The government's arrest and detention of a pro-Palestinian Columbia student (and green card holder) raises difficult questions about both technical immigration statutes and the First Amendment.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
That's debatable. The Trump/Netanyahu plan to permanently evict Palestinians from Gaza and turn it into a resort was "coming for Palestinians". That makes it at least plausible that Trump would like to "come for Palestinians" in the U.S., at least to the extent that he can find legal justifications for doing so.
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
Do you believe in the First Amendment – you know, the part of the US Constitution that protects freedom of expression? Let's be clear on the facts here. The person that this administration is trying to deport has not been accused or charged with any crime.
President Trump, or you, not agreeing with his political views is not a basis to deport a legal resident of this country. What kind of country do you want to live in?
Are you ready to be deported if your views don't match those of the current government?
If you think this way, maybe you don't understand America's founding principles.
He was the ringleader of a group that terrorized Jewish kids, attacked a school janitor, and brok innumerable other, smaller laws. He's not a citizen. Bye, Felicia. And let's be clear: none of you Dem, terrorist apologists gave a damn about free speech in the aforementioned years or even FIVE MINUTES AGO, when the VP lightly encouraged the EU to stop jailing people for tweets and overturning fair election results.
You, a citizen, can believe what you want, and honestly, so can this bozo, but kis actions are the issue here.
Your facts are wrong, Samhain. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your "version" of the facts. You claim that he "attached a school janitor" and broke other laws. You make these unsubstantiated assertsions but the fact remains that he has not been charged with any crimes. It seems that he has participated in some "sit-ins" and I don't think we want to be a country where that kind of protest results in being singled out and deported.
As to our illustrious VP: after publicly chastising the leader of the country (Ukraine) who has valiantly rallied his people to defend itself against a brutal invasion by Russia, he then headed to Europe – which survived the scourge of Nazism less than 100 years ago at extreme cost, including the sacrifice of American blood and treasure – to meet with the Nazi-adjacent German AFD party and lecture Europeans that the greatest threat to Europe is not hate-filled parties like this or an emboldened, expansionist Russia but rather the actions of Europe's own democratically leaders to try to marginalize and contain these racist parties.
He should STFU, as he sounds like – and is – a fool. His comments are bonkers and totally wrong and irresponsible. This administration treats our friends like enemies, and our enemies as friends. The world has become a more dangerous place as a result.
If you think that JD Vance is a font of wisdom and common sense, I suggest you do a little more reading, including the history of appeasement and isolationism that preceded World War II.
The "First Amendment" "Right of the PEOPLE" by its express terms does not apply to ALIENS as against the deportation power of the Federal Government.
It has long been the "foreign policy" of the United States to use all means necessary including gunships to stop people inhabiting the Mediterranean Coast including Gaza and the Palestinians from practicing slavery. [First Barbary War 1801, Second Barbary War, WWI, WW2, War Against ISIS].
But still today, the People of Libya and the the People of Gaza are known to practice slavery (especially sex slaves).
The People of Gaza have been enslaving people for over 1400 years (632 AD to 2024 AD)
"Open chattel slavery existed in the region of Palestine until the 20th-century. ... Many members of the Black Palestinians minority are descendants of the former slaves. ... White slaves were imported from the Black Sea region"
The People of Gaza are currently holding American Citizens as hostages, including Edan Alexander, just as people of the Barbary States and of Gaza held Americans as hostages and as slaves and for ransom before the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War in the early 1800s.
Thus the presence and public activities of Mahmoud Khalil advocating for the People of Gaza does "compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest".
The same articles reveal that the People of Gaza produced and harbor "ISIS" fighters who went to Iraq to build a new Caliphate and enslaved thousands of Yazidi women in Iraq after murdering their husbands/sons/brothers.
Hamas, the elected representatives of the People of Gaza, is generally known to be a "terrorist" organization.
The People of Gaza kidnapped alive 12 United States Citizens from Israel on October 7, 2024.
46 Americans were killed in the October 7, 2023 attacks by the People of Gaza, as shown in these videos. https://www.hamas-massacre.net/
Some American hostages were also later murdered in captivity by the People of Gaza, including Itay Chen, Gad Haggai, Judy Weinstein Haggai, and Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
Even while purporting to release hostages/slaves, the People of Gaza go out of their way to publicly humiliate and torment the captives while releasing them. After 10/7, the entire world has witnessed the depravity and barbarity promoted by the People of Gaza. The world has seen the photos and videos Hamas posted with such pride and glee. https://www.hamas-massacre.net/ Parading human bodies in public as if they were trophies. Gaza Children parading in military clothing carrying weapons, just waiting for their chance to capture, torture and enslave others.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which renders removable any non-citizen who "support a terrorist organization", applies because insofar as Mahmoud Khalil was involved in organizing pro-Palestinian protests on Columbia’s campus, he was "endors[ing] or espous[ing]: terrorist activity and "support[ing] a terrorist organization" (to wit, the People of Gaza).
The Founding Fathers made clear in the "right of the People" language of the First Amendment, Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment that these rights are not secured to non-citizens (aliens such as loyalist British Subjects who are not US Citizens). Thus, many thousands of British Loyalists were deported after the Revolutionary War. In 1898, Congress passed the "Alien Act" to specifically authorized President Adams to order the departure (on penalty of incarceration) of "such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States"
Thus, in the minds of the People who proposed and ratified the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment did not limit the power of the United States to expel people who, like Mahmoud Khalil, are "such aliens as [The President] shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".
The Supreme Court has held that such aliens have zero constitutional right to remain in the United States. Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86 (1903) ; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 165 n.8 (1948). (although a right to not be enslaved or permanently incarcerated has been recognized by the courts). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9549-lcb114art5vladekpdf
Judge Furman has already temporarily barred the government from removing Khalil from the United States pending further proceedings in his court. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Magats are mostly ineducable. They don’t understand what’s happening. They were identified as an f47 base because of their intellectual shortcomings and racism.
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
This is a fantastic post on this topic, however, I have to disagree with the conclusion that any of this is about First Amendment protected speech. It isn't Khalil's advocacy (i.e., the content of his speech) for Palestine that put him on the government's radar - millions of people advocate for Palestine/Hamas every day in writing, including aliens. What got Khalil on the government's radar was his alleged participation in the occupation of Hamilton Hall and Milgren. That first event resulted in the university needing police to arrest the occupiers; the second event resulted in an assault on a security guard, a bomb threat, and another unauthorized occupation of private property. The occupations are (arguably) a violation of federal law too, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which does not permit universities receiving public funds to permit the creation of a hostile environment for a class of students.
We can argue about whether "Globalize the Intifada!" chants from students who break into and occupy (and claim exclusive domain over) certain areas of the university results in a Title VI violation, but it is hard to see the occupations as "speech". To the extent speech was involved at all, it was ancillary to the violent trespass - a crime. How does speech legalize trespass on private property, assaulting security guards, acts of vandalism like breaking windows etc.? Khalil was allegedly involved in all of those acts. It seems to me that the government wants to deport aliens who break into buildings and assault security guards; the speech used to justify those actions appears to have no bearing whatsoever, and definitely doesn't create a shield to somehow legalize otherwise criminal activity.
Oh, come on man. If he committed a crime, charge him with a crime. Unless and until someone does, there is absolutely no basis to do what is being done. Even if participated in an "occupation" (what others might call a "sit-in" or civil disobedience), is that the kind of serious crime that you want to see a person deported for?
Are you seriously arguing that this action by the Trump administration is not precisely about this person's speech and political views? Have you read Trump's public pronouncements?
I'm not a Hamas supporter, and I suspect I wouldn't agree with Khalil's views if I read them. But we need to have free speech in this country? Isn't this what Trump and his "anti-woke" MAGA minions have been going on about endlessly for the last several years?
This is just the return of McCarthyism. These people only believe in free speech FOR THEMSELVEDS. Everyone else's speech, they are happy to criminalize.
Do you know if Khalil personally engaged in any of the actions you mention? If not, did he advocate or support those actions, or did he only represent the protesters in discussions with Columbia University's administration? The difference seems important to me, though I don't know how relevant the difference is legally (I have no legal training).
You can go on Canary Mission’s website and see the videos of Khalil talking into a megaphone at the demonstrations, the handbills he was handing out, etc.
But this argument is really akin to claiming that the Hamas negotiators in Qatar are just disinterested third parties that do not endorse Hamas. Of course that isn’t true - they are there as “negotiators” because they support Hamas! Similarly, Khalil wasn’t just “mediating” as a disinterested third party between two groups; he was actively promoting the cause of one group and then presenting its demands. He was more like the situation where two guys rob a bank and hold hostages, with one bank robber holding the gun on the hostages while the other talks to police on the phone. We wouldn’t call such a person a “negotiator” - the negotiator is the agent on the hostage rescue team, not the co-conspirator who happens to not be holding the gun, lol.
I looked at the Canary Mission's web page on Mahoud Khalil (2), and I viewed some of the articles and videos that they cite to support the claim that he supports Hamas and terrorism. None of these showed him stating support for Hamas, terrorism, or even violence. I also did not see quotes or videos of him denouncing Hamas, but of course that doesn't imply that he supports them.
At a press conference on April 23, 2024 (1), Khalil says (starting at 27:07) "We are here to affirm that we believe that the struggle to achieve liberation - Palestinian and Jewish liberation - is intertwined and go hand-by-hand. And after all, this is a movement of equality, social justice, and liberation for Palestine and the rest of the world."
Canary Mission also cites a video of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protests at Columbia University (5), saying that Khalil was standing next to "Maryam Iqbal, who led the chant calling for Israel’s destruction", but Khalil is not heard saying anything in the video. That's a particularly egregious form of the guilt-by-association argumentation. Note that a women on the pro-Palestinian side says (0:38 - 0:45) "Clearly we're all against violence, but we're just asking for the lives of Palestinian civilians to be acknowledged as well." Of course, that's also not evidence about Khalil's personal beliefs, but her statement belies the claim that all the pro-Palestinian protestors support violence, terrorism, and Hamas.
Canary Mission also links to a few videos of Khalil at student protests, but that also proves nothing about his particular views on Hamas. He explicitly stated that the protestors want Columbia U. to divest from Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians.
Canary Mission also cites an X/Twitter post of Khalil (6) saying "As you've seen, Palestinians have tried multiple sorts of resistance, whether it is armed, unarmed resistance, peaceful, whatever. But Israel and the propaganda always find something to attack." and "We [Palestinians] tried armed resistance, which is legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism." The video has been edited, so we cannot know what armed resistance he was referring to, and that out-of-context quote certainly doesn't imply that he supports the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli Jews.
Your comment is the first I've seen citing direct evidence that Khalil actively supported CUAD, as opposed to negotiating for the right to protest.
As for my "argument" regarding Khalil negotiating for CUAD, I simply said that I hadn't yet read any articles or comments citing evidence of the allegations against him, and I wasn't going to make a judgment before I saw such evidence. Maybe the videos you mentioned will make the case clear; I'll take a look soon.
In general, if I hear that person P negotiated on behalf of group G, I will not assume on that basis alone that P condones G's viewpoint or actions. Perhaps you were already familiar with Khalil's viewpoint, but I wasn't.
P.S. My first attempt to respond to you wound up as a stand-alone comment, which I deleted since it's meant as a reply to you.
Quite right. Trespass, assault, criminal damage to property are not speech. The First Amendment claim is a straw man asserting that Khalil is merely being persecuted for his opinions. He is not. However, according to his lawyers, Khalil has not been charged with a crime. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
If you agreed with what this guy said, you would have a different attitude, I am quite certain. This kind of situational civil liberties disgusts me. You are a lawyer???
If he had been charged with and convicted of any crime, he would be deportable. He was not. You are ascribing the actions of every demonstrator at Columbia to Khalil, but crimes belong to an individual. He was charged with none.
Conviction of a crime is one way a person can lose permanent residency status (or some other visa status) - but it is not the ONLY way.
Federal law also permits the Secretary of State to revoke the visa if any alien whose presence on the U.S. is obstructive to U.S. foreign policy interests as determined by the Secretary. And it is that provision that the administration has used to revoke Khalil’s visa and purport to have authority to deport him.
Professor Vladeck is correct that there is a constitutional argument that may ultimately be raised (ie, that the revocation is actually punishment for disfavored speech and the statute as used is unconstitutional). I happen to think the government will easily win this case for the reason in my original comment (violent demonstrations are action, not First Amendment protected speech).
I also think that Columbias/New Yorks refusal to charge Khalil for the crimes committed during the demonstrations actually strengthens the governments case for its broad interpretation of the Secretary’s unilateral exclusion power - if violent acts are occurring that are damaging to U.S. policy interests and the state and private parties are united in ignoring the lawbreaking, the government can argue that its interpretation of the broad exclusion power was intended by Congress for exactly such an instance.
Columbia does not have the power to charge anyone with a crime. New York did not charge Khalil, and, again, a person cannot be charged with all the actions of a group - you have to know what the individual did. As for the AG, the decision is not entirely in his discretion, as his belief that someone is dangerous to the country’s foreign policy must be REASONABLE. Also, stop saying ‘visa’. Permanent residence is not a visa. Finally, consider what Khalil’s stance really is. Is he pro-Palestinian? That doesn’t mean he is pro-Hamas or antisemitic. Did he say anything that indicates either of those stances? And, if he did - in what way does that compromise the foreign policy of the US?
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
It seems likely that 1) moving Khalil to LA to engage in a Habeas fight was on purpose to drag this out and 2) the end result will be there are no First Amendment protections for non-citizens engaged in "endorsing terrorism" and SCOTUS will permit Republican prosecutors to use such a basis with great deference. A few years later 3) The same principle will apply to citizens as well to crush dissent.
Seems to me, trespass (and associated bad acts, assault etc) with the intent of advocating for Palestinians in Gaza does not, without more, equate to espousing or endorsing terrorism - unless the gov can prove the defendant actually endorsed or espoused Hamas. So, what did he actually say/do from which one could legally infer the intent to "endorse" or "espouse"? (Fascinating and important case.)
I agree with your last point. I don't agree that it will apply to citizens, however. The administration's willful misreading of the 14th Amendment will allow it to reclassify almost everyone it disagrees with as a non-citizen.
Prof Vladeck - kudos to you on your recent efforts to try and keep up with all of the disruptive (e.g. horrible) efforts of Trump and his administration to 'flood the zone.' What makes this action even more cruel is that Khalil's wife is eight months pregnant. I think the legal argument that Kahlil's peaceful demonstration and related speech provides the Secretary of State a sufficient basis for claiming his (Kahlil's) activities "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States" is feeble.
Though Kahlil's predicament is much more dire, I think his detention is another example of how Republicans are behaving badly when faced with opposing viewpoints or criticism. GOP leaders have told their rank and file to completely stop holding town hall meetings because their hometown crowds were overwhelmingly angry and critical of the lawmakers. Reluctance to face potential criticism is also what motivated Trump's decision to exclude reputable media outlets from various venues. We all need to fight back ferociously against these despicable actions. Not only is it anti-democratic, and un-American, it is plain wrong.
Playing hide the ball with fact that Padilla was a citizen being detained as an enemy combatant in order to pretend that its applicable precedent in detention incident to an LPR rescission that at the time of arrest the state department believed was a visa overstay is perverse. you are giving these monsters too much leeway.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
Was he directly involved in those activities other than trespassing that hundreds of students do every year as part of protests on campus? Unless we see him on video doing those activities why should we believe anything gov says he did, What FBI plants will testify?
Meth Bear, you still think Jan6th was anything other than FBI Plants breaking in one entrance, with Capital police inviting rest people to enter, most walking within the red fuzzy ropes? Do you still believe a police man was killed, beaten by fire extinguisher? That social-media didn't contrive to censored Pres. Trumps appeal for non-violence, or any other communication to us, that Zionist owned vile corporations more powerful than entire nations did not block attempts to prevent violence?
How else can you show us that you are a Corp-Media NPC programmed Golem ready to parrot anything they say? Perhaps not human but an AI the USAID monies paid-for to divide and lie and cause loss of trust in our humanities? A machine to cause others to waste time and resources on?
Meth Bear, if you are real .. imagine you have the virtue of the least of them and joined a protest against flag-burning, for example. An as the network cameras start recording and streaming an FBI plant gets in front waving a Nazi Flag, should we all think you Meth Bear, standing with a sign saying 'no flag burning' is a KKK member, a Nazi, a terrorist?
The least energetic protester in that movement is less a mound of Genocidal silent supporting bag of vomit them most of us doing nothing. "Oh, if I lived in Germany when Nazis came to power I'd ..I'd .. I'd suck their giant strap-ons" - clearly.
There are millions of Gaza Palestinians because they have been well fed, and they only suffer in Gaza because Egypt does not trust/want them. When the Palestinians had the "freedom" you want them to have they used that "freedom" to ENSLAVE OTHERS, including white people.
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
"As a general matter . . . an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."
As I understood it, this pertained to migrants who entered undocumented, or to people who entered legally but overstayed and therefore were without legal status.
The Founding Fathers made clear in the "right of the People" language of the First Amendment, Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment that these rights are not secured to non-citizens (aliens such as loyalist British Subjects who are not US Citizens). Thus, many thousands of British Loyalists were deported after the Revolutionary War. In 1798, Congress passed the "Alien Act" to specifically authorized President Adams to order the departure (on penalty of incarceration) of "such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States"
Thus, in the minds of the People who proposed and ratified the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment did not limit the power of the United States to expel people who, like Mahmoud Khalil, are "such aliens as [The President] shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".
The Supreme Court has held that such aliens have zero constitutional right to remain in the United States. Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86 (1903) ; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 165 n.8 (1948). (although a right to not be enslaved or permanently incarcerated has been recognized by the courts). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9549-lcb114art5vladekpdf
Good. Let us go back to the year 1800 - but then completely. You do not get to pick and choose. "In 1800, to become a US citizen, a "free white person" had to reside within the US for two years, prove good character to a court of record, and take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Seems to me we have potentially at least 10-15 Million new US citizens - if you think the rules from 1798 should still apply. The Alien Act is to be invoked in times of war. Who are we at war with currently ? Foreign born roofers, framers and landscapers ?
The trouble with a blunt instrument is its ability to be sharpened.
"Sympathise" (the word used by President Trump) indicates a state of mind. "I sympathise with park keepers, and therefore always drop litter in the bins." The act of dropping litter is a consequence of the state of my mind - sympathising with park keepers. But I can sympathise with park keepers my life long without anyone ever being aware of it - until I tell them, as I'm telling you now. You can define legally what a sympathiser is or is not, but mere utterance of the words "terrorist sympathiser" embeds in the listener's mind a thought that can be eradicated even less easily than can a terrorist.
Is this a Dreyfus case - trial as a means of example? What, then, is the example?
One has to consider why LPRs are granted that status: is it because they fancy the weather in Wisconsin? A burning desire to collect baseball cards? A plum job offer? The third's a candidate, but otherwise, might seeking refuge from oppression be in there? You grant asylum to the oppressed, and eject them when they speak out against that which oppressed them.
I assume, because he is reported to be married, that he got a Green Card based on marriage.
Your suggestions why people could be issued Green Cards, or not, are a bit weird. To immigrate into the US you need a family member who is a US citizen (in some cases LPR). All others interested, better forget it. Immigration because of a job offer often means a trip to hell and back - especially for the spouse. Each year a rather small number of refugees/ asylum seekers is allowed entry.
Useful insight, thanks Antoinette. The first two were intended to sound weird, but plausible as reasons to want to come. What you say seems to indicate that LPR is in and of itself more a situation of precarity, rather than equivalent to US citizenship. Perhaps all Mr Trump is doing is pressing home that very point.
No one can come here because they fancy the weather or because they collect something. As said, having a US citizen family member (sometimes LPR) is the pre-requisite.
Coming here for that "plum job" means non-immigrant status for years - with all the stress that entails for the "job stealer" and his family. Allowed to stay eventually - or not ? The spouse, usually the wife, is not allowed to work or to volunteer or to have a business.
Most USers have no idea about the cruelty & misogyny of the US immigration system. But almost all think it is a good system.
Thank you very much for making the effort to write this.
Thank you for frequently giving us the benefit of your knowledge in this horribly unique time. I hope you don't run out of gas, because it's very important for me to understand things.
Double that thank you for me.
First they came for the Palestinians...
Then they came for the false equivalences. (No one is coming for Palestinians qua Palestinian)
That's debatable. The Trump/Netanyahu plan to permanently evict Palestinians from Gaza and turn it into a resort was "coming for Palestinians". That makes it at least plausible that Trump would like to "come for Palestinians" in the U.S., at least to the extent that he can find legal justifications for doing so.
... then they came for the red herrings.
Now he's looking into dumping Palestinians in Sudan and Somalia, probably along with your red herrings.
One day Donald Trump will die and we will have to remember the inhumanity his sycophants insisted on in the name of national security. I fear they may never become self aware of their assault in freedom just to advance the ego of one man.
Inhumanity? In arresting and attempting to deport a scumbag like Khalil? https://x.com/ryanmauro/status/1899348525298729368
Name calling instead of facts.
Plenty of facts linked in support of name calling.
I'll await the USG's filings before jumping to conclusions on Khalil's actions based on information compiled by X grifters. Thank you!
You clearly don’t know what a straw man argument is.
Very judicious of you. I've seen sufficient facts not to be bothered by straw man fallacies.
Never forget what Democrats and their sycophants did to Americans from 2020-2024. Now they cheer for terrorist supporters.
Do you believe in the First Amendment – you know, the part of the US Constitution that protects freedom of expression? Let's be clear on the facts here. The person that this administration is trying to deport has not been accused or charged with any crime.
President Trump, or you, not agreeing with his political views is not a basis to deport a legal resident of this country. What kind of country do you want to live in?
Are you ready to be deported if your views don't match those of the current government?
If you think this way, maybe you don't understand America's founding principles.
He was the ringleader of a group that terrorized Jewish kids, attacked a school janitor, and brok innumerable other, smaller laws. He's not a citizen. Bye, Felicia. And let's be clear: none of you Dem, terrorist apologists gave a damn about free speech in the aforementioned years or even FIVE MINUTES AGO, when the VP lightly encouraged the EU to stop jailing people for tweets and overturning fair election results.
You, a citizen, can believe what you want, and honestly, so can this bozo, but kis actions are the issue here.
Your facts are wrong, Samhain. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your "version" of the facts. You claim that he "attached a school janitor" and broke other laws. You make these unsubstantiated assertsions but the fact remains that he has not been charged with any crimes. It seems that he has participated in some "sit-ins" and I don't think we want to be a country where that kind of protest results in being singled out and deported.
As to our illustrious VP: after publicly chastising the leader of the country (Ukraine) who has valiantly rallied his people to defend itself against a brutal invasion by Russia, he then headed to Europe – which survived the scourge of Nazism less than 100 years ago at extreme cost, including the sacrifice of American blood and treasure – to meet with the Nazi-adjacent German AFD party and lecture Europeans that the greatest threat to Europe is not hate-filled parties like this or an emboldened, expansionist Russia but rather the actions of Europe's own democratically leaders to try to marginalize and contain these racist parties.
He should STFU, as he sounds like – and is – a fool. His comments are bonkers and totally wrong and irresponsible. This administration treats our friends like enemies, and our enemies as friends. The world has become a more dangerous place as a result.
If you think that JD Vance is a font of wisdom and common sense, I suggest you do a little more reading, including the history of appeasement and isolationism that preceded World War II.
Why are you on the side of ISIS and its supporters? Gaza/Hamas is ISIS.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5v077nyjo
https://www.voanews.com/a/yazidi-sex-slave-rescued-from-gaza-in-rare-internationally-collaborative-mission/7809579.html
You are a Saqaliba? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
If not for the "racists" that you condemn, the Gaza Palestinians would enslave you immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x310nym [White Slaves depicted in historical documentary video]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary
This is why People of Gaza are today not allowed to enter "racist" Poland nor Hungary.
https://x.com/RayF1453350/status/1902746812076749060
https://x.com/B7frankH/status/1888272786746925071/video/1
The "First Amendment" "Right of the PEOPLE" by its express terms does not apply to ALIENS as against the deportation power of the Federal Government.
It has long been the "foreign policy" of the United States to use all means necessary including gunships to stop people inhabiting the Mediterranean Coast including Gaza and the Palestinians from practicing slavery. [First Barbary War 1801, Second Barbary War, WWI, WW2, War Against ISIS].
But still today, the People of Libya and the the People of Gaza are known to practice slavery (especially sex slaves).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5v077nyjo
https://www.voanews.com/a/yazidi-sex-slave-rescued-from-gaza-in-rare-internationally-collaborative-mission/7809579.html
The People of Gaza have been enslaving people for over 1400 years (632 AD to 2024 AD)
"Open chattel slavery existed in the region of Palestine until the 20th-century. ... Many members of the Black Palestinians minority are descendants of the former slaves. ... White slaves were imported from the Black Sea region"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x310nym [White Slaves depicted in historical documentary video]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary
This is why People of Gaza are today not allowed to enter Poland nor Hungary.
https://x.com/RayF1453350/status/1902746812076749060
https://x.com/B7frankH/status/1888272786746925071/video/1
The People of Gaza are currently holding American Citizens as hostages, including Edan Alexander, just as people of the Barbary States and of Gaza held Americans as hostages and as slaves and for ransom before the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War in the early 1800s.
Thus the presence and public activities of Mahmoud Khalil advocating for the People of Gaza does "compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest".
The same articles reveal that the People of Gaza produced and harbor "ISIS" fighters who went to Iraq to build a new Caliphate and enslaved thousands of Yazidi women in Iraq after murdering their husbands/sons/brothers.
Hamas, the elected representatives of the People of Gaza, is generally known to be a "terrorist" organization.
The People of Gaza kidnapped alive 12 United States Citizens from Israel on October 7, 2024.
46 Americans were killed in the October 7, 2023 attacks by the People of Gaza, as shown in these videos. https://www.hamas-massacre.net/
Some American hostages were also later murdered in captivity by the People of Gaza, including Itay Chen, Gad Haggai, Judy Weinstein Haggai, and Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
Even while purporting to release hostages/slaves, the People of Gaza go out of their way to publicly humiliate and torment the captives while releasing them. After 10/7, the entire world has witnessed the depravity and barbarity promoted by the People of Gaza. The world has seen the photos and videos Hamas posted with such pride and glee. https://www.hamas-massacre.net/ Parading human bodies in public as if they were trophies. Gaza Children parading in military clothing carrying weapons, just waiting for their chance to capture, torture and enslave others.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which renders removable any non-citizen who "support a terrorist organization", applies because insofar as Mahmoud Khalil was involved in organizing pro-Palestinian protests on Columbia’s campus, he was "endors[ing] or espous[ing]: terrorist activity and "support[ing] a terrorist organization" (to wit, the People of Gaza).
The Founding Fathers made clear in the "right of the People" language of the First Amendment, Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment that these rights are not secured to non-citizens (aliens such as loyalist British Subjects who are not US Citizens). Thus, many thousands of British Loyalists were deported after the Revolutionary War. In 1898, Congress passed the "Alien Act" to specifically authorized President Adams to order the departure (on penalty of incarceration) of "such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States"
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
Thus, in the minds of the People who proposed and ratified the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment did not limit the power of the United States to expel people who, like Mahmoud Khalil, are "such aliens as [The President] shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".
The Supreme Court has held that such aliens have zero constitutional right to remain in the United States. Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86 (1903) ; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 165 n.8 (1948). (although a right to not be enslaved or permanently incarcerated has been recognized by the courts). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9549-lcb114art5vladekpdf
Judge Furman has already temporarily barred the government from removing Khalil from the United States pending further proceedings in his court. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Magats are mostly ineducable. They don’t understand what’s happening. They were identified as an f47 base because of their intellectual shortcomings and racism.
By the time Donald Trump dies the right is going to be convinced that he was a RINO and the current Republican president/nominee is the real Republican/conservative and the left is going to be convinced that he was the greatest Republican president and the current Republican president/nominee is worse than Hitler...
This is a fantastic post on this topic, however, I have to disagree with the conclusion that any of this is about First Amendment protected speech. It isn't Khalil's advocacy (i.e., the content of his speech) for Palestine that put him on the government's radar - millions of people advocate for Palestine/Hamas every day in writing, including aliens. What got Khalil on the government's radar was his alleged participation in the occupation of Hamilton Hall and Milgren. That first event resulted in the university needing police to arrest the occupiers; the second event resulted in an assault on a security guard, a bomb threat, and another unauthorized occupation of private property. The occupations are (arguably) a violation of federal law too, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which does not permit universities receiving public funds to permit the creation of a hostile environment for a class of students.
We can argue about whether "Globalize the Intifada!" chants from students who break into and occupy (and claim exclusive domain over) certain areas of the university results in a Title VI violation, but it is hard to see the occupations as "speech". To the extent speech was involved at all, it was ancillary to the violent trespass - a crime. How does speech legalize trespass on private property, assaulting security guards, acts of vandalism like breaking windows etc.? Khalil was allegedly involved in all of those acts. It seems to me that the government wants to deport aliens who break into buildings and assault security guards; the speech used to justify those actions appears to have no bearing whatsoever, and definitely doesn't create a shield to somehow legalize otherwise criminal activity.
Oh, come on man. If he committed a crime, charge him with a crime. Unless and until someone does, there is absolutely no basis to do what is being done. Even if participated in an "occupation" (what others might call a "sit-in" or civil disobedience), is that the kind of serious crime that you want to see a person deported for?
Are you seriously arguing that this action by the Trump administration is not precisely about this person's speech and political views? Have you read Trump's public pronouncements?
I'm not a Hamas supporter, and I suspect I wouldn't agree with Khalil's views if I read them. But we need to have free speech in this country? Isn't this what Trump and his "anti-woke" MAGA minions have been going on about endlessly for the last several years?
This is just the return of McCarthyism. These people only believe in free speech FOR THEMSELVEDS. Everyone else's speech, they are happy to criminalize.
Do you know if Khalil personally engaged in any of the actions you mention? If not, did he advocate or support those actions, or did he only represent the protesters in discussions with Columbia University's administration? The difference seems important to me, though I don't know how relevant the difference is legally (I have no legal training).
Yes, the difference between speech and action is quite important.
You can go on Canary Mission’s website and see the videos of Khalil talking into a megaphone at the demonstrations, the handbills he was handing out, etc.
But this argument is really akin to claiming that the Hamas negotiators in Qatar are just disinterested third parties that do not endorse Hamas. Of course that isn’t true - they are there as “negotiators” because they support Hamas! Similarly, Khalil wasn’t just “mediating” as a disinterested third party between two groups; he was actively promoting the cause of one group and then presenting its demands. He was more like the situation where two guys rob a bank and hold hostages, with one bank robber holding the gun on the hostages while the other talks to police on the phone. We wouldn’t call such a person a “negotiator” - the negotiator is the agent on the hostage rescue team, not the co-conspirator who happens to not be holding the gun, lol.
Following up on my previous reply to you:
I looked at the Canary Mission's web page on Mahoud Khalil (2), and I viewed some of the articles and videos that they cite to support the claim that he supports Hamas and terrorism. None of these showed him stating support for Hamas, terrorism, or even violence. I also did not see quotes or videos of him denouncing Hamas, but of course that doesn't imply that he supports them.
At a press conference on April 23, 2024 (1), Khalil says (starting at 27:07) "We are here to affirm that we believe that the struggle to achieve liberation - Palestinian and Jewish liberation - is intertwined and go hand-by-hand. And after all, this is a movement of equality, social justice, and liberation for Palestine and the rest of the world."
Canary Mission also cites a video of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protests at Columbia University (5), saying that Khalil was standing next to "Maryam Iqbal, who led the chant calling for Israel’s destruction", but Khalil is not heard saying anything in the video. That's a particularly egregious form of the guilt-by-association argumentation. Note that a women on the pro-Palestinian side says (0:38 - 0:45) "Clearly we're all against violence, but we're just asking for the lives of Palestinian civilians to be acknowledged as well." Of course, that's also not evidence about Khalil's personal beliefs, but her statement belies the claim that all the pro-Palestinian protestors support violence, terrorism, and Hamas.
Canary Mission also links to a few videos of Khalil at student protests, but that also proves nothing about his particular views on Hamas. He explicitly stated that the protestors want Columbia U. to divest from Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians.
Canary Mission also cites an X/Twitter post of Khalil (6) saying "As you've seen, Palestinians have tried multiple sorts of resistance, whether it is armed, unarmed resistance, peaceful, whatever. But Israel and the propaganda always find something to attack." and "We [Palestinians] tried armed resistance, which is legitimate under international law, but Israel calls it terrorism." The video has been edited, so we cannot know what armed resistance he was referring to, and that out-of-context quote certainly doesn't imply that he supports the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli Jews.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/live/kI3VrmZCVfY?t=2190s
[2] https://canarymission.org/individual/Mahmoud_Khalil
[3] https://x.com/canarymission/status/1897731409369870762
[4] https://www.instagram.com/mosheh/reel/C6ZKrh-r5Zx/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL-pIpnaixA&t=5s
[6] https://x.com/Davidlederer6/status/1899501664580571423
Your comment is the first I've seen citing direct evidence that Khalil actively supported CUAD, as opposed to negotiating for the right to protest.
As for my "argument" regarding Khalil negotiating for CUAD, I simply said that I hadn't yet read any articles or comments citing evidence of the allegations against him, and I wasn't going to make a judgment before I saw such evidence. Maybe the videos you mentioned will make the case clear; I'll take a look soon.
In general, if I hear that person P negotiated on behalf of group G, I will not assume on that basis alone that P condones G's viewpoint or actions. Perhaps you were already familiar with Khalil's viewpoint, but I wasn't.
P.S. My first attempt to respond to you wound up as a stand-alone comment, which I deleted since it's meant as a reply to you.
Quite right. Trespass, assault, criminal damage to property are not speech. The First Amendment claim is a straw man asserting that Khalil is merely being persecuted for his opinions. He is not. However, according to his lawyers, Khalil has not been charged with a crime. We'll have to wait and see how this pans out.
If you agreed with what this guy said, you would have a different attitude, I am quite certain. This kind of situational civil liberties disgusts me. You are a lawyer???
If he had been charged with and convicted of any crime, he would be deportable. He was not. You are ascribing the actions of every demonstrator at Columbia to Khalil, but crimes belong to an individual. He was charged with none.
Conviction of a crime is one way a person can lose permanent residency status (or some other visa status) - but it is not the ONLY way.
Federal law also permits the Secretary of State to revoke the visa if any alien whose presence on the U.S. is obstructive to U.S. foreign policy interests as determined by the Secretary. And it is that provision that the administration has used to revoke Khalil’s visa and purport to have authority to deport him.
Professor Vladeck is correct that there is a constitutional argument that may ultimately be raised (ie, that the revocation is actually punishment for disfavored speech and the statute as used is unconstitutional). I happen to think the government will easily win this case for the reason in my original comment (violent demonstrations are action, not First Amendment protected speech).
I also think that Columbias/New Yorks refusal to charge Khalil for the crimes committed during the demonstrations actually strengthens the governments case for its broad interpretation of the Secretary’s unilateral exclusion power - if violent acts are occurring that are damaging to U.S. policy interests and the state and private parties are united in ignoring the lawbreaking, the government can argue that its interpretation of the broad exclusion power was intended by Congress for exactly such an instance.
Columbia does not have the power to charge anyone with a crime. New York did not charge Khalil, and, again, a person cannot be charged with all the actions of a group - you have to know what the individual did. As for the AG, the decision is not entirely in his discretion, as his belief that someone is dangerous to the country’s foreign policy must be REASONABLE. Also, stop saying ‘visa’. Permanent residence is not a visa. Finally, consider what Khalil’s stance really is. Is he pro-Palestinian? That doesn’t mean he is pro-Hamas or antisemitic. Did he say anything that indicates either of those stances? And, if he did - in what way does that compromise the foreign policy of the US?
I am surprised that I have yet to see anyone mention the only case to address the "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" provision that appears to be the basis for Khalil's deportation: Massieu v Reno, 915 F Supp 681, rev'd 91 F3d 416. The district court found the statute to be void for vagueness, but the appellate court reversed on exhaustion grounds, without reaching the merits. But here is the really interesting part. The judge who authored the appellate decision? Samuel Alito. And the district judge who struck down the statute? None other than Maryanne Trump Barry, the president's late sister.
Wow. Thanks.
Is the 2nd legal basis (endorsing or espousing views of a terrorist organization - like distributing Hamas propaganda) an independent basis for removal or in addition to the 1st legal basis (adverse to US foreign policy interest)?
Looks like an alternative.
Fascinating, thank you
I’m even more depressed after reading this but happy I’m more informed. What a country.
It would seem that the statutory test: “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable” would require a formal determination by the Secretary of State. If being a campus Palestinian protest leader is all that can be claimed, it is doubtful that Rubio can meet the burden. Such a rationale seems pretextual and a cover for deprivation of First Amendment rights of a lawful green card holder. This is especially so when Trump threatens to deport many students in similar circumstances.
Most students have J, F, or M non-immigrant visas, not Green Cards. They also have to register and stay compliant with SEVIS. But it would be good to remember that foreign students are a 35 Billion dollar industry.
Doesn’t at least one prong of the case rather beg the question of whether being against the treatment of Palestinians is somehow Pro Hamas or any other terrorist. I for one am far from being pro Hamas and wish they’d just get the hell out of the whole thing. What Hamas is, is just what tRump is—pro power for themselves. They’ve been feeding on the people of Gaza since they won by a small plurality —not much smaller than tRump’s—and then took over all by a violent coup. And Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians long predated Hamas. Those beliefs of mine about what Hamas is do not preclude active, actually quite passionate, support of the Palestinian people in this conflict.
Begging the question: what are the alleged FACTS of this case? Hopefully when we know, Steve V. will write another analysis.
So far we know he was a negotiator between protestors and Columbia, that Columbia suspended him briefly and reinstated him. Rubio has presented no evidence that he was pro Hamas. So we have a few agreed facts on one side and none on the other. What H Security has said is activities "aligned with Hamas." That's pretty broad and could be anything. If Hamas objects to a kid getting killed, and so do I, am I aligned with Hamas?
I wouldn't put it past Rubio to argue that he "aligned with Hamas" in that neither he nor Hamas approved of Palestinian civilians being slaughtered.
Slaughtered? Holy Quran 5:33 and 8:12 explicitly prescribes that people are to be "slaughtered" with blades.
Are you on the side of ISIS and its Palestinian supporters? Gaza/Hamas is ISIS.
https://www.voanews.com/a/yazidi-sex-slave-rescued-from-gaza-in-rare-internationally-collaborative-mission/7809579.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5v077nyjo
You are a Saqaliba? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
If not for the American people that you condemn, the Gaza Palestinians would enslave you immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x310nym [White Slaves depicted in historical documentary video]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary
This is why People of Gaza are today not allowed to enter Poland nor Hungary.
https://x.com/RayF1453350/status/1902746812076749060
https://x.com/B7frankH/status/1888272786746925071/video/1
Sigh
It seems likely that 1) moving Khalil to LA to engage in a Habeas fight was on purpose to drag this out and 2) the end result will be there are no First Amendment protections for non-citizens engaged in "endorsing terrorism" and SCOTUS will permit Republican prosecutors to use such a basis with great deference. A few years later 3) The same principle will apply to citizens as well to crush dissent.
Seems to me, trespass (and associated bad acts, assault etc) with the intent of advocating for Palestinians in Gaza does not, without more, equate to espousing or endorsing terrorism - unless the gov can prove the defendant actually endorsed or espoused Hamas. So, what did he actually say/do from which one could legally infer the intent to "endorse" or "espouse"? (Fascinating and important case.)
I agree with your last point. I don't agree that it will apply to citizens, however. The administration's willful misreading of the 14th Amendment will allow it to reclassify almost everyone it disagrees with as a non-citizen.
I hope you are right.
Prof Vladeck - kudos to you on your recent efforts to try and keep up with all of the disruptive (e.g. horrible) efforts of Trump and his administration to 'flood the zone.' What makes this action even more cruel is that Khalil's wife is eight months pregnant. I think the legal argument that Kahlil's peaceful demonstration and related speech provides the Secretary of State a sufficient basis for claiming his (Kahlil's) activities "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States" is feeble.
Though Kahlil's predicament is much more dire, I think his detention is another example of how Republicans are behaving badly when faced with opposing viewpoints or criticism. GOP leaders have told their rank and file to completely stop holding town hall meetings because their hometown crowds were overwhelmingly angry and critical of the lawmakers. Reluctance to face potential criticism is also what motivated Trump's decision to exclude reputable media outlets from various venues. We all need to fight back ferociously against these despicable actions. Not only is it anti-democratic, and un-American, it is plain wrong.
Playing hide the ball with fact that Padilla was a citizen being detained as an enemy combatant in order to pretend that its applicable precedent in detention incident to an LPR rescission that at the time of arrest the state department believed was a visa overstay is perverse. you are giving these monsters too much leeway.
Why would we, the US, allow people to come into our country and then disrup order and promote illegal activities? Had they made their intentions known before coming here would they have been granted status? If the answer is no, why shouldn't they be subject to removal?
They ARE subject to removal, Dan. But whether THIS specific case is actually promoting “illegal” activities is what is questionable. To speak out on a college campus in support of the Palestinian PEOPLE suffering under the war, is free speech protected under the first amendment. It’s very different than supporting “Hamas”… very different, which is why one thing that will be investigated is whether he took part on, or led, any bigger disruption. It’s pretty much what this article says… did we read different things? It’s all laid out here.
The activities at Columbia went beyond “speaking out”. At minimum, they included vandalism, trespassing, and harassment. Anyone involved in those activities deserves the exact same legal treatment as someone who broke into the Capitol on January 6.
Then first it should be proven he was actively involved in these acts. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof? Does that all disappear because he is a not a citizen? That would be bad news for the almost 13 million Green Card holders. Not to mention the five million non-immigrant workers/business owners and their families. All tax-payers, bytheway.
This is aburd. The Jan 6yh insurrectionists were there to do, well, an insurrection.
The protests on campus were to call attention to a genocide. They used tactics of civil disobedience that have a long and proud history, including the civil rights struggle in this country, where they trespassed while protesting white supremacy and its policies. And they were 100% right to do so, just as they are here.
Those activities might have legal consequences, but that doesn't mean those consequences should be considered deserved.
But actions to overturn a democratic election? That's exactly the opposite.
Sure, but it’s deeper than that. Again, it’s all in the article. Whether he did it or not is a big cause for investigation. Even then - wouldn’t that be a criminal case? He has not been charged with a crime, and him being detained without that charge is what brings uncertainty to the legality of it all. The legal implications go much deeper in this case, it seems.
Sorry, my initial comment was a bit glib. Agree that there are much bigger implications. This case feels like an overreach, but the Trump administration does seem to be attempting to make an actual case here. I’m very interested to see how the courts resolve it.
Exactly. Detaining him the way they are doing is illegal. And should worry everyone. Maybe watch a movie this eve. "The (Torture) Report" comes to mind.
Was he directly involved in those activities other than trespassing that hundreds of students do every year as part of protests on campus? Unless we see him on video doing those activities why should we believe anything gov says he did, What FBI plants will testify?
Meth Bear, you still think Jan6th was anything other than FBI Plants breaking in one entrance, with Capital police inviting rest people to enter, most walking within the red fuzzy ropes? Do you still believe a police man was killed, beaten by fire extinguisher? That social-media didn't contrive to censored Pres. Trumps appeal for non-violence, or any other communication to us, that Zionist owned vile corporations more powerful than entire nations did not block attempts to prevent violence?
How else can you show us that you are a Corp-Media NPC programmed Golem ready to parrot anything they say? Perhaps not human but an AI the USAID monies paid-for to divide and lie and cause loss of trust in our humanities? A machine to cause others to waste time and resources on?
Meth Bear, if you are real .. imagine you have the virtue of the least of them and joined a protest against flag-burning, for example. An as the network cameras start recording and streaming an FBI plant gets in front waving a Nazi Flag, should we all think you Meth Bear, standing with a sign saying 'no flag burning' is a KKK member, a Nazi, a terrorist?
The least energetic protester in that movement is less a mound of Genocidal silent supporting bag of vomit them most of us doing nothing. "Oh, if I lived in Germany when Nazis came to power I'd ..I'd .. I'd suck their giant strap-ons" - clearly.
There are millions of Gaza Palestinians because they have been well fed, and they only suffer in Gaza because Egypt does not trust/want them. When the Palestinians had the "freedom" you want them to have they used that "freedom" to ENSLAVE OTHERS, including white people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x310nym [White Slaves depicted in historical documentary video]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary
Even NOW, as of October 2024, the Palestinians used their "minimal freedom" to ENSLAVE others:
https://www.voanews.com/a/yazidi-sex-slave-rescued-from-gaza-in-rare-internationally-collaborative-mission/7809579.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5v077nyjo
You are a Saqaliba? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
If not for the American people that you condemn, the Gaza Palestinians would enslave you immediately.
This is why People of Gaza are today not allowed to enter Poland nor Hungary.
https://x.com/RayF1453350/status/1902746812076749060
https://x.com/B7frankH/status/1888272786746925071/video/1
The People of Egypt don't want any Palestinians in Egypt for the same reason they don't want ISIS in Egypt.
Gaza/Hamas is ISIS. Why are you advocating for greater "freedom"
for ISIS and its Palestinian supporters?
Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions and the last election for leadership of Palestinians was 18 years ago. the history is complex; the prior leader, Yassar Arafat of the PLO had been unsuccessful in efforts to have humane conditions. Israel wanted Arafat to no longer be constantly bothering them and Israel funded Hamas to have them win the election, then denying humane conditions anyway. all this to say although there was grievous violence by Hamas, the overkill (ahem) of 47,000 or more Palestinians, decimation of hospitals, educational facilities, water and sewer pipes, markets and housing has been declared International War Crimes. Palestinians are of Muslim, Christian, and Jews. to exercise our free speech is demonstrated when i say not all Palestinians are Hamas. there are Jews who are also pro-Palestinian. fyi Reagan as governor hated the Students for a Democratic Society who were using free speech to query / protest the American War - as it was called in Vietnam. he and Nixon began the fight, including when the National Guard killed six students at Kent State University. as president Reagan carried further the end of teaching via critical thinking skills. the battle amped as during political rallies 47 said he loves the uninformed. WE THE PEOPLE need to fill in the education as it has been greatly reduced, and work to prevent further erasure. i truly hope this young man is allowed to remain here with his American wife and that their child is safely born to both their parents. to stand up for peace, to decry bombs and direct shooting of innocent civilians is brave. may we all be brave and work to uphold The Constitution.
"Palestinians have been living for decades in apartheid conditions"
No. They are stateless persons who have been offered a state but don't want one unless it means eradicating Israel. They have been living for decades with the delusion that one day the will succeed in killing all of the Jews. They would live in humane conditions if they abandoned their genocidal goal and chose to live in peace, as did Jordan and Egypt.
And Arafat siphoned off billions of dollars to his Swiss bank accounts.
historians speak of times prior to Britain imperialism. since the 1948 with the European nations convincing Britain to give up a portion of land for the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians have been reduced to living in second class apartheid conditions with military encampments and minimal freedom. this does not give anyone the rights to declare that all Palestinians should have their water, sewers, hospitals, schools reduced to such rubble there will not ever be a full accounting of their dead.
When the Palestinians had the "freedom" you want them to have they used that "freedom" to ENSLAVE OTHERS, including white people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x310nym [White Slaves depicted in historical documentary video]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary
Even NOW, as of October 2024, the Palestinians used their "minimal freedom" to ENSLAVE others:
https://www.voanews.com/a/yazidi-sex-slave-rescued-from-gaza-in-rare-internationally-collaborative-mission/7809579.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5v077nyjo
You are a Saqaliba? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqaliba
If not for the American people that you condemn, the Gaza Palestinians would enslave you immediately.
This is why People of Gaza are today not allowed to enter Poland nor Hungary.
https://x.com/RayF1453350/status/1902746812076749060
https://x.com/B7frankH/status/1888272786746925071/video/1
Gaza/Hamas is ISIS. Why are you advocating for greater "freedom"
for ISIS and its Palestinian supporters? .
Zeteo last night article stated there is an anti-palestinian person who has laid statements against him. truth is truth yet proving it can be challenging. was hoping we’d outgrow this once we’d seen the pics of Earth from space, such a tiny rock hurling around the sun which is in a ‘arm’ of this single galaxy…. i wish peace for all regardless. meanwhile we gotta take care of our hearts and figure out which/how to leverage forward.
"As a general matter . . . an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."
As I understood it, this pertained to migrants who entered undocumented, or to people who entered legally but overstayed and therefore were without legal status.
The Founding Fathers made clear in the "right of the People" language of the First Amendment, Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment that these rights are not secured to non-citizens (aliens such as loyalist British Subjects who are not US Citizens). Thus, many thousands of British Loyalists were deported after the Revolutionary War. In 1798, Congress passed the "Alien Act" to specifically authorized President Adams to order the departure (on penalty of incarceration) of "such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States"
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
Thus, in the minds of the People who proposed and ratified the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment did not limit the power of the United States to expel people who, like Mahmoud Khalil, are "such aliens as [The President] shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States".
The Supreme Court has held that such aliens have zero constitutional right to remain in the United States. Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86 (1903) ; Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 165 n.8 (1948). (although a right to not be enslaved or permanently incarcerated has been recognized by the courts). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9549-lcb114art5vladekpdf
Good. Let us go back to the year 1800 - but then completely. You do not get to pick and choose. "In 1800, to become a US citizen, a "free white person" had to reside within the US for two years, prove good character to a court of record, and take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Seems to me we have potentially at least 10-15 Million new US citizens - if you think the rules from 1798 should still apply. The Alien Act is to be invoked in times of war. Who are we at war with currently ? Foreign born roofers, framers and landscapers ?
The trouble with a blunt instrument is its ability to be sharpened.
"Sympathise" (the word used by President Trump) indicates a state of mind. "I sympathise with park keepers, and therefore always drop litter in the bins." The act of dropping litter is a consequence of the state of my mind - sympathising with park keepers. But I can sympathise with park keepers my life long without anyone ever being aware of it - until I tell them, as I'm telling you now. You can define legally what a sympathiser is or is not, but mere utterance of the words "terrorist sympathiser" embeds in the listener's mind a thought that can be eradicated even less easily than can a terrorist.
Is this a Dreyfus case - trial as a means of example? What, then, is the example?
One has to consider why LPRs are granted that status: is it because they fancy the weather in Wisconsin? A burning desire to collect baseball cards? A plum job offer? The third's a candidate, but otherwise, might seeking refuge from oppression be in there? You grant asylum to the oppressed, and eject them when they speak out against that which oppressed them.
Tell me, is it that who you are?
I assume, because he is reported to be married, that he got a Green Card based on marriage.
Your suggestions why people could be issued Green Cards, or not, are a bit weird. To immigrate into the US you need a family member who is a US citizen (in some cases LPR). All others interested, better forget it. Immigration because of a job offer often means a trip to hell and back - especially for the spouse. Each year a rather small number of refugees/ asylum seekers is allowed entry.
Useful insight, thanks Antoinette. The first two were intended to sound weird, but plausible as reasons to want to come. What you say seems to indicate that LPR is in and of itself more a situation of precarity, rather than equivalent to US citizenship. Perhaps all Mr Trump is doing is pressing home that very point.
No one can come here because they fancy the weather or because they collect something. As said, having a US citizen family member (sometimes LPR) is the pre-requisite.
Coming here for that "plum job" means non-immigrant status for years - with all the stress that entails for the "job stealer" and his family. Allowed to stay eventually - or not ? The spouse, usually the wife, is not allowed to work or to volunteer or to have a business.
Most USers have no idea about the cruelty & misogyny of the US immigration system. But almost all think it is a good system.
Thank you for this post tonight. It is helpful in clarifying the different aspects and possibilities going forward.