ICE Detain Columbia Activist in Trump Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Protests (Update: White House Responds)
We may now be at the “found out” stage of Trump’s warnings about campus protests.
Federal immigration authorities have detained Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent Palestinian activist, and recent Columbia University graduate, in what appears to be an escalation of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism among visa and green card holders. Khalil, who played a central role in student protests demanding Columbia divest from Israel, was taken into custody over the weekend.
Mahmoud Khalil was at his university-owned apartment blocks from Columbia’s Manhattan campus when several Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered the building and took him into custody, his attorney, Amy Greer, told The Associated Press.
One of the agents told Greer by phone that they were executing a State Department order to revoke Khalil’s student visa. Informed by the attorney that Khalil, who graduated in December, was in the United States as a permanent resident with a green card, the agent said they were revoking that too, according to the lawyer.
Columbia University, already under scrutiny after the Trump administration pulled $400 million in grants for failing to protect Jewish students on campus, issued a carefully worded statement distancing itself from Khalil’s arrest.
“Consistent with our longstanding practice and the practice of cities and institutions throughout the country, law enforcement must have a judicial warrant to enter non-public university areas, including university buildings,” the statement read in part.
“Columbia is committed to complying with all legal obligations and supporting our student body and campus community.”
Khalil was a lead negotiator in last year’s tent encampment protests, where students called for Columbia to sever ties with Israeli-linked companies. Even after graduating in December, he remained active in the movement, joining a sit-in at Barnard College’s Milstein Library to protest the expulsion of pro-Palestinian students.
“As long as Columbia continues to invest and to benefit from Israeli apartheid, the students will continue to resist,” Mahmoud Khalil said.
“Not only protests and encampments, the limit is the sky.”
While free speech issues on college campuses are nothing new, this situation feels different. As a free speech absolutist, I have no issue with students voicing their opinions on major issues—in fact, I encourage it. I’ve been protested myself and have witnessed my fair share of walkouts at campus events.
But there are limits. Free speech does not include: taking over campus buildings; harassing Jewish students; or preventing Jewish students from attending class.
We may now be at the “found out” stage of Trump’s warnings about campus protests.
Update 3/10/25:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Antisemitism and pro-Palestinian positions are legal. Intimidation and disorderly behavior are not. Keep the fine line straight.
Edward Said would be an example of scholarly pro-Palestine positions. If he’s wrong on something you can argue with him about it. Except he’s a posthumous author now.
He never seemed insightful to me but the rules were correct.
He was also a board member of a terrorist organization, and should have been charged for that. And personally engaged at least once in an armed attack on Israel, in the form of throwing rocks.
“A stone’s throw from the Israeli embassy,” as the AP copy went
I think he was an editor of Critical Inquiry, a journal I’ve subscribed to since the beginning. I always skipped his articles though. As I said, he never seemed to be insightful. The mag has gone woke for several years now but who knows it may come back.
What it used to be:
Editors’ introduction to the “Sociology of Literature” issue of _Critical Inquiry_ v.14 n.3 (Spring 1988) p.428-429
A metaphor that cannot be avoided deserves closer attention. If we examine the mirror more closely, we may find that the metaphor actually serves the sociology of literature in unexpected ways. The marvelously revealing mirror in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen” offers a case in point. In this tale a demon invents a unique mirror : it does not reflect, it systematically misreflects. Andersen’s mirror shrinks and distorts every good and beautiful thing, and it magnifies everything evil or ugly. In this glass pleasant landscapes look like boiled spinach, normal people appear hideous, and kind thoughts become wicked grins.
The demon creator appears mildly amused by his invention, but his students, simple reflectionists, take it very seriously :
[quoting The Snow Queen]
All the pupils in the demon’s school – for he kept a school – reported that a miracle had taken place : now for the first time, they said, it was possible to see what the world and mankind were really like. They ran about everywhere with the mirror, till at last there was not a country or a person which had not been seen in this distorting mirror.
Eventually the mirror breaks. Shards of glass fly through the world and lodge in people’s eyes and hearts. These shards retain the peculiarities of the mirror, so that everyone sees the world through bent, distorted, and misshapen images.
I have always thought that to be the perfect description of communism.
These creations should suffer enough immediate pain that they reconsider their actions.
Incitement isn’t protected by Freedom of Speech. Everything this clown does is incitement. Thank f88k adults are back in charge and kicking his sorry ass out of the country.
The definition of incitement is speech that is both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause its audience to commit a crime imminently.
Basically it robs them of free will and temporarily turns them into robots who immediately go out and commit the crime that the speaker intends them to commit. If he merely calmly persuades them that they ought to commit the crime, and they go off and think about it and decide of their own accord to do it, that is not incitement.
Correct. Then it’s not incitement. Then it’s conspiracy.
Look up the definition.
Incitement is not protected speech.
Nice to see you finally posting something I can agree with.
I don’t know that its possible to have a morally legitimate point of view that is pro-Palestinian, unless you wish to pretend that this viewpoint does not encompass killing all the Jews in Israel.
That is apparently the polite way to view these protests, that what they call for is not in fact genocide of the Israeli people.
But since to believe in the fiction that is “Palestine” and all the other fabulisms that make up the entire Jewhate movement in the Middle East means that you have abandoned rational thought, perhaps it is better to not spend any time indulging in thought at all.
It can merely mean expelling most of them, and forcing the rest to live under a permanent Arab tyranny. Which is still not morally legitimate.
I can think of three non-antisemitic reasons why someone might oppose zionism. All three would also cause a person to oppose the “Palestinian” cause even more strongly. I cannot think of a single non-antisemitic reason why someone would support the “Palestinians”, other than actually being one and thus simply asserting self-interest. And even that’s questionable, because “Palestinians” are objectively better off under Israeli rule than they would be under a “Palestinian” state.
“It can merely mean expelling most of them, and forcing the rest to live under a permanent Arab tyranny. Which is still not morally legitimate.”
But it does not, and I’m not sure why you felt the need to post something that is, at best, the barest possibility.
What do you mean, it does not? The “Palestinian” cause requires abolishing Israel; it does not require massacring all of its Jewish population. The cause would be equally served by expelling most of them, and allowing a minority to remain as dhimmi. And in fact that is exactly what their various organizations, including Hamas and Fatah, openly say is their plan. Most Jews would have to “go back where they came from” (as if they were not the indigenous people returning home), but those necessary to running a successful state would not be allowed to leave, and would have to stay and serve their Arab masters. That is their program that they proclaim loud and clear.
Even Hitler didn’t originally plan on killing all the Jews; he originally wanted to deport them all, and only came up with the mass-murder plan when he ran out of places to send them.
“ Even Hitler didn’t originally plan on killing all the Jews; he originally wanted to deport them all, and only came up with the mass-murder plan when he ran out of places to send them.”
Well golly gee; alrighty then.
Sure about that last? Putting Jews (inter alia) into concentration camps where they’d starve to death pretty much puts the seal on killing. Hitler started that back in the early to mid-1930s–well before the “Wansee” luncheon Conference.
Given Jews are the native Palestinians, and pro-Palestinians are usually anti-Jewish, or at least anti-Israel, their claim to be pro-Palestinian is usually a misnomer.
Until folk are able to deal with the reality of history, and ancestry, things will remain a mess.
Jews are the indigenous people of the Holy Land, but they are not “Palestinians”, since the land was only called “Palestine” for just a few decades under British rule (and “Syria Palestina” for just a few centuries under Roman rule). “Palestinian” nowadays refers to the descendants of Arabic-speaking settlers, most of whom arrived in the 20th century.
“he would have been in prison already, and facing federal felony charges. ”
Milhouse, you are smarter than this. Recall that it is but a few weeks since Biden was out of office and his puppet masters lost control. Any notion that folks in that Administration took action against folks like him is genuinely blind thinking.
Given Jews are the indigenous people of the land AND Palestinians are descendants of slave owning Muslims who spread in to the region to colonise it with the spread of Islam the left is nothing more than a giant double standards industry.
They are practically supporting slave owning colonial empire builders, you know the very thing they are supposedly opposed to [when it’s the white man doing the colonisinf].
I’d like to see several more of these instigators who are here on student visas kicked out of the country.
Democrat bureaucrats find oodles of judges who issue 4AM warrants.
Why can’t ours?
From a friend who’s an immigration lawyer:
Your friend is wrong.
5. Security-Related Reasons
Green card holders who engage in activities deemed threatening to U.S. national security can lose their status. This includes involvement in terrorism, espionage, or other activities that undermine the safety of the United States.
Examples of Security Violations
Membership in Terrorist Organizations: Being part of or assisting a terrorist group can lead to immediate revocation and deportation.
Espionage or Treason: Activities related to spying, intelligence gathering for foreign governments, or attempts to overthrow the government are considered severe violations.
Consequences: In addition to deportation, individuals accused of such activities may face criminal prosecution and significant legal penalties.
https://www.rebeccablacklaw.com/how-a-green-card-can-be-revoked/
The only part of that that seemed even potentially material seems to be: “Being part of or assisting a terrorist group”.
But if they had evidence that he had given material assistance to a designated foreign terrorist organization he would have been in prison already, and facing federal felony charges. He wouldn’t have been in his apartment to be arrested by ICE.
You added the word “material.” Nobody else who has reported on this seems to think this is a requirement. The operative word everyone else is quoting is “assisting.”
But giving non-material (i.e. moral) support to a terrorist group, while located within the USA, is protected speech and can’t be punished by the government.
Maybe there’s an additional law OTHER than the one you keep quoting, which is applicable to non-citizens.
Two-part definition of conspiracy:
1). Two or more people discuss committing a crime.
Not yet a conspiracy.
2). They then “take an act in furtherance” of said crime.
Conspiracy to commit that crime. Note that as of this point in the game, the actual crime being discussed has not yet been committed. But the conspiracy has.
Conspiracy to commit crimes is a felony. It is, in fact, the b axis on which the KKK was charged and convicted in the 1960s. FBI agents had infiltrated and conspired with them. And no, it wasn’t entrapment–just a sting. Entrapment requires someone in power telling someone that they will suffer consequences if they ~don’t~ take a certain action, especially committing a crime.
That the lrgal profession msy be “confused” about this is hardly surprising.
ITYM “from a friend who is a horrible immigration lawyer”.
He seems to make a decent living at it.
My Cousin Lionel.
One of the things listed that they can revoke for is Omission of Relevant Facts when you apply. So did he tell them he was a supporter of a terrorist organization? If not that could be considered omission of relevant facts by a friendly judge.
1. Did they ask him? If they didn’t ask he can hardly have been expected to volunteer the information.
2. When he originally applied for his student visa, he would have been abroad and therefore they could have asked about his political opinions, and they would be relevant because they could have been grounds to deny the visa.
But when he applied for the green card he would have been in the USA, and thus protected by the first amendment. Therefore they could not have denied the application just because of his opinions, so even if they asked it would not be a relevant fact and he would have been under no obligation to answer truthfully.
1. It’s not on the government to ask, it’s on the person apply to TELL.
As the possessor of the worlds largest legal brain one would have expected one as intelligent as you to understand this point 😂😂
A person has no duty to volunteer information that he supposes the government might have wanted to know. Even when he’s asked a question he only has to answer it truthfully if it’s material. If he’s not asked he has every right to keep his mouth shut.
They absolutely do have a responsibility to ensure their application contains all the relevant details required to assess their suitability for settlement. If they have hidden details about involvement in terrosirism or with terrorist organisations then they are fit for deportation as they’ve hidden vital information material to their application. Not only hidden it, but purposely concealed it.
Wife’s aunt was an immigration lawyer for a large DC law firm for better than 40yrs. We asked her about stuff like this. Her opinion is that he is on his way out of the country. His card can be revoked for a number of reasons and fraud is only one of them. Your friend is right on one thing, there is a procedure to follow but it’s just delaying the inevitable. If the Dept of State want’s him gone, he is gone.
You ah. A green card holder is a ‘resident alien’. The key word being ‘alien’. The Fed Gov’t has all sorts of options to deport ‘aliens’. obtaining a green card isn’t the sort of playground ‘home base’ rule that makes them untouchable that many wish it to be. Native born Citizens are a different matter and even naturalized Citizens can have their status revoked and be deported under some circumstances. When all the folks sounding off about 1A protection also make equal claims with the same ferocity, intensity and duration about 2A then maybe we can have that discussion about 1A. Either the guy has all the Constitutional protections via incorporation of 14A or he doesn’t. No more situational Constitutional arguments re non Citizens.
What boggles me there is that they didn’t KNOW he had a green card.
If it has not already happened, he should be sued civilly for discrimination and get to personally feel and know what it’s like to face the music, appropriately in this case.
Sued by whom, for what? Discrimination is only illegal in public accommodations, employment, and housing. I don’t think he’s engaged in any of these, let alone discriminating in them.
A person that has been discriminated against or had their civil rights violated. There are innumerable ways to be creative and there are private actors and networks of actors. Sounds like this guy is right in the middle of it. Let him defend himself for wrongdoing against others.
He should be held at Gitmo and traded for a Gazan hostage. preferably an American.
I hope he gets tossed out, but no doubt the lawyer will find a nice judge to reverse the government
If he’s committed crimes then ultimately the government will win. It will just take some time.
The need to reform the Student Visa process seems obvious. Gotta move to a system of joint responsibility for compliance where Univ and Student are required to proactively recertify compliance of not only laws but basic respect for academic freedom. Shutting down the campus, ‘take over’/lockout of classrooms/buildings, calling for violence even obliquely much less physical violence are not compatible with academic freedom. When the Univ fail to act to immediately restore order, ID the guilty, suspend them, refer for criminal prosecution and work with Feds to revoke their Student Visa that Univ should lose the privilege of requesting any Student Visa applications.
‘As long as Columbia continues to invest and to benefit from Israeli apartheid, the students will continue to resist,” Mahmoud Khalil said.’
Okay great. Now when are all of you transferring to another school? It’s really that simple.
Remove this scum immediately. Who knows how many others are infesting this university. These LIEberal “Ivy League” schools are all Left Wing and welcome ANYONE willing to cough up their ridiculously high tuitions and offer useless courses that DO NOT pertain to real life employment.
I am sure some lefty lawyer is in front of some lefty judge right now asking for his release.
They should have kicked him out immediately before the proverbial ink on the deportation order dried. Avoid the legal morass.
Send this POS packing back to his third world crap hole.
And the plot thickens… today, a SDNY Judge issued an order not to move Khalil out of the district. The only problem is, he was immediately moved from the district after his arrest. He was apparently in New Jersey on Sunday and today, is in Louisiana. The Judge doesn’t have the authority to issue the hold because petitions for habeas corpus can only be filed in districts where the individual is physically located and by the time he filed, Khalil had already been moved out of the district.
Leave a Comment