Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.
I understand your comments just fine. Rather it seems that you have a comprehension problem. Your link may state that the Supreme Court has declared that non-citizens [etc]. Pointing out that you're holding up this declaration as if it's some unassailable logical conclusion rather than an arguable policy decree is the crux of my comment.
Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.
I don't know why you keep jumping to characterize disagreement as misunderstanding. Your apparent belief that the courts somehow represent infallible logic rather than merely a different type of policymaking is exactly why I'm making my point. Like, it's a big deal when a new justice gets appointed, right? They're not just interchangeable cogs.
Pragmatically, yes, Khalil will likely be deported due to having exercised his freedom of speech. This, along with many other current affairs, should be abhorrent to anybody who actually believes in the ideals of individual liberty - regardless of the justifications crafted by the judicial, executive, and fourth estate. And I really don't know what you gain by cheerleading authoritarianism, besides some feeling of smugness of being on the winning team.
