This person was sent back from the border, so it sounds like a technicality, as they probably didn't have the info at point of departure to not let him on the plane. He's also a foreigner and an activist, so I assume that's why the assumed visa was cancelled.
You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.
This will be my last comment as you've proven yourself incapable of loading words into your brain.
> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.
This should read:
> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US federal government wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because their provided justification for achieving what they want would violate the Constitution. Sounds like how Constitutions work.
I think the legal method of denying entry for the person was that his student visa was cancelled. If you don't have a visa, should you or anyone be still allowed entry if they want to "assemble"?
Revoking a visa due to politically speech is a violation of the first amendment. It's leverage executive authority explicitly to promote the administrations current preferred foreign policy. He committed no crime and made no threats to any government or person. Pure thought crime. His particular thought, that Israel is very badly mistreating Palestinians and that they should stop immediately, is one shared by many millions of Americans including myself.
If government is permitted to set any policy of any kind specifically to police the speech of any person of any status, then they can do it to everyone for everything. And it's the same for their denial of due process to other people they have deported.
And furthermore, Khalil had a green card and is married to a US citizen. Not a student visa.
You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.