He Told Muslims To ‘Celebrate’ Hamas’s Massacre—The U.S. Revoked His Visa And Arrested Him At SFO Airport

Comments

1. What was Gary’s stance on free speech during COVID days?

2. Ship his terrorist & mysognist ass back to his native shithole. Now!

3. Permanent ban

4. Gary, I can get this kind of news on CNN & MSNBC. We don’t need it here.

5. Good riddance and great job by ICE.

6. @James – I was full throated free speech during the pandemic, why do you think otherwise? Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I believe the state should block your expression.

7. The peaceful religion…
   We should have wiped gaza from the face of earth

8. Good riddance to bad rubbish, bravo President Trump

9. I have no problem with this.

10. “I continue to believe that exposing such people is better than using the power of the state to silence them.”

    Well said, Gary. This is the way. Calls to ‘ban’ people you disagree with are silly, and ultimately fail. The US Constitution applies to all people, including visitors, not just citizens, and the 1st Amendment is one of the best parts, lest we forget.

11. Good job by ICE. Now do something with the terrorist support network in America (CAIR).

12. Wish we could at least celebrate return of the hostages, a hope for regional peace and actual recovery. Instead, naw, wishing more ill on others. Folks, that ain’t healthy.

    @Michael Madden, @Kirk, @Dave Flaat, @Thing 1 — What you are suggesting is un-American.

    @Doug — You meant ‘Hamas,’ not innocent civilians. C’mon. Don’t literally admit to war crimes.

13. @H2oman — Naw, it’s overreach. Think if it were the other ‘team’ doing this to a foreign ‘conservative’ Christian activist. I suspect you’d’ve already attempted another J6 coup….

14. Freedom of speech is about freedom of unpopular speech. Let the slime speak.

15. This isn’t the suppression of speech IMO. And if it is, at least it is out in the open for all who don’t like it to disagree unlike the last administration strong arming their lapdogs at google, YouTube, Twitter, facebook.

16. Thank you, @Loren. Well said!

17. Fascism alive and well in the good ‘ole U S of A.

18. If someone openly supports the war crimes committed by Hamas or the war crimes committed by the IDF, we should let them speak and challenge them. My neighbor actively supported the genocide against Palestinian civilians (and still does), I remind myself every day that it is his right to do so, whether I like it or not.

19. @1990: You don’t think there is a limit to free speech? A. You are wrong (as far as I know) that it applies to visitors. Especially when their visa can be revoked for any reason and then they can’t be here. Period.

    Any speech that is not directly a call to active terrorism should not be suppressed.

20. Apparently, British nationals are under the assumption that the US constitution affords them the same protections as actual US citizens.

    He can go back to the 3rd world shithole muslim country he came from… the UK. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

21. @Aaron Gold — It’s a really difficult topic, because there is very much a ‘paradox of tolerance’ (if we as a society extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant are often eliminated by the intolerant.) So, the goal is to be intolerant of the intolerant initially through rational argument (non-violence), but if the intolerant resort to violence, then it is reasonable to ‘suppress’ the intolerant.

    So, if your neighbor merely vocally supports ‘genocide against Palestinian civilians’ that’s one thing (and that position is abhorrent, just as the murder of 1,195 people in the October 7th attack was also abhorrent); but, if your neighbor started acting upon his or her hatred, say, by engaging in violence against you or others, then that must be stopped, obviously.

22. This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff more than half of the country voted for. Bring on more of it, faster, please.

    The 30% increase in our retirement accounts is a welcome bonus.

23. @Common Sense — Woah, I never said that. First Amendment absolutely has limits to speech. None of these rights (including the Second Amendment) are unlimited. Less strawman, please.

    Celebrating others’ deaths is abhorrent, but (perhaps surprisingly) not a violation of the First Amendment, at least as far as current jurisprudence would suggest. This court can change their mind, of course, so we’ll see (maybe they’ll decide, ‘any we deem a terrorist has no rights, including due process to challenge being ‘coined’ a terrorist.’ Yikes.)

    Recall the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), leading to the deaths of others via the resulting stampede, is not ‘protected’ speech.

24. @Kevin — Many portions of our Constitution, including the First Amendment, apply to all people in our country, including visitors, not just citizens. Apparently, a lot of y’all skipped civics class.

25. Celebrating death and destruction is just so sick!! Sounds like national security issue to me!

26. I’m with you Gary. I’m not a fan, obviously, just the opposite. We had a chance to stand out compared to others. Candace Owens (also not a fan) was denied an Australian visa because, sadly, their highest court feels free speech isn’t an individual’s right.

27. @HEIDI ESTABROOK — He’s not a legitimate security threat, yet. He’s clearly a provocateur, testing whether this administration will overreach, and they clearly are taking the bait, willing to violate the Constitution to censor him. *sigh*

28. @This comes to mind — Thank you for bring up that example (Owens). Important to distinguish that Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech. So, apples to oranges. And, having recently visited Oz, I must say, they are indeed strict about who they let in, and you better not accidentally bring in fruit, or that’ll be a $1,000 AUD fine. Their country, their rules. I suppose only Outback Steakhouse has ‘no rules.’ (Just right.)

29. I must have missed the freedom to travel in the constitution. He could have found a different way to make the speech. A good job by the government. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It doesn’t protect false statements that cause a “clear and present danger” of public harm.

30. The law may well support the actions taken here. And I may actually agree with the idea of not allowing people in that are publicly at odds with American values. But we can’t be picking and choosing based on the whims of the administration in power. If we’re going to block people, we need to be consistent and measured. Outspokenly anti-Semitic? Visa revoked. Outspokenly anti-democratic? Visa revoked. Internationally censured war criminal? Visa revoked.

31. @jns — Interstate travel (between states) is actually protected, but international travel is not (it’s a privilege, even for citizens.) If the government let him in, which they did, then his freedom of speech, within the scope of the US Constitution, is still protected. The government is simply overreaching here, as this administration has done repeatedly since it came into office. If it were the other team doing this, you’d lose it.

32. @Mallthus — We already do not allow people in that are publicly at odds with American values. And, they already let this guy in, so, it seems someone messed up with that vetting process; so, now that he’s in, the US Constitution applies, and under the current law and jurisprudence, this administration likely violated his First Amendment rights. If we want to change our laws, then we need to actually do that (see School House Rock for how to do so). I agree that we should be consistent. Equal protection under law.

33. We abhor the calls to violence by this man yet have no issue with extrajudicial killings, mass shootings, politicians calling for their critics to face the firing squad, or our “allies” threatening to exterminate entire populations of people. Good to know we’re not hypocritical in our approach to things that represent a threat to the security of the country.

34. @1990: I would argue that his actions and speech count as material support for terrorism. It’s possible that what you’re reading about him is not the full picture.

    I would also say that a visa granted under mistaken terms can be revoked, even if it the US government is just so darned bad at vetting.

35. First, the decision to revoke Sami Hamdi’s visa and move toward deportation is entirely consistent with both U.S. law and common sense. A visa is not a constitutional right; it is a conditional privilege extended to foreign nationals who pose no threat to the safety or security of the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government has broad discretion to deny or revoke entry if a person’s words or actions align with or promote terrorist activity. When Hamdi publicly urged Muslims to “celebrate” the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians, he crossed from political commentary into advocacy of violence by a designated terrorist group. The First Amendment protects speech from government punishment, but it does not obligate the United States to host foreign nationals who cheerlead for mass murder. This was not censorship. It was a lawful act of sovereignty and a rational measure to protect American citizens.

    Second, tolerance does not mean national suicide. The American ideal of free expression has limits when it comes to foreign nationals whose speech celebrates murder and terrorism. A nation that refuses to distinguish between dissent and the glorification of violence will not survive long as a free society. When a noncitizen cheers on the slaughter of innocents and calls it a victory, he is not participating in democratic discourse; he is rejecting the moral foundations that make discourse possible. The government therefore has not only the authority but the moral duty to show him the door. The right to exclude those who reject the nation’s basic moral compact is a core aspect of sovereignty. A country that cannot control who enters its borders or remains within them ceases to be a nation at all. The United States can, and must, be both free and self-preserving. Protecting liberty requires defending it from those who openly sympathize with its enemies and would exploit our freedoms to destroy them. Period.

36. “However, I am not aware of anything public that ties him directly to support for terrorism.”

    I’m sorry, what? This is the quote from the Twitter post you pasted in this very article: “Don’t Pity the Palestinians – Celebrate the Victory; How Many of You Felt the Euphoria When You Got the News of October 7?”

    How can it tie him more directly to support for terrorism?

37. This has nothing to do with free speech. He is not being silenced, he is being removed. Nobody has a right to a visa. How many other countries would tolerate this?

38. So, apparently for State, his Visa turned into a Discover?

    Jokes aside, my $0.02 is that this article really doesn’t fit here. I get that immigration policy is generally related to travel, but it’s really not why most of us come here. As someone else said, we can get stories like this (versus general policy decisions and so on) from elsewhere.

39. USA!! USA!! USA!!

    Send this a-hole to Gaza. Let him help rebuild. Never celebrate death of civilians. That’s horrible. Thank god for ICE and DJT.

40. @Parker — Yup, sure are a lot of horse-blinders on tight in this thread. Little of what we say will get through, but it is fun and worthy to still try.

    @Andy Shuman — Again, it is indeed disgusting, but celebrating others suffering is not a crime. We should encourage our fellow humans to not be so cruel.

    @Common Sense, @Mike Hunt — If he lied on his visa application, that could be grounds for revocation, but he and anyone else in that position should also be afforded due process to challenge those allegations (lest our government lob false accusations at any of us to summarily silence or remove us.)

    @Gray — But, but… the almighty algorithm demands our verbal combat!

41. Deport the hateful clown to North Korea.

42. 1990: Due process doesn’t have to mean held up in courts for years. The government is 100% justified in arresting him and deporting him.

    Obviously, their vetting sucks in the first place. Otherwise we could have avoided a lot of issues over the last 30 years.

43. @1990 – That argument confuses two very different things: due process and visa discretion. U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to due process before they lose liberty or property. Foreign nationals seeking or holding visas do not have a constitutional right to remain in the country. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that the government may revoke a visa at any time, for any legitimate reason tied to national interest, without triggering the same procedural protections afforded to citizens. The process is the policy itself: the law already grants the executive branch broad authority to determine who may enter and who must leave.

    Even then, Hamdi was not dragged into a black site or silenced for his opinions; he was simply told that his permission to be here is no longer valid. That is not tyranny, it is the exercise of sovereignty. No one has a right to a U.S. visa, especially while celebrating terrorist atrocities against civilians. If the standard for revocation required a full trial every time someone on a visa expressed allegiance to a terrorist group, immigration enforcement would grind to a halt. The Constitution protects Americans from their government; it does not compel the government to import its enemies.

44. Good. He can go be a jackass in his own homeland, Londonistan.

45. Interesting piece — while the U.S. has legal grounds to revoke visas, it raises tough questions about free speech and consistency in policy. Silencing voices, even offensive ones, can sometimes do more harm than good.
    click here

46. @Common Sense — Uh, ‘held up in courts for years’ is not an excuse to deny due process or violate the Constitution. We should be properly fund our immigration courts so that they can efficiently try such cases. Hire, train, and employ more judges and court staff, until there is less of a need. Likewise, as to your comment that our current vetting system allegedly ‘sucks’… well, that’s not a thorough or formal evaluation, but I do hear you and somewhat agree. Let’s do the same with that; actually invest in better systems and the necessary people to support those systems. Let’s put our own people to work, serving the country, preventing harms. Unless, solving these issues is not actually the intent; rather, this administration just wants boogeymen… hmm.

    @Mike Hunt — No one is demanding we import our enemies. That’s not a serious conclusion, and it was kinda surprising to read from you. I respect your opinions on this, because you appear to have some legal training or experience, even if I sometimes disagree with your ‘take’ on a topic.

    That said, please, the rights in question here are not the right to remain indefinitely; you should know that visas are time-limited anyway. As to the ‘national interest’ argument; that would need to be adjudicated (determined by a court); otherwise, the government can claim that argument against anyone in the country for any reason and never has to explain (that’s not constitutional, and that approaches tyranny, without the ability to redress grievances, recall the Declaration of Independence, like, why we wanted out from Great Britain).

    Timing and location matter. Visa determination is before entry; due process applies after entry (to all persons within the country, visitors and visa holders, included). So, he was indeed granted a visa (whether that was a good idea or not, well, let’s agree that this administration probably won’t ‘grant’ him one again.) Now, since he’s already here, then the protections of the US Constitution apply; hence, he’s supposed to have due process (the ability to for him, and his counsel, if he wants one, but unlike criminal cases, they are not entitled to an attorney for immigration matters, to challenge whatever allegations the government has against him.)

    Referring to so-called ‘black sites’ is hyperbole, a red herring, and truly relevant here; yet, the US does have a disappointing and unresolved recent (and potential current) use of those bad practices (under administrations from both parties, sadly, and often using the excuse of ‘terror’ yet that’s rarely proven.) Lest we bring up our extrajudicial killings using drones (again, under both parties), which apparently continues with the murder of the fishermen in the Caribbean (again, how do we know for sure they had ‘drugs’… typically, we’d have to investigate, prove it, etc.)

    @jake — That’s silly; London is doing just fine these days.

47. @1990 – You’re absolutely right that due process applies to “persons” within the United States, but it’s critical to understand what kind of due process we’re talking about. Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, and the rights involved are procedural, not substantive. A visa holder who is physically present in the country has the right to a hearing to determine removability, but that doesn’t mean the underlying visa revocation must be adjudicated by a court before it takes effect. Courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s power to revoke or cancel visas based on national-security determinations without full judicial review. That’s because immigration law recognizes sovereignty as a core national interest. The executive branch has authority to make fast, discretionary judgments in cases involving security threats or associations with terrorism.

    The broader point here is that “due process” cannot be weaponized into paralysis. If every revocation required a lengthy adversarial trial, the government could never act quickly to protect the public. The process already exists: notice, custody review, and the opportunity to contest removal before an immigration judge. Hamdi will have that. What he does not have is the right to remain here indefinitely while litigating whether his open praise for terrorism was sufficiently nuanced. That’s not how immigration works, nor should it be. The Constitution restrains government power over citizens; it does not require the government to surrender its sovereignty to noncitizens who openly endorse acts of mass murder.

48. @Mike Hunt — No one reasonably wants to ‘surrender our sovereignty to noncitizen murders.’

    Back to reality. What you said here: “physically present in the country has the right to a hearing to determine removability” is exactly what I am referring to regarding due process within this context.

    Those who want to merely ’round him up’ and ‘put him on a C130 to El Salvador by gun-point’ are missing that important caveat.

    Technicalities as to whether it’s ‘full’ review or a mere ‘hearing’ are not worth analyzing, because it’s about whether there is the opportunity, in whichever form, or not.

    The “fast, discretionary judgments in cases involving security threats or associations with terrorism.” Yes, ‘judgments’ as in, by courts, like, due process. Not the ‘unitary executive’ operating as a dictatorship.

    I get it. This is nuance beyond what most above care to even consider. And for most folks, they just wanna claim ‘bad dude gone.’ Well, let’s make sure he is in-fact a ‘bad’ dude, then, and not just a mere ‘a-hole.’

49. @1990 – That’s a fair clarification, and I don’t think anyone serious is arguing for tossing people out of airplanes without a hearing. The distinction, however, remains crucial. A “hearing” in this context is an administrative proceeding before an immigration judge, not a constitutional trial. The standard is civil and discretionary, because the government’s interest in controlling its borders is treated differently from its power to punish citizens. The executive’s role here isn’t dictatorial; it’s inherent to the very structure of immigration law. Congress explicitly delegated that authority. The judicial branch can review whether the process itself exists and is followed, but it cannot substitute its judgment for the executive’s on national-security risk assessments. That isn’t tyranny, it’s how separation of powers actually functions.

    You’re right that we shouldn’t confuse “bad guy” with “annoying guy.” But that’s clearly not what’s happening here. This isn’t someone being deported for rudeness on Twitter; it’s someone who publicly celebrated a terrorist massacre and encouraged others to join him. The United States does not have to wait until violence occurs on our soil to decide that such a person’s presence is no longer welcome. That’s the essence of a rational immigration system. It’s compassion for legitimate visitors and firmness toward those who glorify mass murder. I would submit that ensuring that distinction isn’t authoritarian; it’s merely responsible governance.

50. Saudi Arabia the UAE and several outh gulf countries have declared the Muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization and banned it. The West should do the same. CAIR should also be banned and it’s leaders arrested for material support of terrorism. Just follow the money. Qatar should also be delt with and viewed suspiciously.

51. @Mike Hunt — Thank goodness. We certainly do not want ‘death flights’ either (Both Pinochet’s regime and Argentina’s military junta used aircraft, including helicopters, to murder political dissidents during the dictatorships of the 1970s and 80s). Obviously, that would be at the very least an 8th Amendment violation, cruel and unusual punishment.

    Those ‘hearings’ are indeed the *form* of due process that is protected by the US Constitution. I am less concerned about ‘getting into the weeds’ on the specific procedures and standards within those hearings, which may be less stringent than other cases (like a criminal case). Some may feel it’s not enough due process; others prefer no due process (bad idea). Maybe we should reform this. It’d probably take Congress to do so. Overdue, IMHO.

    As to the ‘just cause’ for his revocation of the visa and deportation on the basis of allegedly “publicly celebrat(ing) a terrorist massacre and encourag(ing) others to join him (in celebrating)”… yeah, that sounds more ‘annoying’ but reasonable minds can differ… which is why a hearing (due process) matters.

    One more time: Celebrating the suffering of others is objectively abhorrent, yet, still protected speech. As you probably already know, the exceptions to the First Amendment protections, generally, are for violence-inciting speech and “true threats.” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is the standard (protected unless it ‘incites imminent lawless action.’) That case was awful (involved the clan), but their speech was protected, and Ohio’s law was deemed overly broad.

    So, in this case, if we’re arguing over free speech, the court would need to determine, whether there was serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a specific person or group, evaluated based on the speaker’s intent and whether the statement would be reasonably understood as a genuine threat. Did this guy actually seek to rile folks up to kill others imminently, or was he merely an a-hole celebrating an atrocity. Let the court decide.

52. @1990 – That’s a well-reasoned reply, and I appreciate the historical context. You’re correct that the Eighth Amendment, Brandenburg, and the “true threat” standard govern what the government can punish citizens for saying. But that line of First Amendment jurisprudence does not fully extend to foreign nationals seeking to remain in the country on a visa. The government is not “punishing” Hamdi for speech; it is withdrawing permission to stay. That’s a regulatory act, not a criminal sanction, and it falls squarely within the plenary power doctrine that gives the political branches near-total discretion over immigration and admission. Courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not require the United States to import or host foreign nationals whose speech conflicts with national security or foreign policy objectives.

    Brandenburg deals with punishment after speech. Visa revocation deals with whether a foreigner gets to continue enjoying the privilege of being here at all. The constitutional baseline changes the moment you move from citizen rights to sovereign discretion. If Hamdi were an American citizen, I’d agree that his vile comments would still fall under protected speech. But he’s not. He’s a foreign national who publicly aligned himself with a terrorist organization responsible for murdering civilians. The United States has every legal and moral right to decide that someone like that doesn’t get to stay. That’s not censorship or cruelty, it’s the rational exercise of national self-preservation.

53. @Jojo — The difference is that one is a legitimate civil rights organization (Council on American–Islamic Relations) whom many of us may disagree strongly with; and the other is an extremist organization (Muslim Brotherhood, yes, already outlawed in other Arab countries). However, to purposely conflate or equate the two is objectively false and a bit too Islamophobic, even for me.

    Relatedly, maybe you’d appreciate that in July, US Representatives Díaz-Balart (R) and Moskowitz (D) reintroduced a bi-partisan Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025; Cruz (R) introduced it in the Senate; because for some reason that organization was not yet ‘officially’ listed as a terror org. Obviously, would need the shutdown to end for them to proceed.

54. @Mike Hunt — You’re backtracking a bit.

    Recall that a non-citizen who has already entered the country, especially one who is lawfully present (which he was, because they originally granted his visa), gains a greater degree of constitutional protection. As I’ve repeated, due process is guaranteed (the hearing, aka, formal removal proceeding before an immigration judge).

    In that hearing, the First Amendment does apply, but it’s not absolute (or as strong a protection as for a citizen in a criminal case, we agree). The government has actual ‘plenary authority’ (recall Miller got that mixed up with CNN recently on a different topic) over immigration, which allows it to use speech-related grounds for deportation.

    For example, a non-citizen who publicly aligned himself with a terror organization responsible for murdering civilians, is likely deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); yet, still, the government would need to ‘prove’ that. As I described to @Jojo, the Council on American–Islamic Relations is not designated a terror org.

    Still, INA has broad grounds for deportability related to “Material Support,” which can include certain forms of association, endorsement, or even non-violent support for a designated terrorist group. These standards are much broader than the high threshold of “incitement to imminent lawless action” set by Brandenburg v. Ohio for citizens.

    So, it is foreseeable that the government could prove its case to an immigration judge, but it has to ‘do the work,’ follow ‘due process,’ and cannot just deport people on a whim.

55. Religion of peace, my ass.

    This isn’t censorship. He’s more than capable of saying whatever the heck he wants to say. We just don’t have to suffer his presence in our country. He can spew his hate elsewhere.

56. @1990 – Not backtracking at all, just clarifying what the law actually says. You’re right that lawful presence triggers certain procedural protections, but let’s not pretend that due process in this context means the same thing it does for citizens. Immigration due process is minimal and purely procedural. The hearing exists to confirm that statutory grounds for removal are satisfied, not to give a foreign national the same constitutional standing as a citizen. I’ll say it again: executive branch retains plenary power over admission and removal, and courts defer heavily to those decisions, especially when national security is invoked.

    You’re also correct that the INA requires proof, but “proof” here is not criminal conviction level. It’s administrative evidence (emails, statements, public posts, etc.) showing support for a designated terror group or its activities. The government doesn’t have to prove incitement or intent to kill; it just has to show that the person’s conduct falls within the broad statutory definition of material support or endorsement. That’s the whole point. We don’t have to wait until someone acts on extremist rhetoric to protect the homeland. The First Amendment protects citizens from their government; it doesn’t compel the government to keep foreign nationals who celebrate terrorism inside our borders. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and national security isn’t a debate club exercise.

57. @Mike Hunt — “Immigration due process is minimal and purely procedural.“ Even so, we should still have the hearings, because it prevents truly egregious overreach by any government, and also keeps things more orderly. Lest we resort to raging mobs chanting ‘burn the witch!’

    One more time: Celebrating such horrors are simply not the same as ‘doing’ the horror, and is probably not ‘material support,’ either, by most reasonable standards and norms.

    But, none of that matters much, because if this administration gets to decide, then, we already know what they’ll choose: Favor their ‘friends,’ and punish their ‘perceived enemies.’ Clearly, anyone against Netanyahu’s Israel is a ‘perceived enemy’ as far as the administration is concerned. So, that will likely be that.

    The question we should consider is what precedent does this set, and will future administrations, say, from a different party or ideology, do with those powers. I’d urge restraint and calm instead of overreach, but, rarely are those that do listened to. All gas, no breaks.

58. @1990 – You can’t have it both ways. You say you want hearings to prevent mob justice, but then you dismiss the legal framework those hearings operate under as “minimal” and “procedural.” That’s not hypocrisy by accident, it’s the heart of the problem. You claim to want due process, but the minute it produces an outcome you dislike, suddenly it’s “overreach.” That’s not rule of law, that’s rule of feelings.

    And let’s be honest, this isn’t about Netanyahu or “friends and enemies.” It’s about whether the United States has the right to deny entry to someone who praises mass murder. That’s not partisan, that’s basic moral sanity. The precedent you’re worried about already exists. It’s called national sovereignty. Every administration, red or blue, has used it. The real danger isn’t enforcing immigration law; it’s pretending moral relativism equals fairness. Celebrating terrorism isn’t “speech we dislike,” it’s allegiance to evil. If that’s too harsh a standard, the problem isn’t the law. It’s our collective moral compass.

59. @Mike Hunt — You are the one trying to ‘have it both ways.’ (Deport without due process, then claim we are a nation of laws, not a dictatorship.)

    Recall, I quoted you on your description of ‘minimal’ and ‘procedural’ (see above), then emphasized how it’s still necessary to have a hearing, which should prevent against blatant abuses of power (as in, the government at least has to state its case, even if in many cases these immigration courts defer to the government.)

    So, you cannot pretend to have due process, but then waive it off because it’s not as robust as citizens in a criminal defense case; these hearings are real, it is part of rule of law, and it all still should matter.

    You repeat the whole “It’s about whether the United States has the right to deny entry to someone who praises mass murder” trope. That. Is. Not. This. Case. (And we already deny plenty of people entry.)

    This case is about whether someone already let into the USA by approving their visa can subsequently be removed on the ‘propped up’ basis of ‘national security,’ when the administration isn’t actually proving that threat, and are merely violating peoples’ First Amendment protections (which do apply once someone is in the country.)

    Yet, ultimately, as I’ve already said before, the government may still prevail in deporting this individual, regardless; however, we really should be cautious of even the appearance of the ‘favor friends, punish perceived enemies’ thing, as it threatens the legitimacy of the entire system.

60. A different matter (an actual criminal case), but somewhat related, and a great film nevertheless: In ‘Bridge of Spies’ Tom Hanks plays a lawyer representing a non-citizen accused of espionage…

    Based on a real story; the lawyer, James B. Donovan was appointed to defend the spy, taking the case seriously to uphold the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial, even an enemy agent (there was an underlying 4th Amendment violation.)

    See, that’s ‘rule of law’ and that’s also standing for principles, not merely throwing out the integrity of our system because we happen to ‘hate’ the individual, or fear what they say, or preemptively deem them ‘the enemy’.

    (Donovan asks the spy, ‘Aren’t you worried?’ He replies, ‘Would it help?’ Always liked that exchange.)

61. @1990 – Good reference to Bridge of Spies, but it actually proves my point, not yours. The entire reason James Donovan’s defense of a Soviet spy was noble is because the accused was in criminal custody, not under immigration review. He was tried in a federal court under the Constitution because he was being prosecuted by the government, not merely removed from the country. That distinction matters. Immigration hearings aren’t criminal prosecutions, and pretending they should function the same way is legally incoherent. The Constitution requires process proportional to the right being taken away. A foreign national’s visa is not the same as a citizen’s liberty interest, which is why the process is limited but still lawful.

    And no, I’m not arguing to “waive off” due process. I’m arguing to recognize what it actually is under immigration law: notice, hearing, opportunity to respond, and judicial review within narrow limits. That is due process in this context. You keep framing the government’s discretion as “propped up” or “political favoritism,” but that’s emotional conjecture, not legal analysis. The law doesn’t hinge on whether an administration’s motives are pure; it hinges on whether it acts within the scope of its authority. Here, it clearly did. The government has the right to revoke a visa when the holder glorifies terrorism. That’s not “fear” or “hate,” it’s basic prudence. Principles don’t mean pretending all speech is equal. Some speech aligns with evil, and a sane nation has no obligation to host its advocates.

    You’re defending abstractions, I’m defending a country that actually gets to stay intact. Agree to disagree on whether that’s optional.

62. @Mike Hunt — Oof. So wrong.

    You are always welcome to insult me (I do tend to ‘feed’ off that stuff), but I will draw the line at insulting Mr. Donovan’s memory, whose defense was honorable because it afforded an *very unpopular* accused his counsel.

    (Recall, height of the Cold War, lotta distrust between US and USSR, for a reputable attorney to even associate with that case… not a ‘normal’ criminal or civil matter.)

    So, while counsel is not ‘guaranteed’ in immigration court (as it is in criminal), it is still allowed, and usually prudent to have said counsel, as those without it, rarely prevail.

    I’m defending what makes the country a unique bastion of freedom, liberty, and hope for the people of the world; the rule of law, where everyone has equal protection before the law within our own country, including visitors, which includes due process and freedom of speech, within reasonable limitations.

    I also remain in-favor of immigration reform, so that those visa processes have better vetting, that these courts are better staffed and supported, and that ultimately we have a safer, fairer country. I think you want the same.

63. @1990 – I never insulted you, in this exchange at least. At any rate, you’re defending ideals; I’m defending the mechanisms that keep those ideals alive. We probably do want the same thing at the end of the day, it’s just that one of us recognizes that freedom without order is just chaos with better branding. And if quoting Bridge of Spies is your closing argument, I’ll take the Constitution over Hollywood any day. Perhaps that sounds harsh, but reality doesn’t come with a trigger warning. Have a great night.

64. Late to the party. The US and other countries have exercised this kind of discretion for decades. Very disappointed in CAIR ( they likely don’t care what I think since I am not a donor), which I considered an organiation that does some good civil rights work.

65. @Mike Hunt — I continue to defend due process, in whatever form is applicable (a mere hearing, a full trial, etc.), for all people within the country, which is enshrined in the US Constitution; that is the mechanism for keeping our ideals alive.

    A few above are re-attempting the ‘open borders’ straw-man; and, I agree, reforms are needed, but that was not this case (he entered legally, had a visa, and there is a process for revocation; let’s allow the process to play out, not rush to summarily deport anyone that some strongly ‘disagree’ with).

    @Jacktheladd — Civil rights organizations often do great and necessary work, yet they are run by humans, so they are fallible. However, as you can see above, some are quick to ‘throw out the baby with the bath water.’

66. @Jacktheladd — This is indeed a difficult subject; I do respect your opinion on the topic (and was hoping you would chime in). It seems you agree (like many of us here) that this individual (Hamdi) is not a ‘good’ representation of the Palestinians, specifically, or Muslims, generally, as he has verbally and publicly ‘celebrated’ violence, murder, etc. Likewise, there are extremists on the other side that celebrate the deaths of innocent civilians in Gaza; that’s not a good representation of Israel or of Jewish people around the world. There are reformers, moderates, hardliners, and extremists among us in each group; it’s those who resort to violence that concern me most.

    If this or any administration had vetted properly, Hamdi likely would have been denied the visitor visa to begin with; just as a vocal proponents of apartheid in South Africa had their travel restricted in the past (see the 1986 Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act). Yet, as I tried to remind @Mike Hunt above, it seems like we’re just picking favorites these days (recently, the administration suspended refugee programs for everyone except, ironically, white South Africans; many consider their ‘persecution’ to be a false-narrative, but, I’m sure someone can will chime in to perpetuate the fear-mongering there.)

    Alas, as administrations and alliances shift, it begins to feel like the novel ‘1984,’ where we vacillate between war with Eurasia then Oceania, etc. How soon will it be until our ‘trade war’ with the Chinese escalates to the point that we start barring them from entering, and punishing anyone who speaks Chinese (see Internment of Japanese Americans, 1942-1946). Not saying any of this is at that level, but, I think we should remember our history, learn from it, and not repeat the worst.

67. Yes this article IS a bit off topic but I appreciate Gary posting it.

    I get my news from the Trump-hating Drudge Report and it linked to a NYT article. Article referred to Hami as an “Israel critic” and included a CAIR quote about how USG targeted Hamdi because “he dared to criticize Israeli government genocide.” No mention that this man (I am being polite calling him that) told Muslims to cheer on the terrorist slaughter of civilians.

    And @MikeHunt, love your analysis.

68. @Disgruntled American — “I get my news from…Drudge Report.” That’s all you needed to say.

69. Gary, that’s not what this is about. He was smeared by rightwinger pro-Israeli groups and Trump used their accusation as justification. It’s not true and he’s clarified his remarks. Shame on you for validating this disgusting deportation policy and look at all the hate speech you unleashed in the comments.

70. @Sulayman Rumi – He said these things, the receipts are in the post, and I clearly disagree with the Trump administration’s decision. This guy has no moral compass, but shouldn’t be deported for it.