Mahmoud Khalil – Not a Free Speech Issue
“This is not a guy who has respected anybody else’s rights, yet we as a country will respect his rights to the extent he has them. This is not a free speech issue…. Don’t tell me that he’s being persecuted for Palestinian views because Israelis are not doing this on campuses.”
Mahmoud Khalil reportedly led and helped organize the campaign of terror on Columbia University’s campus, which involved building takeovers and destruction, intimidation, blockades, and other assaults on the rights of others, particularly Israeli and pro-Israel students and faculty. ICE took him into custody and reportedly is planning to deport him despite him having a green card.
We don’t yet fully know what the legal argument will be by the government, but it probably is as laid out by Will Chamberlain linking to an X post by Joel Petlin:
“This is actually the cleanest rationale for deporting Khalil. He put himself forward as a spokesman for Columbia University Apartheid Divest. That organization repeatedly endorsed/espoused terrorist activity as defined under the statute. The end. He can go home.”
I had a chance to speak to Tony Katz today about it, and was very cautious given that we don’t know all the facts and legal theories yet. What I did reject is the notion being spun by those glorifying Khalil that he is a free speech victim.
Excerpts (auto-generated, may contain transcription errors, lightly edited for transcript clarity)
WAJ (07:40):
Well, I think you have to distinguish, immigration is a very different situation than someone who’s a US citizen. The government can’t deport, to my knowledge, a US citizen. They can either prosecute you for a crime or they have to leave you alone pretty much. But when you’re here on an immigration, whether it’s a visa or a green card, you’re playing by a different set of rules. You have no right to be here unless you comply with the rules, unlike US citizens. And so it’s a very different situation, and I think the government does have a key role there. It does have an interest and a right to keep people out who give support for terrorism. It’s right in the statute … whether this person did or not is something they’ll have to prove, whether they engage in criminal activity while here, is something they’re going to have to prove.
But if they can prove all of those things, there’s no reason why we as a country need to let in people who come here for the very purpose of not only advocating the overthrow of the US government, not only advocating the destruction of our society, but engaging in organizing violent conduct, harassing conduct.
Remember this guy deprived hundreds, if not thousands, of Columbia students of their rights. He deprived them of their right to education. He deprived them of their right to speech through these crazy, violent, intimidating marches that they did, and checkpoints and not allowing students to get to class.
This is not a guy who has respected anybody else’s rights, yet we as a country will respect his rights to the extent he has them.
This is not a free speech issue. If you were going to prove, as they claim, that he’s only being prosecuted because he’s quote unquote pro-Palestinian, then you would have to find similar conduct by a pro-Israel student, which is not prosecuted. The problem with these free speech arguments by the anti-Israel crowd is they are the only ones taking over buildings. They are the only ones trashing buildings. They are the only ones intimidating staff.
So it’s not equal. Don’t tell me that he’s being persecuted for Palestinian views because Israelis are not doing this on campuses….
WAJ (10:07):
… Look at all the things they’re saying. They’re saying he is being persecuted, because of his pro-Palestinian views. And I’m saying that if you’re going to make that argument, you have to point to a similar circumstance where a pro-Israel student engaged in similar conduct and was not prosecuted or not deported, or an Israeli student was not deported. And they can’t do that because the only people trashing the campus, the only people intimidating other people on the campuses. The only people setting up checkpoints on campuses and declaring Zionist free zones like happened at UCLA, are the so-called pro-Palestinian crowd.
They are being held accountable because they’re the only ones engaging in this conduct. It has nothing to do with free speech. And it’s unfortunate that a bunch of organizations are rallying around him on the free speech issue when that’s not the question….
WAJ (11:49):
…. If you’re blocking somebody from entering a building, that’s not free speech. If you are taking over a building and trashing it, that’s not free speech. So those things are not protected. And to the extent he or anybody else engaged in those, they are not protected. Now, if you’re a US citizen, you’re either charged criminally or you’re left alone. But if you’re here on a visa or a green card, there’s one more remedy there, and that’s to kick you out of the country for that sort of conduct… I don’t know if that’s what the government’s going to base it on, but there also is federal law that would apply, or at least it’s been cited by a lot of people that would apply even to green card holders that expressing support for terrorism.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Let him sit in Gitmo
No need to let anyone know
Gee, we don’t know where he went, we thought he went home
Genius!
Drop him outside the 12 mile limit and let him swim home. No need to waste the price of an airline ticket on him.
Make sure he’s swimming in the correct direction.
Alternatively, he could be dropped without a parachute in the middle of the Gulf of America.
There are shark infested waters off Israel’s coast.
Milhouse will tell us this is illegal in 3…2…1…
It is illegal. There’s no question about it. Even if deportation were legal, killing him would not be. Pinochet had the right idea, but the US government can’t do that.
What if we used Sea Bass instead.
Ill-tempered Sea Bass?
Good to see you again. I hope your mind is even sharper than it was 10 years ago.
About that…..
No, I haven’t seen him recently. Has anyone checked the vacants?
A free ticket on Air Pinochet is richly deserved.
Question: What if a resident alien is a member of a group, but the group is NOT a “terrorist organization” at that time, yet later gets labeled as such by the government? Is there a time period that the person could drop their membership in the group without penalty to their VisaGreen Card?
How about the inverse? IOW Mike joins Z org, then Z org becomes radicalized and espouses terrorism/commits terroristic acts which Mike sees as bad and he withdraws his membership? What if he doesn’t make a public announcement? Is he still a member if he doesn’t tell anyone he renounced his membership?
Best bet for all Aliens, including lawful permanent resident Aliens (aka green card holder) is to stay away from oddball individuals and groups. Do what the basic image of ‘immigrants’ is sold as; Get a job, pay taxes, pay your bills, stay off govt assistance, support local little league teams, buy girl scout cookies, don’t commit crimes or associate with those who do. IOW assimilate to ‘Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball, leave the crap from the ‘old country’ over there.
Yeah, I hear you there. When my wife was immigrating we expressly stayed away from anything that even looked like political opposition. That was back during Obama’s term and I didn’t trust that bastard
I disagree very strongly. People who are refugees from dictatorships have a duty to speak out it and inform people here, have a duty to stand up to the pressure groups that propagandize in favor of brutal tyrannies.
People who are not citizens do not have all the rights of citizenship and should behave if they wish to say here.
Anyone who comes here as a refugee does not have a right to tell us how to run our foreign policy.
Agreed: a green card or work permit should come with a permanent probationary period.
Opt in to terrorism, opt out of residence in this country.
All Aliens, including lawful resident Aliens (aka green card holder) may have their grace to remain in th USA revoked and be deported under certain circumstances. Advocacy/support for terrorists org is just one of those circumstances. The 1A isn’t available as ‘shield’ to Aliens in the same way it is for US Citizens. Only natural born US Citizens are exempt from being stripped of US Citizenship and deported.
The answer is that that would be ex post facto law. It is a crime to give material (not moral) support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; it is not and can’t be a crime to do so to an organization that isn’t currently so designated.
Incitement isn’t protected speech. He, along with all the other Hamas supporters are inciting the mob to kill Jews.
No, they’re not. He may have incited people to commit trespass, vandalism, even assault, in which case the government should say so and charge him with that. Incitement is a crime. But he has not incited anyone to murder. Merely advocating murder is not and can’t be illegal.
I believe the term is “Threat”, Milhouse. Inciting murder is “threatening to kill”.
No, incitement and threats are two distinct crimes. Incitement is not a threat and a threat is not incitement. This person hasn’t incited anyone to murder, as mailman falsely claimed; nor has he threatened to murder anyone.
He may have incited people to commit other crimes, in which case the government should charge him with that, and deport him on that basis. But it seems to be explicitly denying this, and insists on deporting him for his advocacy, which is illegal.
If they prosecute him, they will certainly investigate him. If they investigate him, they will probably find more evidence of criminal activity.
Then they should have investigated him and found evidence of his crimes before arresting him, and they should now be accusing him of crimes. But they seem to be doing the opposite, openly saying that they’re not accusing him of any crime, but seeking to deport him merely for his protected speech.
I’m sure he has committed crimes, and I support his deportation for those. But not for his speech.
Hang on a minute. Deportation of an Alien isn’t a ‘punishment’ for a crime. There are all sorts of punishments for criminal acts but Deportation, even of a resident Alien, is for failure to adhere to standards of allowable conduct as an Alien admitted to the USA. Sometimes that deportation is subject to review and sometimes not.
Reno v AADC is very clear on this distinction. Further it seems very analogous to the present situation. Alien makes statements, Gov’t doesn’t like them, Alien seeks 1A protection Executive declares the Alien is a terrorist or maybe terrorist ‘adjacent’ and thus a National Security threat. In Reno v AADC the majority says not only is that totes ok but it is not subject to judicial review when deportation is for Nat Sec reason.
SCOTUS seems totes ok with ‘high officials’ within Executive branch exercising Congressionally granted powers to deport Aliens, even green card holders, when they use the magic words of National Security without judicial review due to ‘great deference’ granted Executive in Nat Sec matters. Seems overbroad and dangerous to me but it also seems to be a very on point decision.
It’s not a criminal punishment. Neither is cancelling a government grant, but it’s still retaliation, i.e. an actual punishment, something done to a person to punish him for what he’s done.
I had a very quick scan of AADC and it seems that the petitioners there admitted that they had in fact committed technically removable offenses, but were arguing selective enforcement. Their offenses were mere technicalities, and had they not been members of a terrorist organization the government would have ignored these offenses. And SCOTUS’s answer seems to be that once it’s established that you’re here illegally, selective enforcement is not a claim available to you.
In this case no offense at all is alleged against Khalil. The government seems to have explicitly said it’s not alleging he committed any crime, and that it’s seeking to deport him exclusively for his advocacy. That means it’s seeking to punish him for exercising a constitutional right. If it can’t do so by canceling a government grant, then it certainly can’t do so by cancelling a green card. The same constitutional objection applies in both cases.
Milhouse,
I believe the Admin is invoking the authority of the Sec State to determine if foreign policy and Nat Sec are harmed by continued presence of this Alien in the USA. His role as an ‘officer or representative’ of a terrorist org or group espousing terrorism/antisemitism which is definitely the case as his service is in the public record offers the needed evidence.
The use of the magic words Nat Security then triggers the sort of ‘great deference’ for high officials such as Sec.State or.AG to use them pretty much on their own hook without much if any judicial review. FWIW I agree this is probably too much unchecked power but both Congress in creating the statute to grant it and SCOTUS in cases like Reno v AADC have repeatedly endorsed these near plenary authorities/powers.
Advocating for Hamas is providing aid to a terrorist organization. It’s a crime and provides justification for deportation.
His speech is not protected when he incites people to commit crimes and engage in violence/intimidation because of religious reasons. He can have his card revoked and be deported for a number of reasons including CIMT. Why you keep insisting people can’t be deported when they can is a mystery as you are wrong.
Can his degree be revoked? 🙂
That’s up to the university, and the terms of its contract with him.
It’s a Columbia degree. Having it is a bigger stain.
Having a legal argument, having Trump DOJ make the correct best argument, and having the judge buy it are three different things.
I guess this judge missed the fact that the president can block any and all immigrants of any particular class he wants to acclimation, that is, simply by saying so. Terrorist supporter should be a pretty easy class for him to block and this idiot is not a citizen. He doesn’t have a right to be in this country
Wrong. First of all the president can’t block anyone he wants to. He’s limited by the statute that grants him that power in the first place. For instance he couldn’t ban all Moslems from entering, not because it would be unconstitutional but because Congress explicitly denied him that power.
But the issue here is that Trump isn’t trying to keep him out. The guy’s already here and now Trump wants to deport him, and the constitution says he can’t do that for his protected speech.
There you go again, Milhouse, asserting limits on the Executive that were emplaced by Congress. If the limit isn’t in the Constitution, and if the authority for Congress to place a limit on the Executive isn’t in the Constitution, there’s no limit and no authority to make one. It’s just made up BS.
Neither the person of the POTUS nor his office are mentioned in the authority granted to Congress concerning naturalization.* Congress abuses its authority when it unlawfully extends its jurisdiction over the matter of the entry of foreigners into this country over the Executive, when neither the person nor office of the POTUS, nor the Executive branch, are subjects of Congress’ constitutional authority in this regard.
*Interestingly, Article I does not give Congress the authority to control immigration, but only naturalization. Naturalization is something that occurs after a person has already emigrated into the country. Did the authors consider border control, and therefore immigration itself, to be within Article II’s grant of Executive power, possibly as a matter of national defense and security? Authority over naturalization does not imply authority over immigration. Maybe the Executive is supposed to control who enters the country and then the Congress sets rules for determining who is allowed to stay. This would be another example of how authority over dovetailing subjects, like allocation and spending, are split between Congress and the POTUS.
The president has no power over immigration except that which Congress has granted him. It was Congress that gave him a general power to ban people from entering the USA if he thinks they’re undesirable, and the very same act that granted that power limited it.
On the contrary, Congress is the only entity with any jurisdiction over such entry. The president has no authority at all, except what Congress has given him.
Indeed, and therefore a true originalist must oppose all immigration laws, since Congress is not given the power to enact any. But SCOTUS in the late 19th century ruled that this is an inherent power of Congress, and right now no one feels like challenging that.
No, they did not. They never anticipated that anyone would have power over immigration. They didn’t give it to Congress, they certainly didn’t give it to the executive, and they clearly expected that the situation in their own day, when there were no immigration laws at all, would continue forever.
That’s not what SCOTUS said when it upheld the first immigration laws. It said the exact opposite, that Congress has plenary authority over immigration. There was no mention of any executive authority over it.
He is providing aid to a terrorist organization which is a crime which makes him subject to deportation.
My question is, what legal leg does this judge have to prevent the government from deporting this terrorist? The government revoked the terrorist’s green card and his student visa. The terrorist at this point has no legal right to remain in the USA.
BTW, Columbia is refusing to help ICE identify foreign students who took part in threatening Jewish students. (See https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/columbia-university-refusing-to-help-id-anti-israel-protesters-for-deportationwhite-house/) I wonder how much more money the Administration can withhold from Columbia?
Hardball from Columbia Administration is all fun and games …right up to the point that CBP sets up checkpoint(s) around the area. They have authority to do so within 100 miles from the ‘border’ which also includes coastal areas not just land adjacent to Canada/Mexico. Even easier is simply removing eligibility for Students Visa use at Columbia.
Take away their credentials?
The judge has an absolute right to prevent a petitioner from being removed from US jurisdiction while the petition is being heard. So even if the government were right on all counts, the judge would still be right to block the deportation until the case can be heard.
And in this case the government does not seem to be right. It has no authority to revoke a green card or a visa as retaliation for protected speech, and that is what it (reportedly) claims it is doing. If it wants to revoke the green card for a crime, let it say so.
Advocating genocide is hardly protected speech.
WTH?!! Of course it is. How can you possibly suggest it isn’t? Advocacy of anything is protected speech. That’s the very core of the first amendment, and there’s no dispute about it. Genocide, slavery, the assassination of the president, the violent overthrow of the government, there is nothing that a person may not peacefully advocate in this country. I don’t understand how anyone can doubt that. If the first amendment doesn’t mean that, it doesn’t mean anything.
You sound like those who claim a “hate speech” exception to the first amendment.
Read Brandenburg v Ohio. It’s the controlling law on this subject.
Yes it is true when we are discussing 1A protections of US Citizens then Brandenburg is controlling. Unlike MR Brandenburg, MR Khalil is NOT a US Citizen not even a US National. He is in the category of Alien. Yes, he seems to hold a.green card but that’s not = to US Citizenship, he remains an Alien, sure he’s a lawful resident Alien, but an Alien nonetheless. Aliens do NOT posses 100% of the same Constitutional protections enjoyed by US Citizens.
Reply is to CommoChief, below, not Milhouse.
If, as many assert, our rights come not from the Constitution, but are natural rights from God, why would they be any different for resident aliens than for US citizens.
Is this something that the USSC has already resolved?
Dave,
Tell you what, you can answer the same question by applying it through the lens of the 2A. Not being sarcastic but a good faith attempt to answer the question. Aliens generally have far less 2A rights in practice than US Citizens. Where was the concern about that?
How can we prohibit felons from ‘keep and bear arms’ for self defense? Do it all the time and not just felons but in some jurisdiction, like NY State, average, law abiding, tax paying, Citizens. Why should US Citizens in NY have their 2A rights deprived in comparison to Alabama where US Citizens have ‘Constitutional Carry’?
None of our rights enshrined in the Constitution, regardless of what we believe to be the original source of the rights, are absolute. The 1A has limits on time, place,.manner. I can stage a protest but I usually need a permit. In most jurisdictions that permit won’t be issued for a purely residential area. Nor does it give me the ability to enter your front yard to have my protest. I can’t play Goth ‘music’ at insanely high decibels and claim I am using it to proselytize to potential converts to ‘Goth beliefs’ then use the 1A freedom of religion argument to avoid prosecution. Won’t work.
No rights regardless of source are absolute nor universal to all classes of people. Differentiating among the various classes of inhabitants in our Nation has been widely accepted. See sentencing a criminal to Prison as one easy example of how we.have different degrees of rights and CTs are just fine with it. Parole and probation restrictions, minor children don’t have same rights as adults. Property owners v renter v invitee have different levels of rights to use property.
Another opinion: https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/opinion/its-absolutely-legal-for-trump-to-kick-out-pro-hamas-protesters/
This particular judge lost the right once the alien was removed from his jurisdiction. His order came after Khalil was transported out. This is why the Trump admin took him immediately to NJ and then to Louisiana.. to keep him out of SDNY’s jurisdiction. If a district court judge for Louisiana wants to take up the case, it starts all over.
It doesn’t matter when the order came. The petition was filed while he was in NY and that’s all that matters.
Nope. ICE arrested him on Saturday night; took him straight to the ICE facility in New Jersey (which is not in SDNY). His family then went there to visit; he wasn’t there because he had been shipped to Louisiana. His lawyers then filed the habeas petition in SDNY Sunday evening.
Had the filed a habeas petition in NJ and subsequently he was removed, the court MiGHT be able to argue that he has to be returned. But as he wasn’t in SDNY when the habeas was filed (and apparently the government can prove that, Judge Furman can bluster all he wants, but he doesn’t have jurisdiction. Any order he makes is therefore void, and I suspect DoJ will tell him that at the hearing this morning.
Habeas law is very clear that if the detainee isn’t in the district, the court doesn’t have jurisdiction. And no court — not even SDNY — is going to want to open the door to “forum shopping” habeas petitions — even “friendly” venues will not want to be swamped by waves of pro se prisoners habeas petitions (it’s already a headache for courts to deal with those by detainees within their jurisdiction).
More fundamentally, read the damn statutes quoted in the post. Khalil’s own public statements cook his goose. He’s unquestionably been the “representative” (defined term) of CUAD. CUAD has indisputably “endorsed” Hamas’ terroristic activities. Khalil is thus subject to immediate removal. His green card may give him the right to have an immigration judge make findings on those two issues, but once that’s done, he’s gone, permanently.
And that doesn’t even get into the right of the SoS to declare him to be a national security risk, which is going to be a discretionary call.
No, a judge does not. If a person is found, for example in this case, to have openly advocated for a designated terrorist organization the Dept of State can deport them immediately.
He is not a citizen; He has a green card. Having a green card is like being on probation. He violated the terms. Now he can get out
Except that they’re not alleging that he has violated the terms. By all reports they’re claiming that they’re not doing this for any crime he’s committed, not even incitement, but merely for his advocacy of terrorism, genocide, and other crimes. And they can’t do that.
See above. Read the damn statutes cited in the post. If he’s the representative of a group that endorses terrorism (and CUAD’s statements of support for Hamas qualify), Uncle Sam can boot him immediately.
Nope. They can indeed deport him for what you describe. Stop saying things that are not true. The laws is clear on this point.
According to some sources, Mr. Khalil has been transferred to a federal facility in New Orleans. Further, that was done before the writ of habeas corpus was filed in SDNY; therefore, the judge’s order there is moot (writs have to be filed in the jurisdiction where the person is being held, per long-standing federal court rule). I suspect it will be harder to find a progressive judge in New Orleans.
Mr. Khalil, as our host and others here have noted, is not being removed for his speech — the U.S. has a long tradition of respecting the speech of green card holders to about the same degree as citizens. He’s being removed for his actions, which have threatened other citizens.
He’s Syrian — given what tragically has been going on there this past week, he’ll fit right in back home.
Khalil’s lawyers have represented that they filed the writ of habeas corpus before he was moved to Louisiana. The filing was entered at 4:40 A.M. the day of the transfer.
Someone is not telling the truth about when the writ was filed. (Whether it be the “some sources” you cite or the lawyers for Khalil.)
Even so, there is Supreme Court precedence that a person may not be transferred by the government to another district to prevent a writ of habeas corpus being ruled upon while the case is ongoing. (see: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep323/usrep323283/usrep323283.pdf)
Meh, use the authority of the Alien Enemies Act which offers basically zero Judicial protection from Executive action to apprehend, detain and deport any Alien and let’s also remember that someone with a green card IS still an Alien, just one granted lawful residence. Getting a green card isn’t some kind of ‘home base’ on the playground despite how many folks wish it or how loudly they make the claim.
The Alien Enemies Act doesn’t apply.
50 U.S. Code § 21 – Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
No declared war, no invasion and therefore no Alien Enemies Act.
Not quite. It does not rely solely upon a declared war. It only requires the President to declare (make a finding) that the other lesser conditions are ongoing or imminent to be met.
Frankly this is a huge amount of power given to the Executive without any real buffer or brake to slow or halt it. The actions ain’t really subject to review by Judiciary nor does Congress have any mechanism to halt the Executive except the old three stand by methods:
1. Revoke the law which requires POTUS signature or veto override
2. Cut the funding, see above
3. Impeach and remove
Not quite.
The plain reading of the language is quite clear. In order to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, there has to be a war declaration or perhaps some “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government”
There has been no war declared against Hamas nor any invasion, or predatory incursion even threatened (the lowest standard) by Hamas.
Furthermore, Congress has enacted laws dealing with immigration. The President has the authority to execute those laws, but he may not invent his own laws or make interpretations of laws that are contrary to the plain meaning of those laws.
Seems very clear to me that the plain reading is:
Declared.War via Congress
OR
Invasion/incursion is occurring or imminent via declaration of President
If the President decides to make such a.declaration that’s it. Agree it is too much power, very ripe for misuse/mischief b/c.there’s no brake on it…ask the Japanese including those of Japanese ancestry but born in the USA and were interned into camps by FDR in WWII.
Moot either way for now. That’s a hole card yet to be played.
1. It’s now almost universally agreed (including by SCOTUS, at least in dicta) that Korematsu was wrongly decided.
2. Even Korematsu didn’t uphold the internment of US citizens. For some reason I don’t understand, that wasn’t part of the case. The case was merely about them being excluded from certain states; as far as the evidence before the court was concerned they were free to go anywhere they liked in the remaining 45 states. Those who chose to stay in the camps were not being interned, they were being housed because they had nowhere else to go. As I understand it that wasn’t in fact the case, but that was the case presented to SCOTUS, and that’s what it upheld (wrongly, according to current opinion).
By the way, George Takei likes to moan about this, but his case was very different. His father was an enemy alien, not a US citizen, and thus no one disputed that his internment was legal. George himself was not interned, but as a baby his parents took him with them because what else should they have done?
CommoChief:
Do you have any citation where there has been a declaration of war?
I am betting that you do not.
Do you have any citation saying that the President has declared that there is an invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States.”
I am betting that you do not.
Therefore, no matter how you try to spin it, the Enemy Alien Act does not apply.
gitarcarver,
Nope. I sure don’t. Which is why my original post re use of the Alien Enemies Act was offered as a potential action. Then in my last post noted that this discussion is moot precisely b/c use was ‘A hole card yet to be played’.
In sum the Admin is not using this option at present but they certainly could. All it takes is POTUS making a declaration to trigger use. FWIW I think this is way too much unchecked power shifted to Executive from Congress but that’s what the statute they wrote does.
You’re overlooking that Khalil was taken to the ICE facility in New Jersey upon arrest Saturday night (which the lawyers for the family admitted in their initial statements to the press). His family tried to visit him there on Sunday, but by the time they got there he’d already been shipped to Louisiana.
So even if your timeline is correct, and ICE didn’t initiate the transfer from NJ to La until after the habeas petition was filed, Khalil wasn’t in SDNY at that time. Ergo, no jurisdiction in SDNY, and Judge Furman can’t do anything.
Except that from all reports the government is saying the exact opposite, that he is being removed for his advocacy, not for his actions. If he’s being removed for his actions, let the government say so.
Writing here about your comments concerning Korematsu.
The Japanese were first held in internment camps involuntarily. Later, it was determined* they didn’t constitute much of a threat, so the were allowed to leave, so long as they didn’t resettle in sensitive areas, like the Pacific coast.
*At least that was the story. It is now known that the Office of Naval Intelligence completed a report for FDR on the Japanese American threat to national security. The ONI reported they presented little to no threat. FDR sent them to the camps anyway. He may have had the authority to do so, but he abused his authority when he knew that his order contributed little to nothing to the nation’s security. The fact the Japanese were later allowed to leave the camps may have been FDR’s way of acknowledging that he was wrong to put them in camps in the first place.
I consider the wartime internment of Japanese Americans to be a greater stain on America than slavery. The government merely permitted slavery to exist, it did not import or trade in slaves itself. The Japanese internment was a government act and it was perpetrated against citizens as well as non-citizens.
As noted in the actual post, he’s being removed because he is a “representative” (defined term that he satisfies) of an organization that endorses terrorist activities (which CUAD has plainly done through its statements in support of Hamas).
Again, read the damn statutes.
Media report about what the first Trump Administration said and did were 100% accurate what percentage of the time?
What is your estimate of media accuracy in reporting about the second Trump Administration?
Yes, but he can be removed for his speech. For example, the open support for a designated terrorist group or government is grounds for revocation and deportation.
Khalil is not a sympathetic figure in any manner.
However, the long term issue may be that after Khalil, other students may be arrested and perhaps face deportation for speech that is legal and protected.
In a fact sheet relating to the Executive Order signed by President Trump, Trump stated:
To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,”
….
I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.
That’s troubling and a clear violation of the First Amendment whether you are a citizen, a legal immigrant, here on a green card or whatever status you may have.
US Citizenship matters. Only native born US Citizens are exempt from deportation. Well past time the distinction between Citizens and Aliens was brought back into public consciousness.
All Aliens, including lawfully present resident aliens, are subject to deportation for engaging in certain actions. One of those actions is serving as an officer or representative of a terrorist org and/or org that espouses and/or supports terrorism. He is reaping what he sowed.
Espousing and supporting are not actions, they are speech, and thus protected. Serving as an officer of an organization that engages in protected speech is also speech, and equally protected. And physical presence in the USA gives a person full constitutional protection.
No they are aren’t and yes they can be grounds to deport him. Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Milhouse,
You state that ‘physical presence in the USA gives a person full Constitutional protections’.
Ok now explain how a someone a 30 day Tourist Visa in NY can walk into a gun shop, purchase a firearm, bring that firearm to their short term apartment (keep it) then carry it (bear) on their person as they navigate through daily life as a Tourist in NY.
You are clearly missing the point.
While Khalil may have done more, that does not mean that people who support Hamas can be deported. Mere vocal support for Hamas is protected speech for US citizens and therefore protected speech for aliens.
“Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945).
You are going to have to show that vocal support – not violence – for Hamas is not protected speech for American citizens.
This is a very slippery slope you are treading upon. Imagine if the US government declared Israel (and by extension the IDF) a terrorist organization. Should aliens that wear a star of David then be deported? Should aliens that vocally support Israel be deported?
If an alien appeared before Congress urging the government to remove the designation of a terrorist organization against Israel be marched out of the hearing in cuffs and deported?
If such speech is legal for citizens it is legal for aliens.
I believe that the charge is stemming not from mere advocacy/speech as an individual but through his actions as an officer/representative of a group espousing/supporting a terrorist group; Hamas. He did serve as the spokesman for such a group. This is terrorist org that has no problem killing US.Citizens or taking them hostage including those currently held.
Here’s the disconnect. The folks on my side of this debate believe that for one to maintain the.grant of the privilege of remaining in the USA an Alien, including resident Aliens, must seek to live not just in accordance with our laws but more broadly our basic Western Civilization traditions. High among those is not supporting terrorists (modern day Pirates IMO ‘enemies of mankind’) especially those terrorist org that seek to harm US Citizens or threaten the interests of the USA.
Only native born Citizens are immune/exempt from deportation. All aliens are potentially subject to being deported under law. Another option is for the Sec State to make a determination the individual’s admission to the USA or continued presence in the USA is detrimental to US interests and revoke their Visa or green card. The only brake check is notification of Chairmen of HoR and Senate Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees.
Lot of ink spilled about about the 1A here by many folks who seem rather unconcerned about regular 2A violations. I will make you the same deal I gave Milhouse, when the folks so upset about what they perceive as a Constitutional violation of 1A raise as much Cain about 2A for the daily violations in NY and elsewhere and get that fixed then I am willing to discuss 1A aspects of this case….but until y’all get him able to own, posses and bear (carry on his person without restriction) in NY …..then please get that done before you spill more ink about 1A.
You are still missing the point.
I am not talking about Khahil.
I am talking about Trump’s Executive Order where he says that any alien who took part in the protests or verbalizes support for Hamas is subject to deportation.
That is clearly against the Constitution.
gitarcarver,
Ok let’s shift to a broad application. No it isn’t unconstitutional to strip a green card,arrest and deport an Alien. See Reno v AADC. (Among others)
Congress has given the AG and the Sec State authority to deport and even strip green cards then deport when certain ‘magic words’ are used; National Security and Foreign Policy. Of course ALL Executive authority is held by the President so that gives him the authority as well. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that when ‘high officials’ make these determinations (invoke magic words) the Judiciary must grant ‘great deference’. In Reno v AADC the majority opinion came.close to viewing it as a plenary power.
All that really has to occur is to make the finding and inform Congress. The only real judicial review allowed is whether this is the right guy named by Executive Branch and whether Congress was informed.
Aliens are not = to US Citizens. Aliens can be deported, even lawful resident Aliens. The Executive absolutely has the power to do so. Beyond that power is the POTENTIAL for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The POTUS can declare the lesser conditions than a declaration of War to exist and use that authority.
Do I think using the Alien Enemy Act should be the 1st tool pulled out of the Executive toolbox? Nope, I do not, FWIW Trump didn’t use it first either, but the tool IS in the toolbox and the statute+ precedent make the POTUS the only one who decides whether, how, when and against whom to use the tool. Way too much power granted by Congress IMO but the reality.
Nope. Rubio is quite right in this. Deportation for openly advocating for a terrorist group is grounds to remove the person for security issues alone. They can do this. If an alien from a designated state sponsor of terror like Iran gets a visa, comes here and advocates for the overthrow of the US Government and installation of a Islamic Republic that person can be immediately deported and barred from re entry.
People on here especially Milhouse don’t seem to know much about immigration law but still write lengthy posts about it.
Sorry, this is shaping up as very much a free speech issue, and the government appears to be on the wrong side. They’re saying, at least according to all reports, that they’re not alleging that he has committed any crime, but are seeking to deport him purely because of his advocacy. That is a direct assault on the first amendment.
Yes, he is a spokesman for an organization that endorses or espouses terrorist activity. The problem is that that is protected speech. It is settled law that the first amendment protects all advocacy, no matter of what. No person can be punished for advocating any position, no matter how awful. Slavery; genocide; overthrowing the USA by force of arms; anything at all.
Advocacy is protected; and it is unconstitutional for the government to punish someone for it, in any way at all. Even cancelling a government grant that it didn’t have to give in the first place; once awarded it can’t be canceled as retaliation for protected speech. See the Brooklyn Museum’s successful case against Rudy Giuliani.
That means that the clause Joel Petlin cites, allowing someone to be deported merely for being a representative of an organization that engages in protected speech, is invalid. Congress is not authorized to make such a law.
If he’s committed a crime, charge him with it, and use that as the reason to deport him. No one would have a problem with that. But the position outlined here is just wrong and an attack on all of our rights. None of us would be safe with that position; it would be bringing back Schenck.
Using that logic, inciting to riot wouldn’t be punishable because it would be protected speech. Where would you draw the line?
.
The law against incitement is only valid because it’s defined very narrowly. Incitement is defined as speech that is both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause its listeners to imminently commit a crime.
In other words it robs its listeners of their free will, turns them temporarily into robots who involuntarily react to the speech by immediately committing a crime. That makes it little different from putting a gun in someone’s hand, bending their finger around the trigger, and forcing them to fire it. The person holding the gun is not responsible; the crime is committed by the person who is physically manipulating his hand. In the case of incitement the manipulation is emotional.
But as soon as you drop that imminency requirement you’re talking about giving someone reasons why they should decide to commit the crime. And that is protected speech. If they are persuaded by the arguments and decide to commit the crime, that’s entirely on them.
The problem with your argument is that Khahil did incite immediate violence at the Columbia protests. Furthermore, the Columbia protest denied students the right of association in a classroom and created an atmosphere of bigotry and violence against Jews on campus.
Khahil was the main instigator of antisemitism on the campus.
That is not protected speech in any way, shape or form.
Then let the government say so, and deport him for that. I have no objection to deporting him. He’s a f***ing nazi and deserves it. But not for his protected speech.
The problem with the arguments here on the forums is that none of us have seen the actual paperwork the government is filing to revoke his green card. Rubio and others have said that it is for his Hamas advocacy and Milhouse is right that would become a free speech issue. But for all we know in the official paperwork they list taking over buildings, vandalism, assault on Jewish students, preventing Jewish students from getting to class, and all kinds of other stuff as proof of that advocacy . And all those things, while misdemeanors, are crimes and are justification for revoking a green card.
True. But those rules must comply with the constitution. Congress can’t create rules that abridge the freedom of speech.
It’s true that we don’t need to let such people in. The courts have ruled that aliens applying for admission to the USA have essentially no rights at all. They’re asking for a favor, and it can be denied for almost any reason, including their political opinions.
But that only works because the constitution doesn’t protect the rights of non-resident aliens who are not in the USA. It protects US citizens and permanent residents no matter where they are, and it protects everyone who is physically here, but it doesn’t protect those who have no connection to the USA. It’s not that they don’t have the same rights as we do, it’s that the constitution doesn’t protect their rights. If we abridge their rights, shame on us but the constitution has nothing to say about it.
Once someone is here in the USA that changes completely. Now the constitution protects their rights, and it’s no longer legal to punish them in any way for exercising those rights.
So charge him with that. Cite that as the reason for deporting him. But they’re not (at least according to what’s been reported).
No, you don’t have to point to such a case. Now if they were deporting him for actual crimes and he were to claim selective enforcement, then they’d have to point to a parallel case where the government acted differently. But so long as the government itself says the deportation is for his speech, that itself is the proof that it’s for his speech!
I will happily concede your 1A arguments the moment that 2A rights are allowed Nationwide via Constitutional Carry for all individuals on the same basis you want to apply here. IOW when any person not a felon or mental ‘defective’ is allowed to purchase, keep and bear arms without pettifogging from bureaucracy or harassment by Federal, State or local govt.
“Constitutional carry” is a political slogan, not an actual constitutional right. The second amendment does not require it.
However you are correct that the second amendment is not being honored by local, state, and even federal governments, and that is very wrong. Equally violating the first amendment would not correct that, it would only make it more wrong.
When all the usual suspects who seem to vilify, disregard and downplay the 2A get that fixed then I will listen to 1A arguments. I know you ain’t in that category but most of the folks hollering 1A on this guy definitely are in that category. They seem to be disingenuous frauds who have very selective support for our Constitution shifting their support to fit their partisan political interests and not any particular respect for the Constitution.
Almost forgot, I agree that ‘Constitutional Carry’ is political/rhetorical shorthand. Keep and bear arms seem simple. One may possess and have arms on their person. Shall not be infringed seems even more straightforward no pettifogging BS from bureaucracy that impedes the simple act of keep and bear.
“The right to keep and bear arms” is fairly clear. Not 100%, just as most legal terms are not 100% clear and self-explanatory; but it means more or less what it sounds like. And “shall not be infringed” is absolutely clear; once we determine exactly what the RKBA entails, that may not be infringed at all.
But the RKBA doesn’t include “constitutional carry”, which means the right to bear arms anywhere you like, in any manner you like, without a permit. At least as SCOTUS has currently ruled, the government must allow you to carry somehow, either openly or concealed, but it doesn’t have to allow both. And it can require a permit, so long as these are easily obtained by those whose rights are protected, including the poor. Which means the fortunes that are charged for permits in some jurisdictions, and the hoops one must jump through to get them, are unconstitutional.
When the vigorous 1A defenders work to fix those daily 2A violations just as vigorously then sure. No more it depends on 2A when folks want near absolutism on 1A.
Never a constitutional issue when running defense for out greatest business partner.
Sorry, ally.
Now tell me the American Civil liberties Union is defending a NON AMERICAN! Time to pull their $$ from the U.S. teat.
The Missus is eight (8) months pregnant. Are we looking at a claim for birthright citizenship?!!! If you don’t think this was a deliberate action, you would be wrong.
Leave a Comment