I argued yesterday that Mahmoud Khalil, the ex-Columbia grad student and pro-Palestinian activist snatched by ICE, had been illegally detained and was facing deportation simply for exercising free speech. That of course was my first reaction, and I explicitly said I didn’t know what else he was being charged with, or what evidence the government had.
We even had a pro-Palestinian demonstration on campus yesterday, though it involved issues besides Khalil. Still, the deportation has caused cognitive dissonance in many of us who detest pro-Hamas demonstrations or sentiments: Khalil was clearly a public espouser of Palestinian terrorism, but that espousal is not a violation of free speech, which I strongly support. The big questions are a). did Khalil do more than simply verbally espouse terrorism, a “more” that would make him subject to laws that could cause his deportation? and b.) are those laws just?
I’m not going to adjudicate question b.) as I’m not a lawyer or judge and don’t know the historical underpinnings of the U.S. Code that deals with “aliens,” as they call them. As for a.), well, let’s hear what venues who want Khalil deported say.
I’ll highlight posts from three sites: the National Review (conservative) the Elder of Ziyon (pro Israel), and City Journal (conservative). All three ultimately claim that Khalif was not only lawfully detained, but that deporting him is a no-brainer. I’ll simply give you their arguments and then my own conclusion based on their pro-deportation stands, which I see as the strongest arguments for deportation I can find.
The National Review actually had two articles on Monday by Andrew McCarthy. The first (archived here) dealt largely with Khalif’s alleged activities and the second (first headline below) arguing that those activities meet the standards for deportation. In contrast, the Elder of Ziyon piece simply argues that Khalil’s membership in an organization promoting terrorism, regardless of his activities, warrants deportation. The third is similar, not detailing what Khalif actually did to promote terrorism.
But in the end all three come down to the same thing, arguing that Khalil violated the same provision of the U.S. Code §1182 on Inadmissible Aliens: section 3B.
Click if you subscribe to the National Review (or find the article archived here):
First realize that Khalil, who had a green card (and a graduate degree from Columbia) was regarded as a “lawful permanent resident alien” (LPR), giving him special rights, though not rights equivalent to those of a U.S. citizen. But he is married to an American citizen, who happens to be pregnant. He was picked up by ICE and apparently taken to Louisiana, where he was held. Two days ago, a federal judge blocked Khalil’s removal from the U.S., and there will be a habeas corpus hearing today. As far as I know, he has not been formally charged with any crimes.
This is from the first National Review article detailing the law and how what Khalil supposedly violated it:
To be sure, visas and green cards are saliently different. Unlike a mere student-visa holder, a green-card holder, such as Khalil, is an LPR. That is the highest category of alien: a non-American who has lawfully relocated to the United States and is on track to become a naturalized citizen (see §1427 of federal immigration law — Title 8, U.S. Code). In many contexts — e.g., tax law and the privacy protections — federal law deems green-card holders to be “U.S. persons,” meaning they are part of our national community. Their rights can approximate those of American citizens but, as the administration will surely argue, they are not equal to those of Americans citizens (who, of course, may not be deported).
. . . Section 1182 of federal immigration law controls the categories of aliens who may be excluded from the United States. In the category of national security, the statute mainly targets aliens who have “engaged in terrorist activity,” who are “members” of terrorist organizations, or who have received paramilitary training from terrorist organizations. Fortunately, though, there is additional latitude: An alien may be excluded if he has “endorsed” or “espoused” terrorist activity — see subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb), under the subheading “Terrorist activities.” The statute defines terrorist activity to include violent attacks and the planning of such attacks. That should be sufficient to bar from entry into the United States aliens who support Hamas, which has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law since the mid-Nineties (when the designation process began).
. . . His most prominent role seems to have been as a negotiator of sorts on behalf of student radicals with the university administration. Objectively speaking, his activities are pro-Hamas, but I assume that if the government had strong evidence that he’d committed the crime of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization — such as recruiting or fundraising on behalf of Hamas — the Justice Department would indict him.
Fortunately, it need not be provable in criminal court that an alien agitator committed crimes in order to establish that the alien should be deported.
That is weird to me. One can violate the law, but you don’t have to prove that the law was violated to deport a green-card holder.
The second National Review article argues that Khalil should be deported because the judgement of the Secretary of State should override that of any judge:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the executive branch has broad discretion when it comes to national security judgments about which aliens may be admitted and which should be expelled from the United States. Nevertheless, because §1227 says the Secretary of State must have a reasonable ground to believe the alien’s presence or activities in the U.S. could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” counsel for Khalil will argue that the court has authority to review whether Secretary Rubio’s judgment is “reasonable.”
It would be highly controversial for a politically unaccountable judge — who has no constitutional responsibility for foreign policy, national security, or immigration enforcement — to substitute the court’s judgment for that of the Secretary of State, especially one who was just unanimously confirmed by the Senate to steer American foreign policy. I do not believe a majority of the Supreme Court would abide such judicial imperialism.
. . . To repeat, §1227 incorporates by reference the “terrorist activities” provision in the exclusion statute — specifically, subsection (a)(3) of §1182, which prescribes the excludability of aliens who, among other things, represent “a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity” (that’s subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) — a mouthful, I know).
But there is one free-speech-like exception in the law:
“An alien … shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States … because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest. [Emphasis added.]”
This is what I argued yesterday: to me, speech alone cannot justify deportation. But author Andrew McCarthy argues that this exception is “maddening” and legally insupportable. In addition, he argues that Khalil did more than just speak: he acted:
I do not believe that Khalil’s activities in the U.S. should be deemed lawful speech and association. If reports are correct, Khalil was active as an agent of agitators who carried out lawless activities. That is not mere speech and association, and it would be unlawful if engaged in by Americans — indeed, that is why dozens of Americans were arrested in connection with the campus unrest.
I still have not heard the details of Khalil acting as an “agent of agitators,” except as a negotiator with Columbia on behalf of the two expelled students. Even if he demonstrated on behalf of Palestine or Hamas, that a statement, not a promotion of terrorism. But as McCarthy says:
. . . If the government can prove that Khalil was in a campus group that endorsed or espoused Hamas’s atrocities against Israel, it should be able to deport him regardless of his LPR status. And if it can deport him, there are likely to be thousands of others who can be deported, too — and should be.
That is also the argument of the Elder of Ziyon below, who claims that Khalil’s mere membership in an organization that foments or endorses terrorism is enough to get him deported, and the case is “airtight”. Click to read:
An excerpt:
According to 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – Deportable aliens, “Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.”The relevant part of those subparagraphs say:
The Elder argues, then, that Khalil was a “representative” of a Columbia group that endorsed terrorism:
There is no question that Khalil is a representative of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD.) He represented CUAD in negotiations with Columbia a number of times; he was interviewed on TV numerous times as its lead negotiator, he is described as one of CUAD’s leaders.
There is also no question that CUAD endorses and espouses terrorist activity. For example, on the one year anniversary of October 7, it handed out newspapers on campus called “The New York War Crimes” that included this full page “ad:”
And the Elder continues, trying to demolish the idea that Khalil was merely exercising free speech:
Besides that, CUAD chants include explicit support for Hamas (“Yes, we’re all Hamas, pig!” and “Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now.”) Yet even without explicit support for Hamas, CUAD has praised “resistance’ over and over again, and that “resistance” is terrorism. One example is that they praised the October 1 shooting attack in Tel Aviv that murdered seven civilians, saying “On October 1, in a significant act of resistance, a shooting took place in Tel Aviv, targeting Israeli security forces and settlers. This bold attack comes amid the ongoing escalation of violence in the region and highlights the growing resolve of those resisting Israeli occupation.”
What seems clear is that CUAD did indeed endorse terrorism. But did Khalil himself? Is his membership in the organization sufficient to show he endorsed terrorism? You could say that it certainly is, but then you are saying that Robert Oppenheimer deserved to lose his security clearance because at one time he was a member of the Communist party, which to the government implied that he endorsed the Communist plan to overthrow capitalism (Oppenheimer didn’t, of course). To me it seems necessary to give evidence that Khalil himself endorsed terrorism. Perhaps the government has that information, but I haven’t seen it. Thus I don’t find the Elder’s argument below convincing:
Even if Khalil claims that he is personally against the pro-terrorism stance of CUAD and only acted as their liaison, even if he claims that he never uttered a word of support for terror, he is CUAD’s representative by the legal definition and CUAD unambiguously endorses or espouses terrorist activity, making him subject to deportation. Free speech is a red herring.
Under US law, Mahmoud Khalil should be deported.
Finally, we have the article below by Ilya Shapiro arguing briefly that Khalil (or any supporter of Hamas) should be deported). Note the Shapiro himself was an immigrant who had to swear fealty to the U.S. twice (upon arriving and upon getting his green card). Click to read.
A short excerpt:
it’s a basic application of U.S. immigration law, which says that people here on a visa (tourist, student, employment, or otherwise) who reveal themselves to be ineligible for that visa—“inadmissible,” in the parlance of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)—can have their visa revoked. As I wrote in a broader analysis of campus-related civil rights issues after the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, “The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.’” Biden’s State Department also told then-Senator Marco Rubio that it could revoke the visas of Hamas supporters.
But that’s not all Trump can do. The INA’s inadmissibility provision also empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whom he determines to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” or to impose on them “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court upheld that broad grant of presidential discretion to vet, restrict, and even ban immigrants—and thus to direct executive-agency action in that regard—at the culmination of the high-profile “travel ban” litigation. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court okayed an executive order restricting travel from various countries, with Chief Justice John Roberts affirming that the only statutory requirement is that the president “find” the entry of the affected aliens to be “detrimental to the national interest.”
That’s exactly what’s happening now.
Shapiro is arguing about whether immigrants should be admitted under a visa, but concludes that the same restrictions prohibiting one’s admission should permit one to be deported when they’re already here—even if you have green card, which apparently counts as a visa:
While the government can’t send foreigners to jail for saying things it doesn’t like, it can and should deny or pull visas for those who advocate for causes inimical to the United States. There’s nothing objectional or controversial about removing those who harass, intimidate, vandalize, and otherwise interfere with an educational institution’s core mission. More, please.
MY TAKE: As I noted yesterday, Khalil undoubtedly holds sentiments that I detest and was part of a group that holds similar sentiments—a group that seems to have approved of terrorism and thereby (the government argues) promoted it. However, I’ve seen no evidence that Khalil himself engaged in such activities, nor do I think it’s okay to deport somebody for saying something that would be legal if uttered by an American citizen. Given that Khalil was one step away from citizenship, and (at least in the press) has not been shown to actually promote terrorism beyond being a member of a group that arguably does, I don’t think that what he does rises to the level of deportation.
Nor do I think that one should slough off the problem by saying “let Marco Rubio decide”. Clearly the Secretary of State is an agent of the President, and of course our President wants anybody deemed “anti-American” kicked out of the U.S. (I would be making this argument, however, no matter who is President.) This seems to me—because Khalil is charged with violating immigration law—that it is the law—the courts—that must ultimately decide about his deportation.
This case may go to the Supreme Court. Regardless of that Court’s conservatism, their judgement is the law, a law that should be obeyed. Right now, though, I haven’t seen any grounds for deporting Khalil. That may change, but we are a country of laws, not of dictators.
Whatever operational objective was intended by Khalil and his support structure, the result was success.
This objective was probably exactly what we see – PCC(E) notes, and I agree, we do not see what Khalil did that violated a law – but what do we see?
Well, IMHO I picked up on yet another noisy protest getting lots of coverage and such – ignoring detail – that went all the way to the top.
I think that’s the operation. And it looks true Khalil did not violate any law.
Or as the old sibling rivalry goes, “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you! Ha ha!” – concealing the intent.
IMHO put him on a watch list and spare SCOTUS time for more important stuff.
I’m not sure. Why are we focused on free speech laws (if that’s what we are all talking about)? Free speech isn’t the issue. That said, I agree with Larry Summers out of caution (see my other posts on the thread).
First of all, it is frustrating that the Administration does not, in general, and in this case in particular, explain itself better. Secondly, immigration law is troubling in that it says, logically, that people who are not citizens do not have the same rights as citizens, but seems to rely on a judgement of guilt which is, in many cases, unappealable. There is always a fear that it could be misused. That’s why the Administration needs to explain itself.
“This seems to me—because Khalil is charged with violating immigration law—that it is the law—the courts—who must ultimately weigh in on his deportation.”
This is my belief too. I don’t have sympathy for Khalil and his evil compatriots, but this ought to be adjudicated in the courts, not on Pennsylvania ave.
Should he be deported? Is that a legal question or a moral question?
It the latter, then yes. Western countries are way too tolerant of migrants who are hostile to the host nation’s interests. (I’ll leave the legal question to others.)
Agree there. Zero sympathy for this guy.
Toss him out! That might discourage such behaviour.
OTOH, if it’s not legal then he stays. And we gradually get more and more hostile Muslims. Not good.
This is one of those tough cases.
I detest the organization he was/is a member of. I don’t think foreign nationals have any business promoting organizations which are opposed to the US on US soil. They can do that in their home country.
However, this is a question of law. And the law should grind it out.
This does seem to be an area of law with a lot of gray area.
Two excellent discussions of the Khalil issue: one at the LAWFARE website and one by Stephen Vladeck, lawyer at Georgetown.
The Vladeck piece is on Vladeck’s One First Substack.
Thanks for these two recommendations. I’ve added them to the articles Jerry wrote about and will read all of these tomorrow. I’m getting to this late, but am intensely interested in this case.
I agree. It seems that he has not broken any law. That said, there seems to be a lot of wiggle room for the government.
If he’s deported I won’t lose any sleep. Deportation, while a significant penalty, isn’t the same as incarceration, or worse. A strong motivation for deportation probably includes deterrence (of Khalil and others) against further, perhaps violent, acts that go beyond speech—with deportation being a preemptive move to prevent actual terrorism. But is preemptive deportation legal? Even if he’s not deported, the publicity around this case may have a deterrent effect. Or, it may incite further unrest. (!) It’s a difficult case with an uncertain outcome.
I don’t share our host position on Palestine and Israel but I appreciate and applaud his commitment to free speech and his take in this case.
Deportation may be way worse than incarceration, especially if your wife is pregnant and has to choose if she has to flee the country too or raise the child alone forever (instead of “just” the years you spend behind bars).
I would also note that US citizens are usually so proud of their first amendment in comparison with european laws, but it turns out in practice there are so many exceptions that it doesn’t seem that much more of a protection. Indeed it could be argued that in europe we have in practice more protections: we may grant more powers to government, but we also grant free speech protections in private business contexts, whereas if I understand correctly the 1st doesn’t cover those.
The European approach, if it is as you describe, curtails individual liberty to associate with whomever you want in favour of a benevolent authoritarian state that takes unto itself the power to compel, rather than restricting its own authority and letting private individuals work out their own disputes. You can therefore get fined or imprisoned for more anti-Soviet activities in Europe than you can in America. In Canada we call this using the state to weaponize niceness. “She called me a bad word, or he fired me for proselytizing pro-life at work. I want a financial settlement!”
Of course I don’t expect americans to agree, and I may have explained myself badly.
But I find it very difficult to understand how you can claim that there is more freedom where you have an amendment that set you free to say what you want, so free that your employer can fire you for what you said, because the amendment only limits what govern can and cannot do. In practice it seems there is more freedom of speech where your employer CANNOT fire you for what you said. So yes, I’m still convinced the european approach, where one isn’t so focused on less govern, is actually oriented towards more freedom of speech.
Yes again Norm.
That “wiggle room” can be expressed plainly: Is the person’s presence here “in the interests of the United States?”
If they are a citizen… it is moot. If a foreigner/legal alien it is relevant. Is this fellow’s presence in the interests of the U.S.? I’d argue no, actually.
regards,
D.A.
NYC
On the plus side, we’re finally hearing Democrats supporting First Amendment rights.
But if Khalil was accused of a serious offense such as misgendering someone, some of the Dems would be screaming for his deportation.
Dems were even converted to invoking states’ rights last week on the issue of transgender-identifying men participating in women’s sports. Their principles can be remarkably flexible!
They just won’t give up on that one. So infuriating.
Umm. . . when have I NOT supported First Amendment rights.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply “all Democrats”, especially regarding you, Dr. Coyne! You’ve been very consistent in your support for 1A rights, and I’m appreciative of that.
And I stand corrected regarding the misgendering and other trans topics -maybe this won’t change. But in recent years, almost all of the times that I’ve seen free speech limitations argued for, it’s been from the left, especially from the woke authoritarian left (i.e., not Dr. Coyne). Maybe it would have been more clear to say that it’s good to see many woke leftists supporting free speech, rather than using “Democrats”. I hope a few of them can apply this lesson to other instances. However, I do fear that many (not all) of those in support of him are not motivated by free speech convictions but because they agree with his pro-Hamas stance or because they are against Trump.
Finally: yes, I also recognize that many of those in favor of kicking him out are also motivated politically rather than from a principled stance on immigration law.
To reinforce my last point:
“The Woke Left and the Woke Right have no time for truth. They have only ‘narrative’ and ‘self-interest’ respectively. Which makes them both lose contact not only with reality but with morality.”
https://x.com/DavidDeutschOxf/status/1899507293877834119
This is FIRE’s position (full statement is on its website):
“The law Leavitt appears to be citing requires the secretary of state to have “reasonable ground to believe” the person’s “presence or activities in the United States . . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
“The administration is wielding this standard — deportation for people whose activities could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” — to arrest and detain an individual graduate student. In explaining how he met this standard, the administration did not allege Khalil committed a crime. But it did explicitly cite the content of his speech, characterizing it as “anti-American” and “pro-Hamas.” Protesting government policy is protected by the First Amendment, as is rhetorical support for a terrorist group (if not directly coordinated with it, which the government has not alleged here).”
“Disrupting college classes and harassing students is not protected expression, to be sure, and Leavitt stated that Khalil organized protests that may have done so. But the administration has not detailed Khalil’s specific actions with respect to those protests, so it remains unclear whether Khalil himself violated any campus rules against discriminatory harassment. Whether any such violation justifies detention and deportation is a separate question. In either adjudication, Khalil must be afforded due process.”
My thoughts are in accordance with this. Free speech is easy to support when views you agree with are under attack. The test of one’s commitment to free speech is when the speech in question is despicable and deplorable, and one still grants that it is entitled to be spoken without fear of official retribution.
I think the government has broad leeway here. The rules seem to say that anyone not a citizen can be deported if the State department finds them to be a detriment to American interests.
Ceiling Cat, did you see this by Larry Summers? https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/10/metro/summers-trump-condemns-funding-cuts-ice-detention/
FYI, I agree with Larry Summers.
The deal is this: While I think that Khalil is a national security threat, the backlash to deporting him or anyone without solid evidence of support for terrorism could increase antisemitism.
That said, I also kind of think the mother f*cker deserves a one-way ticket to hell. I’m not sure which side of me wins on this. But I do favor this side of reducing harms in the longterm, which is why, despite my emotions, I’m with Summers.
Can you summarize as it requires a subscription?
To repeat myself from yesterday:
Lawyer here.
I wasn’t crazy about deporting this (unfortunately green card holding*) terrorist simp ….until recently.
The large protests in his favor change my perspective. You won’t find this argument anywhere else… which doesn’t mean it is wrong. I practiced immigration law but I’m not an expert in it. Still…
Terrorism is about perceptions and mind control/propaganda rather than actual death toll and this is what we have in the instant case.
His becoming a cause celeb for a terrorist movement and his many sympathizers have TURNED HIM INTO a terroristic threat. Now deportable.
So… this (non) judge says: “Before his case actively motivated masses of terror simps and fools… I’d say let the green card holder with odious opinions stay. First Ammd and all. Subsequently his wider fame has altered his situation and effect. His remaining here is not in the interests of the United States.”
Remember that phrase for it is important in immigration law: Not in the interests of the United States. THAT is what we’re dealing with as the most important issue – not the opinions or fate of one small, noisy Arab fool.
So it is on the plane for you sir, give my regards to Gaza!
So ordered,
Pretend Judge but real attorney,
D.A.
NYC
ps A comment above asserts “deportation is worse than imprisonment”. No. As counsel I’ve visited prisons and in my life I’ve visited many failed states, some Islamic. Take the plane not the can. Even “country club” prisons are worse than being returned to a country where you are from. Visit a prison, here’s Rikers Island, visit Lebanon say. You’ll take Lebanon.
*Green Card makes deportation a bit … icky…. from a legal perspective. As opposed to student visas – here at the sufferance and discretion of the Dpt of State.
** Richest irony of the week, also in above comment: The “has a new wife and baby” sop and plea of his has about as much cred with me as residents of Sederot had as Hamas was killing them, new wives and babies included. Whom they murdered btw – not deported. He cheered them on.I wasn’t crazy about deporting this (unfortunately green card holding*) terrorist simp ….until recently.
I beg Jerry forgiveness for extra commenting, but since I’m the one referred here as “deportation is worse than imprisonment”: actually you are not engaging with what I said because you are not taking into account duration. I would have never suggested that deportation is worse than prison FOR LIFE. The problem is deportation is forever, while prison could be just a couple years.
So since Hamas killed people it’s ok to consider his pregnant wife as collateral damage? How are we supposed to be more civilized then?
I think the point is that deportation is not a criminal penalty. Judges don’t need to be involved unless there is a process for appeal of a deportation order. It might be true that a foreigner would not mind a short stint in a western minimal security joint especially if he was familiar with prisons back home, and he would gladly choose it over permanent deportation if it meant he could stay in America once he got out. (Take note though that being convicted of a crime with a sentence of more than six months means the alien gets deported anyway upon release, in Canada at least.). But that’s beside the point. A decision to deport is an administrative judgement by the immigration authorities that letting the alien stay is against the interests of the host country. The alien has no right to stay in the country, so none of his rights are being abridged by even arbitrary deportation, whereas to imprison him even for a day would require proof or admission of a crime. The situations are very different.
In Canada, and it seems from reading news reports from the U.S., aliens awaiting deportation from either country can be detained if there is a risk that they will abscond and disappear, as many do. They can file habeas corpus writs, which have to be adjudicated, but in general the state can detain them reasonably even if they have not been charged with a crime.
If he went to (US) prison, he would be immediately deported on completion of his sentence (which seems perfectly justified to me).
So, the prison choice is actually prison + deportation.
“So since Hamas killed people it’s ok to consider his pregnant wife as collateral damage? How are we supposed to be more civilized then?”
Perhaps he should have considered his wife before participating in the offensive activities? What, he doesn’t have any agency here?
The USA is under no obligation to allow this man to remain here.
“For life” wasn’t on the table I think.
But for equivalents – for the record – pretty much any time spent in one’s native country (mostly of course….some political dissidents with cops waiting at their home airport being an exception)…. any time spent in one’s native country is better than the same period in any prison.
Sorry if the “for life” is what you read into my comment (prob my fault) Enrico.
The preg wife is entirely irrelevant to his case and inadmissible in his legal argument by all but the most shifty of lawyers. I’d have brought it up as his attorney – hell – might win right? But I’d have felt guilty about it.
B/c one’s family status is irrelevant here.
My point was moral – I don’t feel bad for the relatives of known proud terrorists.
D.A.
NYC
Thinking about booting this young man out of the country gives me pause. I need more info before agreeing to an exclusion action proposed by the same administration that wants to end automatic birthright citizenship. So, first, the decision must be made by a court, not that administration. Next, did he celebrate or justify the October 7th massacres? Did he advocate for more similar actions? If he is trying to incite others to support actions that I consider to be murder, I’m fine with sending him back to his home country. If not, under the little I know about his circumstances, I’m torn.
Don’t know much about the law in America regarding his deportation, but I do wonder why he, and students like him, are not expelled by colleges and universities. They have expelled students for racism, support of far right groups, etc. and so, support for Hamas should be dealt with in the same manner. Hamas are the equivalent of Nazis.
Of course, if they dealt with Hamas supporters like they do with any other racist, fascist, or Nazi supporter, they’d have to expel quite a few students…
Regarding your last comment – It seems that double standards are the standard. Recently, in Cincinnati, we had a group of neo-Nazis who hung banners, then promptly left. Regardless of how odious one might find their actions, the reaction was excessive, and I certainly don’t recall such outcries when BLM and Antifa had their protests, which sometimes resulted in great destruction. Here, vigilantes took to the streets—and went well beyond what was right (see link)—and citizens questioned why the Nazis were allowed to do what they did – evidently, they were unaware of free speech, or just didn’t care.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/neo-nazis-rattled-ohio-town-231044519.html
I wonder whether there would be elaborate discussion of the legal ins and outs if the case involved a supporter of ISIS rather than HAMAS. If not, then what is the crucial distinction between the two Islamist terror organizations? Oh wait, I forgot: HAMAS is in the Palestinian Arab wing of Islamism, a sub-group that enjoys a protected cultural status, particularly in the idyllic groves of academe.
Right on Jon. From part of my decades of study in this area I can assure all here that at the “retail” level in the real world there is no real difference between ISIS or Hamas. Nor the Taliban or Houthis, actually.
NOT because “they’re all Muslim” – they are of course, but bc their ideology and methods and goals are almost identical.
Hamas have been sold to us as like new PLO or some opwessed mar-gin-al-ized minowity. Wildly mis-sold and we bought it sadly.
They are murderous, genocidal thugs motivated by a particular strain of Islam.
D.A.
NYC
It is impossible for NW European countries to deport about any criminal, however evil, to Algeria. Remarkable what the US can do!
How is it that a person who supports a terrorist organization, or a communist movement or party of a foreign country, can get a green card? When we came to America if I my father told INS that he was a supporter of the Latvijas Komunistiskā Partija, we would not have been able to cross the border much less get a visa.
Was that during the Cold War? If it was recent then I’d be surprised.
Yes, 1954. What is interesting to me (now) is: why would we be surprised today? Does a supporter of a terrorist organization who presents himself at a port of entry have a “right” to receive a visa, or qualify for the same rights that citizens enjoy on this question and related ones? Citizens have the right to due process in compliance with the constitution of their country. The bar is very high on questions of speech and association. Does a supporter (or sympathizer) of a terrorist organization have the same rights? Is the bar just as high?
The Red Scare years.
So did I immigrating in 1990s America, Norbert. Seems our INS/Homeland Security has some work to do in defining “inadmissible aliens.”
I believe they still have syphilitics as an excludable category – so there’s that!
D.A.
NYC
Norbert: I have been struck by this, as well. The man I married was in the US on a student visa in the early 80s (during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon) and he was from Lebanon. He would not have even dreamt of protesting on a college campus. Once we married, neither as a green card holder nor even as a US citizen would he publicly demonstrate. I see this situation as more representative of our current young, spoiled, emboldened generation who gives the finger to the very country that gives them the rights they enjoy. It is a generalization, I realize, but I do not feel this generation of college students has paid their dues and certainly doesn’t expect to be punished when breaking the law. This opinion of mine is separate from the subject of this post which is about free speech and whether or not this fellow should be deported. I have a lot of reading and observing to do before I’m willing to comment on that. Please note: I am not speaking about the students who work their way through college and are in class earning their degrees. I’m talking about the brats who disrupt everyone else’s experience on campus and buy expensive tents and expect to be brought food.
Debi: Thank you for this example. Similarly to the case of your husband, when I live in other countries for extended time periods with a visa for my work (5 years and 2 years), I know that I do not have the same “freedom of speech” rights as citizens. And I am always very respectful of this condition of my residence. The rights of political activity apply to citizens in each case. These rights do not apply to me. If I decide for some reason to cross the line in regard to these conditions, I expect to be deported. In one instance I was denied continued residence, but it was because of a mistake of the different kind – that I made. I went straight to the airport.
Oppenheimer was never a member of the Communist party, nor was he accused of being a member. He was accused of associating with members, and not coming clean about that quick enough. More guilt by association.
For imprisonment, guilt by association won’t do. For denial of a security clearance, guilt by association is good enough, especially if you hid it….and if your colleagues denounce you.
Richard Rhodes exonerates Robert Oppenheimer in Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. Rhodes recapitulates the betrayal of the plutonium implosion secret that allowed the Russians to make their atomic bomb in 1949. This shocker was the stimulus for the Americans to get going on the thermonuclear bomb and turned suspicion on Dr. Oppenheimer, cynically abetted by his rival Edward Teller. (The unmasking of the actual spies was years away, occurred purely by chance, and probably some went undetected to this day.)
The evidence that Oppenheimer was clean is this:
During the Soviet blockade of West Berlin in winter 1948-9, President Truman wanted to know how many atomic bombs the United States had available, to rattle them in case the Russians made military moves against the city or molested the planned airlift. For utmost secrecy, he sent an emissary out to Los Alamos to be briefed by Oppenheimer and the team (which had largely stood down after the end of the war, many physicists having returned to academic life.) Truman told the emissary not to make any notes and to report to him orally immediately on his return to Washington, which he did, interrupting a meeting. He took the President aside and whispered a single word in his ear: “Zero”.
Rhodes says that if Oppenheimer had been a spy, he surely would have revealed to the Russians that the United States, then the world’s only nuclear power, had not the means to intimidate the Soviets against attacking West Berlin had they a mind to.
dear Jerry,
Thank you for your nuanced comment. Very enlightening.
One prediction :
The highly reflexive conditions (Soros, Reflexive Alchemy), has the potential to precipitate development in Critical Immigration Theory.
I imagine very few people are processing this through a free speech lens, an understanding of immigration law, etc. It’s more like this:
Your ten-year old is in your home acting rudely: “I need more coffee.” Or, “We need to talk, honey.” Or, “Go to your room.” Or, “Don’t make me take off this belt!” Or, . . . (is there still the final “or” of my childhood?!)
Your long-time friend is in your home being uncharacteristically rude: “Is something wrong? You aren’t yourself today.” Or, “Is there something we need to talk about?” Or, “Maybe it’s time to call it a day.”
A stranger or new acquaintance is in your home acting rudely: “Get the fuck out.”
Excellent analogy
Christopher Hitchens – always worth another listen:
“The barbarians never take the city ’til someone holds the gates open for them.”
youtu.be/nYc7CJz5xYA
Maybe worth seeing this: https://x.com/megynkelly/status/1900376188901601754?s=46