This was a wonderful interlude and I would enjoy a few more of these episodes on occasion. My father was a neighborhood barber and this reminded me of all the guys sitting in the shop sharing the newspaper, which evolved into the television, and sharing their insights into the news of the day. Lively conversation which rarely erupted into anything more. I suppose that was largely due to most of the guys looking at their watches and commenting about their wives' collective responses if they didn't get home. But I remember it as healthy dialog. Good stuff from a different time. Thank you, Professor Loury.
The question is not whether M.Khalil had a right to speak/organize a protest, it's whether he broke the rules of the school &/or laws of the country, i.e. giving/receiving tangible or financial support from a declared terrorist organization., inciting violence against persons or property. Whether they deport him or others, at least they should lose any financial assistance relating to their places at Columbia or any school & be responsible for fines as organizers for not policing their own along with schools losing funding.
Isn't the question, first and foremost, whether he commited any offense for which loss of his green card is a legal and appropriate response? The Trump Admin has brought this case forward in a manner that says it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do, the Admin gets to kick it out merely because it deems him a threat and no coaurt can second guess that.
I guess it's sort of the same & I agree. If he or anyone else has done as I noted it should be for the courts to decide if revoking a "green card" is appropriate or not along with any other consequences. As I'm not an immigration aficionado,I would ask what the terms of the "green card" are. If it was awarded for educational purposes, did he break the "green card" contract? If he or anyone with a "green card/HBV 1 visa" have it revoked for breaking the law? Do you trust the judges as they seem to be either liberal or conservative these days? Maybe a 3 person panel or multi-person jury should decide, definitely not the Executive branch of government.
Green card means PERMANENT residency. It can be revoked, but typically there is some due process. Under the current authorities being asserted by the government, literally any green card holder could have their green card revoked, be taken into custody, and sent to a hard labor camp in El Salvadord without being allowed an opportunity to defend themselves against whatever allegations were made against them.
Are green cards only given to those who come here legally & pending citizenship? I agree there should be some due process. As noted above I think the process needs to be as nonpartisan as possible.
Glenn, I’m a long time follower of you and John McWhorter. I want to make a comment about your recent post in which you “read the current news” and gave us your reactions. I tended to agree with most of what you said.
My comments are about the PERFORMANCE. You sounded flat to me. At times you seemed to whisper. At times you almost put me to sleep. When you and John talk you seem to be the more energetic of the two. You laugh frequently. You are forceful, while still respectful.
I realize that this was a new format for you. You might try to listen to the show to see if you agree on my critique.
I don’t know if/how the USA needs to consider/protect resident aliens’ “free speech rights”. It’s open to interpretation by us as a country (as everything) i suppose.
My husband is a “resident alien” & married to me-a born citizen. He has been in the US since 1983. We married in 1991. He chose a “resident” status in case he needed to return to his country at any given time while his parents (now only his mother) need him.
My husband feels he need keep his head low & will not vote “illegally” (even given ample opportunity by our state) unless & until he becomes a US citizen. He will not even consider undergoing any activism no matter how “right” unless he were fully invested as a citizen. In short, he understands the “give & take” in any choice & honors that. I love him for that. So much!!!
Why do you say that your permanent resident husband has been "given ample opportunity" to vote by your state? Except in some local elections (eg, for mayor, city council, district attorney, that sort of thing) is is illegal for noncitizens to vote. Your husband has never tried to register to vote in state and federal elections, and if he did he would have been rejected as a noncitizen.
This was a wonderful interlude and I would enjoy a few more of these episodes on occasion. My father was a neighborhood barber and this reminded me of all the guys sitting in the shop sharing the newspaper, which evolved into the television, and sharing their insights into the news of the day. Lively conversation which rarely erupted into anything more. I suppose that was largely due to most of the guys looking at their watches and commenting about their wives' collective responses if they didn't get home. But I remember it as healthy dialog. Good stuff from a different time. Thank you, Professor Loury.
The question is not whether M.Khalil had a right to speak/organize a protest, it's whether he broke the rules of the school &/or laws of the country, i.e. giving/receiving tangible or financial support from a declared terrorist organization., inciting violence against persons or property. Whether they deport him or others, at least they should lose any financial assistance relating to their places at Columbia or any school & be responsible for fines as organizers for not policing their own along with schools losing funding.
Isn't the question, first and foremost, whether he commited any offense for which loss of his green card is a legal and appropriate response? The Trump Admin has brought this case forward in a manner that says it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do, the Admin gets to kick it out merely because it deems him a threat and no coaurt can second guess that.
I guess it's sort of the same & I agree. If he or anyone else has done as I noted it should be for the courts to decide if revoking a "green card" is appropriate or not along with any other consequences. As I'm not an immigration aficionado,I would ask what the terms of the "green card" are. If it was awarded for educational purposes, did he break the "green card" contract? If he or anyone with a "green card/HBV 1 visa" have it revoked for breaking the law? Do you trust the judges as they seem to be either liberal or conservative these days? Maybe a 3 person panel or multi-person jury should decide, definitely not the Executive branch of government.
Green card means PERMANENT residency. It can be revoked, but typically there is some due process. Under the current authorities being asserted by the government, literally any green card holder could have their green card revoked, be taken into custody, and sent to a hard labor camp in El Salvadord without being allowed an opportunity to defend themselves against whatever allegations were made against them.
Are green cards only given to those who come here legally & pending citizenship? I agree there should be some due process. As noted above I think the process needs to be as nonpartisan as possible.
Glenn, I’m a long time follower of you and John McWhorter. I want to make a comment about your recent post in which you “read the current news” and gave us your reactions. I tended to agree with most of what you said.
My comments are about the PERFORMANCE. You sounded flat to me. At times you seemed to whisper. At times you almost put me to sleep. When you and John talk you seem to be the more energetic of the two. You laugh frequently. You are forceful, while still respectful.
I realize that this was a new format for you. You might try to listen to the show to see if you agree on my critique.
Frank DiBona
I did listen, and you're right! I'll do better next time. Thanks for the feedback.
I very much like the concept, but I kept thinking you needed a news article/op-ed that you strongly disagreed or agreed with.
I don’t know if/how the USA needs to consider/protect resident aliens’ “free speech rights”. It’s open to interpretation by us as a country (as everything) i suppose.
My husband is a “resident alien” & married to me-a born citizen. He has been in the US since 1983. We married in 1991. He chose a “resident” status in case he needed to return to his country at any given time while his parents (now only his mother) need him.
My husband feels he need keep his head low & will not vote “illegally” (even given ample opportunity by our state) unless & until he becomes a US citizen. He will not even consider undergoing any activism no matter how “right” unless he were fully invested as a citizen. In short, he understands the “give & take” in any choice & honors that. I love him for that. So much!!!
Why do you say that your permanent resident husband has been "given ample opportunity" to vote by your state? Except in some local elections (eg, for mayor, city council, district attorney, that sort of thing) is is illegal for noncitizens to vote. Your husband has never tried to register to vote in state and federal elections, and if he did he would have been rejected as a noncitizen.