Khalili, legal residents, free speech, and supporting terrorist organizations

The New Neo Posted on by

As one might expect, the left is very upset at the government’s attempt to deport green card holder and Hamas-friendly former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalili. Senator Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, summarizes the case quite well here:

Well, Mr. Khalil will receive due process because by now his lawyer has already filed a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Khalil was involved in the protests. He was a Columbia student under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. If you support a terrorist organization you can be deported. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Mr. Khalil’s side of the story, I understand to be that I don’t support Hamas, I just support Palestinians. All I did was file some — post some Facebook posts. I wasn’t involved in any of the illegal protests or the illegal occupation of student buildings or physically intimidating the Jewish people and Jewish students. We’ll find out who’s right.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act, though, is fairly broad. And if the administration can show acts directly and probably indirectly supporting Hamas, they’ll deport him. And he should be deported, if that’s what’s shown in court.

More here:

For those interested in a more detailed legal explanation, Mahmoud Khalil is also deportable for another reason:

Khalil is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas. That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B).

That provision in the statute allows the deportation of even lawful permanent residents who are “representative[s]” of a “political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb); see also id. at (B)(v) (“representative” defined as including “an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization.”) Columbia University Apartheid Divestment (“CUAD”) supports armed resistance by Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization.

See Sharon Otterman, Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs Armed Resistance by Hamas, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://nytimes.com/2024/10/09/nyregion/columbia-pro-palestinian-group-hamas.html…… (CUAD supports armed resistance by Hamas).

Mahmoud Khalil is a spokesman for CUAD.

More at the link.

There is a hierarchy of non-citizens: illegal aliens, legal visa holders, and then legal green card holders. Khalili may have entered on a student visa, but now he has a green card which conveys greater rights. The arguments for deportation depend on the extent of his involvement in support of Hamas and the extent of his illegal activities on its behalf.

My questions are: why was Khalili here in the first place? When did he arrive in the US? Why was he granted a student visa and later a green card? When did he receive his green card – before or after his Columbia activities – and on what basis did he qualify for a green card? Did someone pay for his coming here and his activism?

From his Wiki page:

Mahmoud Khalil was born in a Syrian refugee camp in 1995 and is a citizen of Algeria. He completed his undergraduate studies in Beirut before enrolling at Columbia University’s SIPA, where he earned his master’s degree in December 2024.

Between June and November 2023, Khalil worked as a political affairs officer with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in New York.

Not any more information there about how he came to be in the US. Here’s a NY Post article with a smidge more background, but it doesn’t even begin to answer those questions of mine.

Ukraine ceasefire: yes, no, maybe so?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the latest:

The U.S. and Ukraine said Kyiv would accept a 30-day ceasefire with Russia after talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, with Washington pledging to immediately lift a freeze on intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine.

“Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the U.S. and Ukraine said in a joint statement released by the State Department. “The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.”

Russian reciprocity is certainly key, one of many.

It strikes me, and not for the first time, that one of the many differences between Trump’s first term and his second is that the Biden administration left a bigger foreign policy mess than the Obama administration had. Post-Obama, much of it could be helped by simply being meaner to Iran and nicer to Israel. But the Biden administration (otherwise known as Obama’s third term) did more damage in terms of active hot wars that the administration’s weakness had encouraged: Ukraine and Gaza/Israel. What’s more, both of those wars present very knotty problems that are not easily solved.

I think that Trump is feeling his way through this; there’s no guidebook. Try A; see what happens. Try B; see what happens. The results depend at least in part on making the proper adjustments.

404 Not Found should not be found here anymore

The New Neo Posted on by

A number of people have mentioned that they’re been getting 404 messages lately when trying to follow internal links here to older posts on the blog or older comments. I think – I hope! – that won’t be happening anymore.

The problem began when, in my efforts to get to the bottom of the “too many requests” timeouts that happen every now and then here, I phoned my host. Each time I phoned – and there were many times – there was a different person helping me, and each time that person made a new and different suggestion for a fix. Sometimes that person even did whatever he or she was suggesting rather than asking me to do it. Not a single one of these things has helped the “too many requests” problem, although in the last week or so the problem has improved (knock wood).

One of the things they insisted would help would be if they updated the PHP. This made me wary; I’d been told it can cause problems. But they insisted that if it caused problems, the PHP version could be changed back again. That sounded reasonable to me.

After that I started noticing that old internal links back to blog posts or comments here no longer worked. Wonderful. It took me quite a bit of sleuthing to understand what had happened, but apparently the format of permalinks for the blog had changed. In the 22,000+ posts I’ve written, I’ve got thousands of old links like that, and there was no way I was going to change them back by hand. As you may have already guessed, switching back to the earlier PHP version didn’t help. Plus, there was a big warning on WordPress saying it’s dangerous to change the permalink settings on a live blog.

And so I was wary of changing the setting back to what I thought it had originally been. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was probably the only solution. So late last night I did it – and voila! All the links now seem to work – even the new ones, post-PHP change. I thought I’d have to switch them back by hand. But for whatever reason, the blog seems to be able to “read” them properly and do a redirect to the proper post. It does the same thing for the newer links comments.

Let me know if you’re getting any 404 messages here in the future. It shouldn’t be happening. Of course, it still might happen for old external links. But not for links back to something on this blog.

Recession?

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed a lot of discussion in the Open Thread comments about whether or not we’re headed for a recession.

That’s the sort of thing on which my knowledge base is small, so I won’t make a prediction. I’ll just link to this post on the subject at Legal Insurrection.

Here’s a thread for you to talk about the topic to your hearts’ and brains’ delight.

An argument for passing a continuing resolution bill …

The New Neo Posted on by

… can be found here:

… [T]he only realistic alternatives to a “clean” CR are a CR-plus or omnibus appropriations package. Either option could only be passed with Democrat support, which means they would be loaded up with expensive nonsense …

… Congress must move past the March 14 funding deadline to focus on reconciliation. Once the House passes a budget resolution, which it did on Feb. 25, a reconciliation process can move forward that will include money for border security and immigration law enforcement, extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, new tax policies such as no taxes on tips, deregulatory changes to unleash domestic oil and natural gas production, and much more.

In short, the reconciliation process is the main vehicle for most of year-one Trump agenda priorities to pass into law. The reconciliation process is so vital because it only requires a simple majority vote in the Senate as opposed to requiring 60 as most bills do. Reconciliation is a profound opportunity to enshrine lasting change, but it takes time and must occur within a specific timeframe. Every minute Congress spends on something else, such as a government shutdown due to the failure to pass a CR, makes reconciliation less likely.

Makes sense to me.

SCOTUS will be considering a case about what therapists are allowed to say to clients about sexual orientation and sexual identity

The New Neo Posted on by

I consider this an important case:

Kaley Chiles is a Christian counselor in Colorado. When the state passed a law forcing mental health professionals to advance radical gender ideology, she challenged it. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case — in what could bring a landmark ruling for free speech.

“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government’s biased views on her clients,” said Kristen Waggoner, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom — which is representing Chiles — in a news release.

Chiles challenged Colorado’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy” in 2022, according to The Hill, saying it hindered her efforts to assist those with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings.” She “never promises that she can solve” these issues but works to help clients “accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.” Chiles sought an injunction, citing the law’s violation of her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Chiles, but in November, her attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to consider the case, according to SCOTUSblog.

ADF said the Colorado law violates Chiles’ freedom of speech by banning counselors from “having any conversation with clients under age 18 that ‘attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.’”

Some “conversion therapists” formerly used harsh methods such as administering electric shocks to patients. But this suit is about a totally different thing: talking to patients under 18 who want to explore all possibilities, including – for example – whether or not their sexual desires are exclusively gay or whether it’s possible for them to live a heterosexual life – and if so, to encourage them towards the latter. Or conversing with teenagers who have encountered pro-transition websites, might have a history of sexual abuse and/or Asperger’s, and who want to sort it all out without going to a gender affirming counselor who will only reinforce the idea of transition as a solution.

I have some retired therapist friends who are Democrats, and a few years ago when I told them that anything other than “gender-affirming” therapy was discouraged or even sometimes banned they were aghast. That’s how quickly the policies have changed, and how radically.

What is banned under the Colorado law is described this way: “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” That’s pretty darn broad.

All those entrepreneurial 11-year olds and 115-year olds: ain’t America great?

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s heartwarming:

DOGE announced on Saturday night that the Small Business Administration had loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to small enterprises during the COVID pandemic. Sounds fine, right?

Except for the fact that the business owners in these cases were all 11 years old or younger …

Some mighty fancy lemonade stands – because that averages out to about $55K per child. And then there are the Cadillacs of walkers for the mega-old:

In 2020-2021, SBA granted 5,593 loans for $312M to borrowers whose only listed owner was 11 years old or younger at the time of the loan. While it is possible to have business arrangements where this is legal, that is highly unlikely for these 5,593 loans, as they all also used an SSN with the incorrect name.

@DOGE and @SBAgov are working together to solve this problem this week. …

In 2020-2021, @SBAgov issued 3,095 loans, including PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) and EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loan), for $333M to borrowers over 115 years old who were still marked as alive in the Social Security database.

And yet the Democrats seem to oppose looking into this. Go figure.

While we’re at it, I’ll mention that Rubio is preserving 1,000 of USAID’s projects and folding them into the State Department, while jettisoning the rest. However, in the article I just linked, Bonchie points this out:

As of now, the current continuing resolution, which is a copy-paste of the last one that didn’t cut spending, fully funds USAID at Biden-era levels. Until Congress stops those appropriations, the federal government is just moving money around. As things currently stand, taxpayers won’t realize the savings, and the inflationary aspects of the deficit spending remain.

Supposedly, it will be accomplished in the fall. Time will tell.

And more is coming out about the Biden administration’s payments for DEI:

The new study, conducted by the Functional Government Initiative and the Center for Renewing America, identified 460 programs across 24 government agencies in the Biden administration that diverted resources to DEI initiatives.

At least $1 trillion of taxpayer money was infused with DEI principles, the study states.

The study lays out DEI infusion across several federal agencies, including the Defense Department’s plan to “integrate environmental/economic justice tools” into training, FEMA’s need to “instill equity as a foundation of emergency management,” and the Labor Department’s push to “embed equity in a sustainable manner that recognizes the multiple and overlapping identities held by workers.”

Ulanova was sui generis

The New Neo Posted on by

Galina Ulanova was a prominent dancer during the USSR’s ballet heyday in the 1940s and 1950s. But she wasn’t typical of anything; she was completely sui generis. At her Wiki page I found this quote from Sergei Eisenstein:

Ulanova — cannot be grouped together with, compared to other dancers. In terms of what is most cherished, By the very nature of her secret…She belongs to a different dimension.

And Margot Fonteyn, probably the greatest British dancer of the same era, said this:

I cannot even begin to talk about Ulanova’s dancing, it is so marvelous, I am left speechless. It is magic. Now we know what we lack.

How did she do it? I don’t really know. Ulanova had a more delicate musculature than today’s dancers; it concealed the strength required and emphasized the artistry. It’s a rare quality although more common back then. However, Ulanova herself was always unique. She seemed to be dancing with some internal impetus that had little to nothing to do with performing for the audience or showing off.

Ulanova specialized in portraying people rather than otherworldly beings. And yet she could do the latter just as well. She could dance anything with a fluidity and subtlety that made you forget technique or tricks. I chose this short clip of her Swan Queen Odette, which she dances in a manner evenly poised between human and swan – unlike most modern Swan Queens who lean towards the swan, the better to show off their remarkable and almost inhuman flexibility. That’s not what Ulanova was about:

Trump: loose cannon or wily negotiator?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Hubert” states my own thoughts on the matter quite well when he writes:

Now comes news that Trump is threatening Putin with more sanctions to get him to the negotiating table. Unlike mkent, I suspect there is method to Trump’s behavior. There better be, because mkent is correct when he says that Trump is disrupting the entire postwar and post-Cold War security system. I think it badly needed to be disrupted, but this is turning into a queasy-making rollercoaster ride. Dangerous times; high stakes.

The question is whether Trump actually is a loose cannon or whether there is method to his madness – and if the latter, whether that method will work.

Is Trump talking about leaving NATO? Ending America’s nuclear protection entirely for Europe? Withdrawing all troops from Europe? If so, I haven’t seen it. What I do see is that Trump is aiming to have Europe participate more in its own defense. The idea is that we are spread too thin. As Hubert also writes:

I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).” That’s ridiculous and unsustainable. Mkent referred on the other thread to Tusk talking about maybe developing a Polish nuclear deterrent, like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that some of the Europeans are getting serious about their own defense. As for mkent’s fear that proliferation will inevitably lead to WWIII and nukes flying all over the world, I would point to India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers that hate each other’s guts but have somehow managed to avoid going to all-out war. Strategist Bernard Brodie rightly called nuclear weapons “the absolute weapon” in his 1946 book of the same name. By that token, they’re the ultimate deterrent.

This is one of a host of reasons why I’m glad I’m not president. I could not even begin to make decisions of that magnitude.

However, change is inherently frightening because all change can backfire. 9/11 sparked a big change here, because I don’t think that without it George W. Bush would have started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 changed the trajectory of his entire presidency in terms of foreign policy. And during Obama’s presidency, foreign policy changed a great deal also, and I’m hard-pressed to find that any of it was for the better; same for Biden and company. All of those events made it clear that US foreign policy could change on a dime between one president and another.

Western European leaders can’t stand Trump. But they felt the same way during his first term. They laughed at him when he warned them they were too dependent on Russian energy sources – a warning which turned out to be very prescient indeed. But Western Europeans already had a great deal of resentment and contempt for the US even prior to Trump. Remember that cowboy George W. Bush in 2001?:

George W. Bush is highly unpopular with the publics of the major nations of Western Europe. By wide margins, people in Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy all disapprove of his handling of international policy, and the American president does not inspire much more confidence in these countries than does Russian President Vladimir Putin.

More than seven-in-ten of those in each country say Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S. interests, and most think he understands less about Europe than other American presidents. In that regard, Bush’s foreign policy approval rating runs 40-60 percentage points below former President Bill Clinton’s, when judged in retrospect.

These are the principal findings of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center …

And Reagan in 1981:

A remark by President Reagan that he could envision a nuclear war limited to Europe has unleashed a political storm among Europeans that U.S. and allied officials sought yesterday to bring under control.

Also in 1982:

President Reagan will meet presidents, prime ministers, a pope and a queen during his trip to Europe for the NATO summit, but will also be exposed to thousands of angry Europeans who despise him — and some who may try to kill him.

In Paris, the president’s first stop on his 10-day, 4-nation tour beginning Wednesday, grand boulevards and winding alleyways alike are lined with posters showing a combat commando gripping a submachine gun and saying ‘the terrorist Reagan must be welcomed with hatred, raised fists and loaded arms.’

Bombs exploded last week at the Rome office of Pan American airlines and an insurance company with U.S. links. The communist group that claimed responsibility for the blast said, ‘This is our greeting to the hangman Reagan.’

The president’s personal safety has been most directly threatened in West Germany, cradle of the European peace movement that views Reagan as a warmongering nuclear cowboy.

We survived that. Hopefully we’ll survive this.

But I’ve never been keen on roller coaster rides. Trump’s unpredictability is both a strength and a weakness. But if he threatens too many times and his bluff is called and he doesn’t follow through, he loses the power engendered by his threats. Plus, he can get into a macho-threat contest with some people and win, but Putin couldn’t care less, IMHO.

However, Trump has pulled many rabbits out of many hats before – so sit tight during the bumpy ride.

ADDENDUM:

I just noticed these:

How Gene Hackman and his wife died is both surprising and sad

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s what happened, according to medical authorities: she died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, probably a week before her husband. He died of cardiovascular disease complicated by severe dementia.

The thought is that Betsy Hackman – who probably had no idea how very ill and at risk she was and probably thought she had the flu at most – dropped dead and could not care for her husband, who needed quite a bit of assistance. And no one realized it because no one was in daily contact with them. Therefore he probably wandered around for a week afterward, confused and perhaps even unaware of her death, until he himself expired.

As for the dog, it probably died of lack of water, although that hasn’t been proven yet. Two dogs outside survived; they probably found some source of water.

Here’s the Wiki entry on hantavirus. Apparently the death rate among sufferers is rather high, and death can be sudden. It’s primarily a disease of the western states, and New Mexico (where the Hackmans lived) has more than its share of cases per capita. But it is overall an extremely rare disease.

Mouse droppings and urine are vectors, and I already knew this because two summers ago, when I was helping my ex-husband go through things in his storage unit, I noticed quite a bit of evidence that mice had gotten in. This included their droppings and a couple of dead bodies, which caused me to withdraw my assistance and leave him to his own devices. But I discovered, on looking it up, that hantavirus was a possibility from any exposure to mouse effluvia, although an exceedingly remote one where I live.

Naturally, questions arise as to why the Hackmans had become so isolated. Perhaps it was at least partly their own choice, despite his condition. And after all, Betsy Hackman was only 65, and I doubt they considered that she might expire before her husband, and do so with little to no warning.

RIP.