There is a lot of misinformation going around about Mahmoud Khalil. Please read this if you have read or posted about the case.

Mahmoud Khalil was arrested on March 9th by ICE agents in public, as he was returning to his apartment. His arrest was legal and was conducted in a legal manner. Neither ICE nor the police need a warrant to arrest someone in public, on the street.

Mr. Khalil has not been "dissappeared." He is being held in Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. He has been assigned a public defender. Her name is Amy Greene. He has a deportation hearing set for tomorrow (March 12th) with a judge, in which the judge will review the case.

The Department of Homeland Security has accused Mr. Khalil of leading pro Hamas rallies on the Columbia University campus and publishing/passing out pro Hamas fliers that included the Hamas logo. He has not been "charged," because he does not have to be charged under US law. Under US law, a greencard holder has a right to a hearing with a judge to determine whether or not they violated the terms of their greencard. One does not need to be convicted by a jury to be deported for supporting terrorist organizations. This is not a comment on whether or not this law is fair. But it is important to recognize that this is standard and does not violate Mr. Khalil's right to due process.

Also under US Law: one of the conditions of being granted a greencard is that one not be involved in activities that could be argued to be in support of a designated terror organization. Well.

Mahmoud Khalil is an open Hamas supporter and a leader of the Columbia University Apartheid Divestment organization, an explicitly pro Hamas organization that regularly organizes pro Hamas rallies, passes out pro Hamas pamphlets that include inspirational quotes by Hamas terrorists, and organized a "day of mourning" for Yahya Al-Sinwar, the leader of Hamas and the architect of the Oct 7th terror attacks. CUAD has self described it's goal as the "total eradication of Western civilization" through violence. Mr. Khalil has been filmed at multiple of their pro Hamas rallies, which he presumably helped organize as a member, and acted as a negotiator on behalf of CUAD a few days ago (March 6th) during the Columbia student building takeover and bomb threats.

I am not the judge who will be reviewing Mr. Khalil's case. But I find it hard to make an argument that being a leader of an explicitly pro Hamas organization is not supporting terrorism.

Guys, listen. The amount of misinformation I have seen immediately regurgitated about this man, about how his rights have been violated, by fellow Jews, is absurd. Trump is evil. That does not mean we have to make shit up about how an open Hamas supporter is being unfairly attacked. This ENTIRE issue is about whether or not supporting antisemitic terrorism should be considered supporting terrorism. Of course it should be! This is literally just equal application of the law, something we have gotten so used to not happening when it comes to Jews that we are now making up reasons to defend someone who's rights were not violated and openly wants to kill us.

There are so many. SO MANY illegal and unethical arrests and deportations happening every single day. Why on earth is Jumblr deciding to go to bat for this man of all people, and act like THIS CASE, of all cases, is one that needs to be fought against? Why are we acting like this case, of all cases, is some flagrant violation of the law that should be used to highlight how evil Trump is?

I'm sorry but have we lost our minds? Literally nothing about this man's arrest was illegal and his right to due process has not been violated in any way. The ONLY reason this is getting attention is that people believe SO strongly that they should have the right to organize rallies in support of a terrorist organization that's stated goal is to kill the Jews. That's it! That's the only issue. Not even his lawyers are claiming there was some violation of this man's right to due process. This issue is ENTIRELY about whether or not it's "free speech" for someone who agreed not to support terrorism as a condition of being granted a greencard, should have the right to support terrorism specifically if it's terrorism directed at Jews. That's it! That's it. Please. Please PLEASE. Can we focus on the ICE raids happening at the school my roommate works at? Can we stop going along with this violently antisemitic delusion that the legal deportation case against a pro terrorism rally organizer is the ideal case to prove how unfair and illegal these deportations are? What the fuck?

[MAGA voice]: Oh, so now it's a crime to text your friends?

you know that frustrating feeling when you denounce antisemitism and you sometimes feel like a deranged conspiracy theorist? Like when you have to explain to goyim that, yes, all these ngos and organisation and the un are deeply antisemitic.

there’s a very simple reason for that.

ANTISEMITISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MAJORITY OPINION.

Antisemitism has always been the majority, the mainstream, the consensus.

We have a long history. Sometimes we were persecuted and sometimes we were mostly left alone. But throughout all that, even during peaceful times, prejudice against us was deeply ingrained in the cultures that surrounded us. Especially Christian and Muslim cultures.

what happened after the holocaust is that the Christian west felt temporarily ashamed (plus nazis were made into the universal bad guy), and so for once Jew hatred became gauche. Taboo. But that deep, cultural judenhass never left. All it took was for it to be rebranded as anti-zionism, anti-colonialism, anti-genocide, and the floodgates were flung open.

Cory Booker has been talking in the senate for over 20 hours now

He’s not filibustering. He’s protesting the current administration.

ALT

"Booker began speaking on the Senate floor at 7 p.m. Monday evening to protest President Donald Trump's policies.

At 7:19 p.m. on Tuesday, Booker broke Thurmond's record of 24 hours and 18 minutes, which he made while speaking against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first major civil rights bill since Reconstruction."

"Booker said that he decided to undertake the marathon speech because Democrats have a "responsibility" to "do something different" in the face of the unprecedented changes taking place in the first few months of Trump's second term as president.

"I've been hearing from people all over my state and indeed all over the nation calling upon folks in Congress to do more," Booker said in a video posted to X before taking to the floor. "To do things that recognize the urgency, the crisis of the moment."

Booker said he plans to speak for as long as he is "physically able to." He cannot sit or leave the Senate floor for a bathroom break; otherwise, he would lose his right to hold the floor. If he doesn't leave or sit down, no senator can stop him."

USA Today

Politico

The Philadelphia Tribune

greatest philosophical questions of the century: are children's cartoons politically significant? do audiobooks count as reading? is booktok destroying women's brains? are a middle class americans the most oppressed group of all time? who's stupider: children or schools? is sexual inexperience the truest sin? are pad users more oppressed than tampon users? should people eat quinoa specifically if we ignore all other foods on earth? is taylor swift underrated or overrated? is it pedophilia to dress stupid? is intra lgbt community slur reclaiming okay? does autism stop you from going to the club? is being a misogynist actually more progressive than not being a misogynist? france? should people who don't like spoilers be killed on the street or should people who say spoilers be killed on the street? is calling something gross fascism except when i do it? is it more progressive to be bilingual? among others

"Why does Group A deserve human rights if Group B doesn't have them?"

Both groups deserve human rights. That's how human rights work.

Anyone who convinces you to barter one group's rights against another is not interested in giving them to either group.

Hey. Look at me. Please leave yourself a note somewhere you'll see it later that says "it is going to take years if not decades to get the United States government to the level of functionality it had in November of 2024." If we elect a democrat in 2028, we are not going to be up and running by 2032.

Please make sure you have a reminder in your phone reminding you to not look at 2028/32/36 Democratic candidates and say "why are they not promising/delivering Cool Shit?" because you are going to understand that to get Cool Shit we must have competent people running a decently funded government, and we are not going to have that.

We are not getting UBI. We are not getting single payer healthcare. We are not getting free college or free preschool. We are not redistributing wealth on a large scale. We are not getting free internet. We are not getting ranked choice voting.

If we are lucky, we are going to get an IRS that can collect taxes, qualified schoolteachers, research grants, Social Security, and a government that thinks maybe it should be a priority for people around the worlds to not have AIDS, malaria or TB.