We do not need to agree with Mahmoud KhalilOr even defending the Palestinian issue. It is not related to the issue on the case. The detention of a former university student in the Palestinian origin, which, while walking at the University of Colombia, New York, organized protests against the Israeli invasion in Gaza on October 7, does not correspond to the idea of a democratic country of its president.There are two weeks, He stated: “I stopped all government oversight and regained freedom of expression.”
Khalil, who was detained in front of a pregnant woman earlier this month by the American Immigration Police, and since then to thousands of kilometers from New York, while the Trump administration and the courts were digging in their imminent deportation, it has not been officially accused of any crime.
The White House refers to its terrorist sympathy and indicates the alleged distribution of Hamas’s support, but the defense denies this. Even if he had done so, he would not be a crime in the United States. This writes this, which, as a journalist in Chicago, on the sidelines of the Democratic Conference last summer, is an American who practices an explicit support poster to Hamas in a supporter of the Palestinians. He watched frequent news in recent years of new Nazi marches in American cities. Will it be terrible for the Portuguese reader? For me, he is. But it has nothing to do with the issue. In the United States, it is not a crime.
The Trump administration also says that the manifestations of the Palestinians for the year 2024 in Columbia University They were aiming to intimidate the Jewish students of the institution. This movement denies that there are Jewish students to join the protests. But it is also not related to the case. Khalil has never been accused and transferred to court for any attack or intimidation.
Everything that keeps Khalil in a cell, away from pregnant women and is about to deport, is a statement signed by the head of American diplomacy, Marco Rubio, who calls for a mysterious paragraph of the 1952 law: “The Foreign Minister decided that his presence or activities in the United States will have serious and contradictory consequences for the foreign policy of the United States.”
This is suitable. The US government decided that Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident in the United States, is an undesirable presence in the country because of the practice of freedom of expression and appearances.
You do not have to agree or sympathize with Khalil. Or with Badar Khan is a SyrianThe researcher and professor at Georgetown University, they were also arrested and accused by the Trump administration of terrorist sympathy (he denies, the university also). Or even faith in RussianThe Lebanese doctor and professor at the University of Brown, another legal immigrant, who was arrested after landing in Boston, where the border guards closed his cell phone and found pictures of alleged support for Hassan Nasrallah, then they deported it when he says that his support for Hezbollah founder was merely religious and non -political. All their alleged actions, if confirmed, will be constitutional reserve in the United States, as well as decisively in the end.
Do we not sympathize with the Palestinians? Let’s then French scientist The Gul government said that this week was prevented when it was landed in Houston, and he was briefly arrested and expelled immediately because he was found on his mobile phone critical messages from Trump, specifically, from his policy related to scientific research. If the previous three cases are not commensurate with the definition of the crime of opinion for many readers, then what do I say this French citizen who was expelled from the United States to obtain a “personal opinion”, as you synthesize Paris?
What do I say about continuing The punishment imposed on the Associated PressIt is forbidden to enter the White White House room and the presidential plane, to practice its liberal freedom and chose not to use the term “Gulf of America” to appoint the Gulf of Mexico?
Or the penalty imposed on Maine University, which was cut off from federal funding after the ruler of that state, Janet Mills, dared to tell Trump, in the White House, who will fight in court against the removal of sexually transformed athletes from the Sports University?
Or withdrawing funds to Columbia University, is still due to the protests organized by students such as Khalil, who took 18 jurists from Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Chicago and Cornell A. warning For a “dangerous precedent” of “constitutionally protected discourse” for individuals and public financing entities?
Or Trump’s call to removal, by Congress, to anyone Judges Who issued rulings contrary to government demands, and what does this mean to the judges who will also be at hand in short, the duty to protect freedom of expression in the United States?
Only two months have passed since Trump returned to the White House. It is not necessary to be a supporter of Palestinians, scholars, journalists, Democrats, or transgender people, judges, or other members in an increasing list of goals, nor to death from love for them, to recognize the rapid erosion of ongoing freedoms in the United States and fear of what will continue.
Because of current monitoring in the United States, This newsletter has been written outside your usual day, Monday. For the readers who accompanied me, my apologies and my voices for an excellent weekend.
