHT be if you are a lawyer representing a client. Though I am not sure that a lawyer is allowed to pass along a threat to act illegally,
What is without any doubt true is that if you are a member of the group that organixed a protest that becmae violent and
representing that group threaten more crime and violence – then you have committed a crime. Extortion.
There is massive amounts of case law on this.
Geroge
“everything inside the state
nothing outside the state
nothing against the state”
Benito Musollini the father of fascism’s definition of fascism.
The only facism in the US is from the left.
The right seeks to CUT government power.
That is TRUE anti-facism.
John Say, narrowly denfining fascism by using Mussolini’s definition is disengenious at best. Fascism come in many forms and you know that. You just want to conveniently use the one that best fits YOUR definition and want everyone else to use that definition.
“ The only facism in the US is from the left.”
Wrong. Facsim is also prevalent from the right. Authoritarianism is a form of facism. Elon Musk practices it and so does Trump. Cults operate on facsist ideas and they are effective when they have weak minded followers.
Facists tend to accuse other of being facists first. Even Mussolinin did that. You are doing the same thing.
Gimme a dollar for every time georgie accuses others of being “disingenuous.” His OWN thoughts and vocabulary are so original.
We must always be careful to define words narrowly – otherwise we end up with a mess.
We constantly see people on this blog say person X “attacked” person Y – when they mean they used harsh words.
Most of the time – people manage this – they KNOW that no one committed an act of violence by a comment on this blog.
Or that is true for those of us not on the left.
Because words like attack are commonly misused – used very broadly. This has allowed the left to build this nonsense that words are violence. That is utterly stupid and has disasterous consequences.
WE are justified in the Use of violence against those who initiate violence against us.
But we are NOT allowed to use actual violence against people who attack us with words.
But that is not the only consequence of assigning overly broad meaning to things.
Antifa is a fascist organization. The woke left is fascist. Socialism is fascism. Comunism is fascism.
Nazi’s and the italian fascists were also socialists. They were absolutely clear about that.
The actual political right – conservatives are NOT fascists EVER. Conservatism is inherently actual antifascist.
When you define fascism to include conservatives – everyone is a fascist and the word fascist no longer has meaning.
It is not my definition it is Benito Musollini – the founder of the Fascist movements definition.
It is hard to get more authoratative than that.
No authoritarianism is not a form of fascism.
Though fascism is a form of authoritarianism – just as fascism is a form of socialsim.
Are neo Nazi’s fascist ? probably – that is presuming that they really adopt the Nazi creed and are not just violent racists.
Must “neo-nazi’s” are not really political. They are just racist criminals.
But those few that are political are actual socialists – and therefore on the LEFT.
The same is true of the KKK – most KKK members – are again just racist Thugs and not particularly political.
But the actual KKK ideology is socialist and on the left.
Wilson – one of the most progressive democrat presidents in US history – invited the KKK into the white House.
It is a delusion of those on the left that progressivism is not historically linked to racism, the KKK and Neo Nazis, as well as Eugenics.
Hitler borrowed his racial theories from american progressives. Including people like Wilson and Margret Sanger.
Trump and Musk are not authoritarian. They are following the law and the constitution, they are only doing what the constitution allows the executive to do. They are obeying court orders even ones that are WAY out of bounds and absurd, and they are appealing them.
That is pretty much the opposite of authoritarian.
“Facists tend to accuse other of being facists first. Even Mussolinin did that. You are doing the same thing.”
ROFL – how stupid are you ?
Musollini NEVER “accused” someone of being a fascist. He praised people for being fascists.
Fascists consider fascism a virtue. You really kno nothing about actual fascism.
It is just an insult that you toss arround without a clue what it means.
Or more accurtately you define fascist as anyone who disasgrees with you.
you define racist as anyone who disasgrees with you.
you define nazi as anyone who disasgrees with you.
you define authoritarian as anyone who disasgrees with you.
Oxford Dictionary
Authoritarian:
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Very similar to Musollini’s definition of fascism.
The authoritarians are those on the left.
Note – authoritiarian is at the expense of liberty.
It is the left that seeks every greater govenrment power – which always comes at the expense of liberty.
Trump and Musk are trying to REDUCE the power of government.
That would be anti-authoritarian.
Trump is expecting obedience from those in the executive for the purpose of INCREASING individual liberty.
That does not meet the definition of authoritarian.
There is a reason that the abuse of the meaning of words – constantly expanding their scope is a feature of Orwell’s dystopia’s.
Because it is an authoritarian and fascist tool. It is a critical component of a dystopia. it is how we get to that dystopian h311
I think it would be more fair to say that Turley has been silent on excesses of free speech that are militant, intimidating, inauthentic, and directed at children.
The liberal ideal: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”?? Do you think that cedes to an enemy who is out to destroy you unrestricted freedom of infowarfare?
I think the liberal notion of free speech is conditioned on the honesty, authenticity, civility and goodwill of the speaker. That notion has been wildly expanded by the most manipulative, conniving actors in the public square to cover their repugnant machinations…things like frauds and character attacks mounted from a position behind a screen of anonymity.
Turley is far behind the curve in failing to draw lines that protect the value of mutual trust in a free society.
But, it’s a horribly complex problem, so I kinda understand his overly simplistic analysis of free speech. Could he do better?
Khalil is not a US citizen. He does not have all the rights of US citizens.
While the EVIDENCE is that he did far more than just engage in free speech,
He has no right to be in the US. He has been given a priviledge.
I would defend the right of Nazi’s to march through Skokie.
I would also deny entry to Nazi’s seeking to come to the US purely because of their antisemtism, or fascism.
We are absolutely required to allow citizens to say whatever offensive nonsense the wish.
We are NOT required to import it.
US Citizens on campus can protest for whatever nutty cause they wish.
They can deny other students access to classes. they can trash other peoples diplays.
They can occupy buildings, and they will suffer consequences for those acts – though so long as the protests are left wing, those consequences will be deminiums. But they can not be deported. They are citizens.
But we are not required to allow foreigners to disrupt our campuses.
YOU would deny immigrants visa’s based on their views on transgender men in womens sports.
WE can send immigrants home based on antisemitism and advocacy for terrorist groups.
They are not being denied Free Speech.
They are being removed from OUR home and returned to THEIR home.
“ Khalil is not a US citizen. He does not have all the rights of US citizens.
While the EVIDENCE is that he did far more than just engage in free speech,
He has no right to be in the US. He has been given a priviledge.”
So what? He has first amendment rights like everyone else. You’re saying he has limited first amendment rights? Where does this say green card holders have limited first amendment rights?
What did he do John? Nobody can point out exactly what did he do that is a violation of his green card requirements?
You keep saying “EVIDENCE” so what is it? The government has not presented any evidence. All they have provided is an accusation.
Khalil did not occupy a building, engage in violence, or committed a crime. All he’s being accused of is that he supports Hamas, but that’s not a deprtable offense. The government has not provided any evidence proving their accusations.
He was targetted for his speech and because he is a foreigner.
If the argument is that he poses a national security threat or undermines U.S. foreign policy then how did he do that. Because the Rubio has to articulate exactly what he did that poses a threat. Rubio could declare all Muslims here on visas and green cards are a threat to national security because muslims are more likely to be terrorists. By that same logic they could all be deported.
” All he’s being accused of is that he supports Hamas, but that’s not a deprtable offense. “
Think again, Hamas is a terrorist organization and that is only a part of his problems. Case closed.
Being returned to your HOME is not punishment.
While the EVIDENCE against those being deported is well beyond mere accusation,
and accusation may be sufficient to deport someone.
Unless you are a citizen you do not have a RIGHT to be here
This is not THEIR home, they should not $hit in it.
Yes we can deny people access to OUR HOMES, and return them to THEIR homes, based on their views.
“Republicans railed and wailed against mere government pressure to tamp down ideas or request social media companies follow their moderation policies.”
Correct, Government was using coercion to censor the rights of US citizens.
America is OUR HOME. It is NOT Khalil’s.
He chose to come here and $hit in our living room.
He can go back to HIS HOME.
He is not being deprived of anything that he has a right to.
he can speak as freely as Syria will allow him – IN SYRIA.
NO ONE is chilling YOUR free speech – presuming you are a citizen.
If you are not – then you best be on your best behavior – if you want to stay in OUR HOME.
“ Being returned to your HOME is not punishment.‘
It is being used AS punishment for exercising the right to free speech.
Are you saying green card holders and visa holder don’t have a right to free speech?
While the EVIDENCE against those being deported is well beyond mere accusation,
and accusation may be sufficient to deport someone.“
What is the evidence John? Saying “EVIDENCE!” is not evidence. What has the government provided as evidence that they broke a rule the justifies deportation?
An accusation is not sufficient to deport someone, We have due process rights to be able to challenge the accusations. Trump wants to deny due process rights to those accused and deport them before they have a chance to contest the claims. That is a violation of their right to due process.
“ Unless you are a citizen you do not have a RIGHT to be here
This is not THEIR home, they should not $hit in it.
Yes we can deny people access to OUR HOMES, and return them to THEIR homes, based on their views.”
They are legally here. While they are here they have certain rights and that means exercising free speech and if that means criticizing a foreign government like Israel they absolutely can.
We can deny ACCESS, but once we let them in legally, they are subject to our laws, including protections afforded by the constituttion. Even in the constitution is specifices what rights citizens have and what rights PEOPLE have and that means everyone within our borders.
You fail to understand that allowing ACCESS and those already inside the country are two very different things. We can deny anyone from entering the country for any reason. BUT, once they enter legally they are all subject to our laws and rights including due process and the right to free speech.
Khalil was targeted because of his speech and political views. Not because he violated some law that you cannot articulate.
Khalil inarguably engaged in criminal extortion.
That is what it is when you say – the criminal actions of protesters will continue until you agreed to our demands”.
You have no proof that was said by Khalil. Plus that is not extortion. Facilitating a peaceful resolution is not extortion.
There is no evidence of any wrong doing. The government has provided only an accusation.
George are you deliberately dense ?
“Facilitating a peaceful resolution is not extortion.”
It is when that fascilitation includes threats of continued violant and or criminal conduct.
The situation at Columbia was TRIVIALLY resolveable peacefully – the criminals destroying property and trespassing and beating people up could STOP immediately and resort to ACTUALY peaceful means to accomplish their goals.
They did not. Their negotiators did not.
Read the columbia report – it is not like Columbia is some right leaning institution.
Do you challenge that there was violence, property damage and tresspass at these “protests” ?
Do you challenge that those “negotiating” threatened their continuation until their demands were met ?
Do you challenge that the violence property damange and tresspass did not end until the police forced the “protestors” out ?
You keep saying there is no evidence. I provided the evidence over and over.
No a negotiator can not threaten violence
you are also misusing the world “peaceful” – negotiations normally end disputes, they do not end violence.
ALWAYS when a negotiation involves violence on one side the negotiators on that side are complicit in the violence.
“You fail to understand that allowing ACCESS and those already inside the country are two very different things”
They are different. They are not VERY different.
There is a sliding spectrum from foreigner in a foreign country through to US citizen in the US.
Those with a Visa have more rights than those without, but far from full rights.
Further if you materially lied to get a visa, your visa is invalid.
To get a visa you will be asked about affiliations or support of terrorist
You can lie to get a visa. But that does not give you the rights of a visa holder because you lied.
“We can deny anyone from entering the country for any reason. BUT, once they enter legally they are all subject to our laws and rights including due process and the right to free speech.”
False, they are subject to our laws. They have SOME rights, they are entitled to SOME due process.
Legally entry into the country does not make you a citizen.
OBVIOUSLY that means you do not have all the rights of a citizen. Only SOME of them.
If you are in the country illegally – you are entitled to SOME due process.
But not the same due process as a citizen or even a legal immigrant.
Further legal. illegal, citizen, your due process rights in a criminal prosecution has identical.
Your rights in a non criminal legal action such as deportation are not.
This is the law, it is also logical.
Due process is NOT binary – something everyone has or everyone does not.
We all have SOME – differnt rights by degree depending on our status.
“False, they are subject to our laws. They have SOME rights, they are entitled to SOME due process.
Legally entry into the country does not make you a citizen.
OBVIOUSLY that means you do not have all the rights of a citizen. Only SOME of them.”
The constitution poses no limits on rights such as due process and free speech depending on immigration status. You cite no law or statute making the case for your claim.
“The constitution poses no limits on rights such as due process and free speech depending on immigration status. ”
Of course it does.
Can non citizens vote ? Do you have the same due process in a criminal prosecution as in a civil case ?
Due process is absolutely positively depending on the context.
If you are facing execution by the state – you have the greatest right to due process.
If you are a foreign invader being sent back to your home you have the least.
Does the constitution grant the right to free speech to foriegners outside the US and obligate the US government to protect those rights ?
You keep waiving arround free speech and political as if they are a magic want in this context.
Can the US refuse to grant a visa to a Nazi ?
If you say no – you have almost no basis at all for denying anyone a visa.
If you say yes you have explicitly accepted that there are circumstances the US govenrment can refuse to grant priviledges or revoke them based on speech or politics.
It is absolutely true that in a criminal context even illegal immigrants have the same due process rights as citizens.
That does not mean that in all contets they have the same rights, even citizens do not have the same rights to due process in civil contexts they do in criminal ones.
“It is being used AS punishment for exercising the right to free speech.”
So ? If you are in my home and you spew racist nonsense – I can throw you out.
That is a punishment for your excersize of free speech in my home.
“Are you saying green card holders and visa holder don’t have a right to free speech?”
No I am saying they do not have a right to be in the US.
A visa or a green card is a privilege not a right.
Just like my allowing you into my home is a priviledge.
Are you arguing that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens and that the US govenrment must protect those rights ?
I doubt that Khalil can speak freely in Syria – his HOME. But it is NOT the job of the US govenrment to protect his right to free speech in Syria.
Can Syrians in Syria vote in US elections ?