My point is the first amendment is a limit on legislative authority. You may not agree with the executive branch’s decision on this young man (I don’t either) but it is not a first amendment violation nor is it illegal on any other front. Consider yourself enlightened.
And how do you figure its not a first amendment violation? Dude was protesting about the mass murder of Palestinians and was locked up for it. Pray tell, lead paint drinker, how it that not a violation of the 1st amendment?
Illegal? Its unconstitutional to detain someone for free speech that is otherwise protected. You are saying "i dont agree that someone was jailed over exercising free speech, but I also dont care". So the president doesn't need to care about the constitution and is free to violate it whenever?
He wasn’t detained for free speech. He was detained because the SoS revoked his legal immigration status based on Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and was legally detained. Facts are stubborn. Again I disagree with the action, but it was not illegal nor 1A infringement
So you are saying that even if he wasn't out there protesting, just keeping his head down and doing nothing, he was still gonna get detained? You are saying every intl student that has protested has now been detained?
Not at all. I’m saying no action taken by the executive branch was illegal or unconstitutional. Again I can disagree with the actions and still be correct on the legality of the actions.
So if the government decides they can invoke some antiquated laws to go after American citizens (which ICE is already doing) and they decide to target you, will you still be okay with it? Just say "well, it's not illegal!" As you are hauled off? Where do you draw the line on government overreach?
My point is you win arguments and persuade the electorate with facts and ideas. When you lie and set up straw men argument (like AOC does here) you lose integrity and frankly do not seem like a serious person.
What is the straw man here?
The entire first amendment argument. This is not a 1A matter. Argue against the authority of Sec Rubio to revoke his legal status for political purposes and she could persuade people on that cause. Not grandstand on an argument that is easily debunked which turns off anyone with an oz of intellect.
Not a 1A matter. I will ask again, if Khalil was not involved in the protests at all, would he have been detained? If it wasnt a targeted detention, has every intl student been detained now?
Depends on what other anti-Semitic engagement he was involved in.
Where did I say I was ok with it?
"I’m saying no action taken by the executive branch was illegal or unconstitutional. Again I can disagree with the actions and still be correct on the legality of the actions". "It's not right, but it doesn't seem to illegal to me, so whatever". If you dont feel like this is quiet acceptance...