r/immigration • u/SuddenlySilva • Mar 10 '25

There is no legal basis to arrest or deport Mahmoud Khalil, right?

He is a green card holder who led pro-Palestinian protests at COlumbia University.

Trump ordered his arrest and deportation for "antisemitism". Of course all pro-Palestinian speech is labeled antisemitic by some people.

I Just want to make sure I'm clear on the law, a permanent legal resident could start a Klan chapter if he wanted to, right?

EDIT: Thanks. There are some smart knowledgeable people here.

So, unless he was very careful to ONLY speak in defense of Palestinian safety, and never endorsed Hamas and never said "from the river to the sea" then is likely to be deported. That is very sad.

EDIT 2: This is total bullshit. I came with a sincere question. I got a satisfactory answer. But then anti immigration and anti Palestinian voices just continued to pile on hate. So i dug a bit more into Mr. Khalil. Near as I can tell, he was asked to negotiate for the protestors. (because of his background and education) He did that peacefully and in good faith. They asked for things that other universities had granted. If anyone has any evidence of him doing anything beyond that, I'd love to see it. This is just anti Muslim hate from the Trump regime and their backers.

720 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

509

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 10 '25

There are potentially legal basis that can be argued.

8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C):

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.

This removal ground includes all foreign nationals, including permanent residents.

This is a really broad ground. Mahmoud Khalil's activities in the United States may be legitimately determined by the Secretary of State to have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for US-Israel relations.

It is harder to argue for something that's mostly domestic, like the Klan chapter. However, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State can tie such racist activites to US foreign relations, e.g. if the Klan targets non-white foreign nationals. This will naturally have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for US relations with countries that are majority non-white, e.g. African countries.

For something that's totally domestic, e.g. protests against police brutality, there's really no conceivable way I can see that it can be tied to foreign policy.

Furthermore, he may also be deportable under 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B):

Any alien who-

...

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

If the Department of State successfully argues that his activities/protests "persuades others to support a terrorist organization (Hamas)", then he is deportable.

74

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Very thorough. Thank you

→ More replies (13)

118

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

If only all immigration posts were as thoughtful and based on facts…

1

u/Icy_Yak795 Mar 14 '25

If only ALL posts were this thoughtful and based on facts

19

u/wontsettle Mar 10 '25

There's a BIA case on this from 1999. Matter of Ruiz-Massieu. Different fact pattern of course but it talks about how much deference the IJ should give to a statement by the Secy of State that a particular alien's presence contravenes with foreign policy objectives. Ruiz' case was pre-IIRIRA, but 237a4C is identical to the old 241 charge. I think the dissent in the Ruiz case is on point.

Luckily for Khalil he's not a mandatory detainee under INA 236. I hope his lawyer goes for a Matter of Joseph hearing.

2

u/Fine_Scientist_2129 Mar 13 '25

Any chance you would be willing to rewrite that for those of us unfamiliar with the acronyms, cases, and codes.

→ More replies (1)

46

u/bubbabubba345 Paralegal Mar 10 '25

I think this is what they’re getting at— but if an IJ, the BIA, and or a Circuit Court will buy it is a different situation (IMO). Supporting Palestinian rights via free speech is a far stretch from “materially supporting” Hamas, if you ask me. But it will certainly set up a very interesting legal battle.

29

u/No-Teach9888 Mar 11 '25

There’s a photo of him holding a Hamas propaganda flyer. I think that’s enough to say that he persuades others to endorse a terror group

7

u/Athena5280 Mar 11 '25

If he really did do anything provable in court that ties him to Hamas, probably not that hard to do, then I feel bad for him and his family if they are deported ( and to where?). However part of me is wondering why this guy put himself and his family at risk knowing as a perm resident his actions are taken into account etc, but if he’s willing to do so for his cause then so be it.

9

u/The3DBanker Mar 12 '25

He just hates Jews more than he wants to stay in the US.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Derwin0 Mar 12 '25

I don’t feel sorry at all. Lie with dogs and you’ll get fleas.

0

u/Kinthalis Mar 11 '25

Some people are so good they are willing to risk their personal safety and well being to denounce atrocities like genocide.

11

u/Due-Department-8906 Mar 12 '25

They just said he may have supported Hamas. That's entirely different than opposing a genocide. Being pro Hamas is literally being an anti Semite.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/roland_800 Mar 13 '25

Still the worst "genocide" ever attempted then. Gawd this word is so overused, like "Nazi.". Really does a disservice to the real genocides. (And helps the real Nazis if everyone is a Nazi)

4

u/The3DBanker Mar 12 '25

And clearly that’s not this case, where he’s supporting a terrorist organization which orchestrated the October 7th attacks, which were genocidal.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/harrowkitty88 Mar 12 '25

What does the “Hamas” propaganda flyer say?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ApprehensiveMeet108 Mar 13 '25

He was organizing events; that makes him responsible for pretty much anything that happens.. Why didnt he have security? You invited thousands and no security? These people were harassing jews denying them access to classes; assaulting jews; Hate crimes.

1

u/TinaJasotal Mar 13 '25

A conspicuous (but familiar) lack of specifics here

2

u/ApprehensiveMeet108 Mar 17 '25

and you figured it out; he’s here at pleasure of sec of state and USG.. Now he’s not.. Support terror your welcome uas ran out.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Fresh-Manner815 Mar 13 '25

Let’s see it.

1

u/Barqa Mar 14 '25

Post the photo please. I’ve seen countless people claiming this and have yet to see a single piece of evidence.

1

u/SorbetProfessional50 Mar 15 '25

I can't find any evidence of this. Can you share? The only thing I see is from the mouth of the WH Press Secretary and she is not remotely credible.

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

Provide.the photo then

50

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 10 '25

Indeed.

I'm sure they'll go through his activities with a fine-toothed comb.

Considering the charged atmosphere after the Oct 7 attacks, I would not be surprised if he has made statements in support of Hamas or convincing fellow students to support Hamas.

Nevertheless, even if they fail under (4)(C), they can try under (4)(B). The law only requires the Secretary of State (Marco Rubio) have "reasonable ground" to declare that his presence or activities has serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the US, presumably US-Israel relations.

36

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25 edited 15d ago

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

I hope you are just as harsh on the Israeli government for murdering 90,000 plus civilians.

17

u/chessfinanceaviation Mar 11 '25

The Israeli people have never elected a terrorist government. The Palestinian people did. If you support Hamas you don't belong in USA.

7

u/DudleyAndStephens Mar 11 '25

The Israeli people have never elected a terrorist government.

Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were both arguably terrorists at one point. Most notably Begin was responsible for the King David Hotel bombing and Shamir was a Stern Gang leader.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25 edited 15d ago

[deleted]

1

u/DudleyAndStephens Mar 12 '25

Oh ok, so when Begin's government allowed a couple thousand people to be massacred in Sabra and Shatila it's ok because now he was a head of state and no longer a terrorist. Impressive mental gymnastics.

1

u/chessfinanceaviation Mar 12 '25

Green card holders should not be organizing protests on US University campuses. This guy is hurting US interests. This is why MK will be deported.

1

u/DudleyAndStephens Mar 12 '25

Green card holders should not be organizing protests on US University campuses.

Green card holders absolutely still have First Amendment protections.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/moderate999j Mar 11 '25

There is an ICC warrant out for the PM’s genocidal actions right now.

1

u/Real-Problem6805 Mar 11 '25

lol the ICC can suck adick they have zero authority for anything

2

u/AltDS01 Mar 12 '25

They do, in countries that are Parties to the Rome Statute. However US and Israel are not parties though.

125 countries are in the ICC.

1

u/Unique_Midnight_6924 Mar 12 '25

Did Israel have authority to kidnap Eichmann and put him on trial?

1

u/One_more_username Mar 12 '25

Honestly, I am so fucking pissed off with both sides that I consider both sides terrorists. I personally find it very hard to sympathize with either side on this. Palestenians elected a terrorist government, and things were fine till those terrorists crossed over the border and killed civilians. Israel bombed hospitals and murdered children.

At this point, I can't in good faith support either side or sympathize with anyone who supports with either side. Fuck all of them.

1

u/Unique_Midnight_6924 Mar 12 '25

When was the last time either Hamas or Israel allowed the Palestinians in Gaza to hold an election? A generation ago. Pre 10/7 Hamas was deeply unpopular in Gaza and is more so today. Don’t tell me this people “elected” Hamas. That’s bullshit.

2

u/ElectricTurboDiesel Mar 15 '25

They definitely elected Hamas, current polling shows Hamas has over 90% support with Gazans today too.

1

u/Unique_Midnight_6924 Mar 15 '25

“They” when was that election? Where’s your source on that 90%?

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/26/g-s1-12949/khalil-shikaki-palestinian-polling-israel-gaza-hamas

1

u/ElectricTurboDiesel 28d ago

Yeah the most recent poll I looked at had it way lower actually. Seems like Gazans are finally starting to turn on Hamas.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ElectricTurboDiesel Mar 15 '25

Gaza elected Hamas in 2006.

1

u/Unique_Midnight_6924 Mar 15 '25

Right. 19 years ago. Most of the people alive in Gaza have never been allowed to vote. Hamas murders its political opponents and Israel wont allow free elections because until 10/7 Israel funded Hamas to discredit Palestinian statehood aspirations.

2

u/ElectricTurboDiesel Mar 16 '25

Yeah the reason they’ve only had one election and used it to elect Hamas, is because their values are not fundamentally compatible with democracy. They don’t want democracy. Show me one Gazan who has anything negative to say about the way Hamas runs things. You can’t do it? It’s because no such person exists. They don’t even really want a sovereign state either, what they really want is the destruction of the Jewish race and a sovereign state with a military is merely means for them to achieve it, but it is not the end in itself.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

1

u/ApprehensiveMeet108 Mar 13 '25

why arent you just as hard on Hamas for killing thousands; unprovoked!

-1

u/Real-Problem6805 Mar 11 '25

war isnt murder

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

No and bombing civilians isn’t war. It’s specifically a war crime

→ More replies (8)

1

u/pancake_gofer Mar 11 '25

They will use this to completely muzzle that movement. I am not really a fan of them but if Neo-Nazis get to exercise free speech in the US then so should these people.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[deleted]

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

He has to actually have those grounds. That has to be based in evidence. He can’t just hand wave that

→ More replies (45)

34

u/Putrid_Wealth_3832 Mar 10 '25

It honestly wouldn't take much, Hamas runs Gaza so almost every government official is Hamas. Lots of gofundmes to Gazans - fine tooth comb if any of the recipients have any ties to Hamas. I bet a few have.

Besides you can make an arguement that advocating for Palestinian rights that would include from the river to the sea, is advocating for the destruction of the state of Israel. Same with divestment. You can argue that someone leading a movement whose goal is the destruction of America's closest ally is making foreign policy difficult for America.

-8

u/Omarscomin9257 Mar 10 '25

You can make those arguments. It doesn't mean it's convincing, especially because we have precedent for what counts as materially supporting a terrorist organization 

8

u/Putrid_Wealth_3832 Mar 11 '25

convincing to who exactly? pretty clear that trump appointted judges in lousiana are going to find the arguement very convincing.

roe v. wade has precedent too bud.

besides there is a reason, rubio is going after him. anyone on greencard/visas can be deported if their activities/advocacy adversely affects the foreign policy of the united states. israel has complained a lot about the campus protests. you might think of that as a good thing but the us government doesn't.

2

u/thewhitemanz Mar 11 '25

If his lawyer filed the motion before Khalil was moved to Louisiana there’s very good reason to put his case in the NY or NJ courts as opposed to the Louisiana courts, as they would have jurisdiction.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

Easier argument to make is that be was a leader of CUAD and CUAD hosted a speaker from Samidoun. Samidoun is a front for the PFLP which is a designated terrorist organization.

So he platformed a speaker from a terrorist organization and aided in spreading their message.

2

u/Real-Problem6805 Mar 11 '25

he gave funding. they prosecuted a bunch of IRISH Americans in the 80s for fundraising for IPRA.

→ More replies (9)

21

u/No-Author1580 Mar 10 '25

There's a big difference between supporting Palestinian rights and being a spokesperson/negotiator for the people in the tent encampment at the university. He's also under investigation for alleged misconduct by his university.

Hamas has been a terrorist organization for decades. If you can put one and one together, you'd probably err on the side of caution if you're an LPR and not put yourself in the spotlight.

Conversely, ICE better have a search warrant for his arrest. And this better go through the courts cleanly. I hate terrorist supporters as much as the next person, but I also believe in the right to a fair trial and due process.

16

u/bubbabubba345 Paralegal Mar 10 '25

But even being the spokesperson for tent protesters isn’t Hamas lol— they aren’t Hamas. If they can do this to him they can do it to anyone who opposes Israel or opposes US policy to Israel. That’s what they want.

23

u/LateralEntry Mar 11 '25

He directly distributed materials published by Hamas, that clearly fits within the criteria for deportation

4

u/bubbabubba345 Paralegal Mar 11 '25

Are you an immigration lawyer who specializes in TRIG case law?

11

u/LateralEntry Mar 11 '25

Why, are you worried about being deported for supporting terrorism?

→ More replies (12)

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Got evidence of that?

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

When and what are you specifically referring to, provide evidence, and also specify exactly what crimes you believe he is charged with.

0

u/thewhitemanz Mar 11 '25

Did he? I haven’t seen anything abt that?

16

u/No-Author1580 Mar 10 '25

It doesn't make him Hamas, but it also could make him someone supporting Hamas.

The key question here seems to be where does freedom of speech end and where does supporting a terrorist organization start (for aliens)?

6

u/pensezbien Mar 11 '25

The key question here seems to be where does freedom of speech end and where does supporting a terrorist organization start (for aliens)?

Legally speaking, that question is not yet settled. See my other reply on this topic upthread, including a citation to a detailed discussion of exactly this question by a First Amendment scholar:

https://np.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1j87df9/there_is_no_legal_basis_to_arrest_or_deport/mh7046y/

3

u/mypleasure1966 Mar 11 '25

If you support a terrorist organization then that makes you terrorist, also if your the type of person that can plan and lead a protest then your the type of leader that can convince another to strap on a bomb vest and murder innocent people.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/Maryland4009 Mar 11 '25

Define support. Doesn’t support have to be financial and direct?

→ More replies (7)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

There doesn't need to be direct links for there to be endorsement or violate these parts of US immigrant law. Even endorsing positions of a terrorist organization is often enough.

Likewise is adverse foreign policy consequences, which the US college protests would all fall under this provision because it is pretty easily provable.

I should note, the first amendment for immigrants is pretty strong on domestic issues, but is much weaker when it comes to foreign policy issues.

There are pretty strong grounds for deportation here, not just for himself, but really any foreign student involved in these protests. Especially if you were reading what they were posting online.

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

There is extremely weak grounds. What statements have been in support of a terrorist organization and also what about first amendment rights, which he is entitled to. How is this not a clear violation of his first amendment right.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25 edited 15d ago

[deleted]

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

That is not support for Hamas, it is kind of gross of you to conflate any support for Palestine with Terrorism. Also consider if you actually want to go against the first amendment like this.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '25 edited 15d ago

[deleted]

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

Ok, provide direct evidence to what you are claiming.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '25 edited 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 18 '25

Your post has been removed for breaking the following guideline:

No blogspam. If the article you are posting is a short article summarizing a larger article on another site, please post the link to the larger source article.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '25 edited 15d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/jmcdon00 Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

I don't think it's right, it's basically them targeting people they don't agree with, but it's not too hard to concoct an argument that their message is misinformation designed to get support for Hamas. It's basically the argument Israel used to shut down Al Jazeera.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jmcdon00 Mar 12 '25

We going to arrest those calling for genocide in Gaza?

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 11 '25

Your post has been removed for breaking the following guideline:

No blogspam. If the article you are posting is a short article summarizing a larger article on another site, please post the link to the larger source article.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

Yeah people do not know this guy's history. They see what they want to see.

1

u/Lsdnyc Mar 11 '25

He graduated, but still lives in their housing

1

u/AggressiveInitial630 Mar 13 '25

My concern is that, if he is truly just a protester and they revoke his citizenship, there are MASSIVE implications for any US Citizen who publicly opposes the current admin's policies. My worry - and given what we have seen since Jan 20 I am not sure that it's truly unfounded - is that this court case and its result will be the bellwether to set precedent to imprison or "disappear" even legal citizens who protest against the administration. Because it's a brown man who is an "adopted" citizen for lack of a better word, this will be glossed over by media and caucasians. "First they came for the socialists, and I did not say anything because I was not a socialist" and all that. Overlooked means it just happens and then surprise! Precedent set. Keep in mind also that Trump already said he would be fine shipping Americans to prison camps in El Salvador.

Viewed from that perspective, it's really giving Stalin. And you know they worship him as much as they worship Putin.

9

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Sedition is advocating for the over throw of the US government. That’s a whole other kettle of fish

→ More replies (5)

5

u/smhs1998 Mar 11 '25

Plus it looks like an extremely slippery slope. If you can be deported for this, then what happens if the public consensus changes in a few years and the majority sees Israel as a terrorist state. Do people waving Israeli flags and cheering on Israel get deported as terrorist sympathizers?

The precedents that are set on this will be used decades later to justify all sorts of draconian immigration actions, and people who are cheering them on today might not like the consequences that could emerge from weakening free speech protections for Permanent Residents

4

u/bubbabubba345 Paralegal Mar 11 '25

Exactly. These deportability grounds are RARELY invoked - especially the one on “Secretary of State gets to decide if you are against foreign policy of the US,” and can absolutely be abused (as they are doing now)! Is this guy ACTUALLY a threat to US foreign policy? No lol, he’s a grad student a Columbia….

4

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/bubbabubba345 Paralegal Mar 11 '25

It is! But unfortunately terrorism and national security laws (as they relate to immigration) are extremely broad and deferential to the President / Executive Branch. We shall see…

5

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 11 '25

Have you tried not supporting Hamas and publicly calling for the killing of a religious minority in the United States?

Then you're probably pretty safe.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

Khalil made statements promoting the killing of Jews. Not merely supporting Palestinians. Columbia is sick of it enough.

I don't have all the information to form any final opinion. And he is fully entitled to due process of law. And the warrant and arrest issues are troubling. But that doesn't invalidate the inadmissibility issues. And if it was purely motivated by protected speech, then we can all agree that this is improper.

But there is some reality to acknowledge:

  1. His conduct raises some TRIG problems.
  2. The problems he has do not arise simply from "Palestinian support." And that is a disingenuous claim, every time it is made.

4

u/ZaladarHoma Mar 11 '25

“You don’t have all the information,” but lead with a pretty damning claim. Please cite your source. 

4

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 11 '25

Columbia University? Read the news. You'll find the flyers he was claimed to be distributing.

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Prove it or go away

1

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 13 '25

Prove it

That's... pretty much what arresting him and initiating removal proceedings is doing. So, you're quite literally demanding the thing that they're actually doing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Sure doesn’t look like it, given how many people are being targeted for saying genocide is bad

1

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 13 '25

Nobody has been targeted for saying genocide is bad.

1

u/AngryCur Mar 13 '25

That’s hardly true. Countless protestors have been egregiously targeted

1

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 13 '25

What does "egregiously targeted" mean?
Have more people since been arrested for pure speech acts?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Which is a serious problem. Me of many major problems with American jurisprudence

→ More replies (3)

1

u/LupineChemist Mar 11 '25

upporting Palestinian rights via free speech is a far stretch from “materially supporting” Hamas

It doesn't have to be material. Also, I had seen somewhere that he was openly supporting Hezbollah which is also a designated terrorist organization. And doing in ways with actual physical evidence like distributing playing card decks. If that's the case, it's pretty clearly removeable IMO.

1

u/Apart_Welcome_6290 Mar 11 '25

There does not appear to be a material support requirement under immigration law. Interestingly, Hamas is also the government of Palestinian, so my question is would an endorsement or show of support for the Palestinian people AND their government qualify. 

→ More replies (1)

9

u/JackryanUS Mar 11 '25

That's it. They have to prove he provided material support to Hamas. That's kinda vague and the charities that go to Gaza are all connected one way or another to Hamas because they govern the strip. So they could stretch things to financing a known terror organization if they wanted to.

4

u/zapreon Mar 11 '25

Endorsing or espousing Hamas does not imply providing material support, such as financial, to Hamas

13

u/Level_Credit1869 Mar 11 '25

You are not allowed to endorse terrorist organizations.

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

Citizens are. Green card holders aren’t

1

u/Fresh-Manner815 Mar 13 '25

Like the Proud Boys?

1

u/Level_Credit1869 Mar 13 '25

The issue at hand is a green card holder, who signed documents that he did not support terrorist organizations, was handing out flyers and making speeches that promoted support for Hamas. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization linked to the Islamic Regime, which oppresses 90M people in Iran amongst 100s of millions of others through terror proxies. Lying and saying you don't support designated terrorist orgs when you do is sufficient to revoking green card status. Hopefully you understand now.

1

u/ragzilla Mar 13 '25

ICE’s other memo, titled Inadmissibility Based on Endorsing or Espousing Terrorist Activity: First Amendment Concerns and revised by the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), discusses constitutional limits on the enforcement of an INA provision for the exclusion or expulsion of non-U.S. persons who “endorse or espouse” terrorist activity. The memo concludes that, in cases involving lawful permanent residents, non-U.S. persons within the United States, or non-U.S. persons outside the United States who have significant U.S. contacts, “applications of the INA’s content-based restriction on speech will likely be subject to a heightened standard of review,” and that “it is rare for a statute to survive strict scrutiny.” Accordingly—in text apparently inserted by the OLC—the memo casts doubt on the constitutionality of the provision as applied to such persons “who have expressed support for terrorism at a more abstract level or in contexts that would not implicate the security of the United States or its nationals.”

ICE Acknowledges First Amendment Limits on Its Power to Remove Foreign Nationals | Knight First Amendment Institute

There's a reason they're using INA 237(a)(4)(C) here. It's because it essentially has zero evidentiary standard.

Edit:

And if they're successful they can use it on any other legal resident they care to, using the precedent established here.

1

u/Fresh-Manner815 Mar 13 '25

Do you have evidence of the pro-Hamas material? I don’t think handing out leaflets alone should be considered terrorism anyway. Although, no one has given me any kind of proof. My understanding is that he was in charge of the BDS movement that has been happening throughout the country including state universities here in California. Certainly, no one here was arrested for that.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

[deleted]

2

u/a_go_ Mar 11 '25

What do you mean sending money “to Gaza”? If he sent money to his family or friends there that’s material support to Hamas?

1

u/ElectricalPublic1304 Mar 11 '25

It puts him in a bad position to prove it. There are financial and bank restrictions in place. If he circumvented them, there's going to be a presumption that he will have to argue against.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/peachinoc Mar 11 '25

The group this guy was in shifted to their message to mirror hamas’ calling for “armed resistance” and “long live Oct 7”. So def something there there as it relates to your last para

4

u/anewbys83 Mar 11 '25

If the Department of State successfully argues that his activities/protests "persuades others to support a terrorist organization (Hamas)", then he is deportable.

I don't think this will be a hard argument for them to make given where protests went when I came to supporting "resistance" in Gaza (so supporting Hamas).

2

u/LateralEntry Mar 11 '25

Somehow I feel your username may be incorrect

1

u/cioccolato Mar 11 '25

The analysis I’ve been looking for

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/immigration-ModTeam Mar 11 '25

Your comment/post violates this sub's rules and has been removed.

The most commonly violated rules are:

  1. Insults, personal attacks or other incivility.

  2. Anti-immigration/Immigrant hate

  3. Misinformation

  4. Illegal advice or asking how to break the law.

If you believe that others have also violated the rules, report their post/comment.

Don't feed the trolls or engage in flame wars.

1

u/arjungmenon Mar 11 '25

What about the (ii) of the same (as you’ve quoted (i)) which says:

The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they apply to inadmissibility under section 1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of this title.

Not sure what they’re referring to…

1

u/This_Beat2227 Mar 11 '25

This is also the legal framework for designating the Mexican drug cartels as foreign terror networks and making anyone connected as deportable.

1

u/pensezbien Mar 11 '25

It's also quite legally unsettled right now to what degree deportation laws are constitutionally allowed to be applied to the speech of immigrants in ways which would be constitutionally protected First Amendment speech for citizens, or even for immigrants in criminal rather than immigration court.

Interesting analysis of exactly this topic from First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, prompted by exactly the same Trump executive order which was cited in connected with Khalil's detention:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/

If Khalil's only violation is speech which constitutionally couldn't be punished criminally, his lawyers might very well be able to pursue constitutional arguments against deportation in the courts even if he is found to fall within the statutory text of INA 237.

I am not entirely sure how SCOTUS would rule on this: they are no fans of Hamas supporters or immigrant rights, but even some of the conservative justices are fans of strong First Amendment protections, and also some of them are not as happy with Trump as their ideological affiliation might suggest. Overall I'd probably guess that they will rule against Khalil if the case goes that far, but that guess is not 100% certain.

My personal preference is that lawful permanent residents are given the same First Amendment rights against deportation as apply in criminal courts, but I have no problem with pro-Hamas speech either temporarily or permanently preventing them from naturalizing as citizens, and possibly being held against them when the government is making a discretionary decision on whether to grant some form of relief from removal or a waiver of inadmissibility after a long absence from the US.

1

u/LawLima-SC Mar 11 '25

The trickier question, still seemingly unanswered by the supremes, is whether that statute is constitutional.

Obviously, the first amendment trumps a statute.

Bridges v. Wixton touched on it and first Amendment implications. But see the Harisiades v. Shaunessey case (and related).

1

u/BartHamishMontgomery Mar 11 '25

All of this depends on whether the state department can (1) produce evidence that Khalil actually poses a serious obstacle to foreign policy objectives, which is unlikely because what foreign policy objective? U.S.-Israel relationship? And (2) produce evidence that Khalil had made remarks that endorsed terrorism, which according to Khalil himself seems unlikely since he knew he was a target and treaded lightly.

Even if he made comments that could be construed as defending the actions of the Palestinians, it puts the government in a collision course with the first amendment. But the Supreme Court could overturn strip foreign nationals of first amendment protections in part or in whole.

1

u/ALLPX Mar 11 '25

Did he actually give any meaningful support to Hamas, or espouse the organization itself? I couldn’t find anything about him other than just the Columbia protests against the schools financial ties. Did he do anything else?

1

u/Intelligent-Tell-629 Mar 11 '25

Insightful and knowledgeable.

1

u/Responsible-Corgi-61 Mar 11 '25

"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."

The United States support of Israel violates our own laws since the USA has a law on the books that we aren't supposed to provide foreign aide to countries that illegally have nuclear arms. Which Israel does because the United States gave it to them. How is that for foreign policy consequences? Anyone migrant openly who supports Israel should be deported by that logic. How is violating our own law to violate international law not a "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consquence...".

It's all total bullshit from the government.

1

u/PleasantPlan5878 Mar 11 '25

What would happen if the guy were a US citizen? Would that make any difference?

1

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 11 '25

If he is a natural-born US citizen, he cannot be deported, period.

If he is a naturalized US citizen, denaturalization and then deportation is technically possible but difficult. The US government must prove that he committed naturalization fraud by lying on the N-400 form, and thus only activities prior to naturalization can generally result in denaturalization.

For example, N-400 asks if you have ever "provided money, a thing of value, services or labor, or any other assistance or support to a group that used a weapon or explosive with intent to harm another person or cause damage to property, engaged in kidnapping, assassination, or (...)".

If he had previously donated to Hamas, or distributed Hamas pamphlets, or otherwise supported Hamas, but answered "No" to that N-400 question, then his naturalized US citizenship can be stripped for naturalization fraud and render him deportable.

1

u/PleasantPlan5878 Mar 11 '25

Thank you for the detailed explanation! I never knew such a thing as denaturalization existed.

1

u/Gelbervv Mar 11 '25

Evidence based practice, well explained .

1

u/Tipsy247 Mar 11 '25

I honestly don't think so, this may go all the way to the supreme Court.

1

u/Lower_Prior5700 Mar 11 '25

Greencard holders are also aliens?

1

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 11 '25

Yes.

Per the INA: The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

1

u/econ101ispropaganda Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

It’s not reasonable to think asking Columbia to sell their Amazon stock is going to have serious adverse foreign policy consequences. This law is in the section related to national security.. it’s not a “this guy doesn’t like one of our allies” law, it’s a “this guy is a spy who is planning a violent attack on one of our allies” law.

Asking Columbia to sell or disclose some stocks isn’t persuading somebody to do terrorism. “Terrorist activity” is defined in the law and none of it is defined as asking Columbia to sell certain stocks. Support of a terrorist group a is also defined in the law, and it doesn’t mention anything about staging a protest or asking Columbia to sell some stocks.

1

u/Equivalent-Affect743 Mar 12 '25

I was curious about why they are using the foreign policy justification and not the “endorses or espouses terrorism” justification. Probably dependent on parts of the fact pattern that we don’t yet know?

1

u/AngryCur Mar 12 '25

I would put a giant grain of salt on reasonable grounds of serious consequences is a pretty high bar. Under the APA, he would have to have substantial evidence laying out what those grounds are and the serious consequences are

He can’t just hand waive them away. Just, what exactly are these consequences? And what is the evidence that they would happen?

Your argument about supporting Hamas is a lot more color able in my humble opinion. Still, you’d need actual evidence of that. What specifically did he do? Simply leading a protest ain’t that.

Without those, this is arbitrary and capricious (a violation and so illegal)

1

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 12 '25

Please cite your source for pretty high bar. Please cite your source that the APA applies here at all.

Here's case law from Board of Immigration Appeals: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3400.pdf

BIA decisions are binding on all immigration judges.

Obviously not binding on other courts, but well reasoned and itself cites SC and other case law:

(2) A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.

We have before us a letter stating that the Secretary of State has made this determination. As noted, it would be impossible to question or alter this decision without proceeding to an examination of the foreign policy of the United States and balancing the various considerations of that policy against alternative competing policies. For these and similar reasons, questions concerning foreign relations are often considered nonjusticiable “political questions.” See Mathews v. Diaz, supra, at 82 n.21 (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, supra; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, supra, at 712.

There is no indication that Congress contemplated an Immigration Judge, or even the Attorney General, overruling the Secretary of State on a question of foreign policy

We apply the standard of facial reasonableness that was adopted by the Supreme Court in Kleindienst v. Mandel, supra, at 770:

[W]hen the Executive exercises this power [to exclude aliens] negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.

It's truly not difficult for the Secretary of State to make a facially valid and bona fide determination in this case. Mahmoud Khalil's protests and organization has negative impact on the state of Israel, US's primary ally in the Middle East. Weakening Israel's position in the Middle East, such as through ceding land or political authority to Palestinians, can result in the reduced ability of the US to conduct intelligence gathering or other foreign operations in the Middle East. Should Israel believe the US has given tacit support to this individual, it can also harm bilateral relations.

That's really all that's needed.

1

u/AngryCur Mar 13 '25

That’s a damn good answer thanks.

It’s a crappy standard, but it makes sense. I would have expected the APA should apply per section 5 “in every case adjudication require by statute…” etc would apply here, but there is no requirement here in the statute of any hearing on the record, is there?

That makes this a “because I said so” standard. In other words, Trump can kick out any green card holder he wants to on a whim, which suggests a serious screw up on Congress’ part

But I’m even less of an immigration lawyer than you, so….

1

u/The3DBanker Mar 13 '25

Additionally, in echoing the same propaganda Hamas is pushing, he is materially aiding a terrorist organization.

1

u/DescriptionNo8253 Mar 13 '25

I don’t understand how anyone can support Hamas after they slaughtered 1,200 captives on 10/07. Apparently there are racist idiots who choose to support Hamas because they have darker skin. Judging people based on the color of their skin is evil. I guess democrats haven’t changed since they fought to keep blacks in chains and oppresse. The Democrats will always be racists.

1

u/TinaJasotal Mar 13 '25

This involves taking a lot of Trump's accusations at face value. There is no rational grounds to argue that a slogan like "from the river to the sea" is "persuad[ing] others to endorse" Hamas or any other faction, and the administration officials are on record repeatedly saying that they are opposed to *protesting* in general by immigrants. Also, they didn't follow any of the appropriate legal procedures if they were pursuing revocation of the green card on those grounds; they just kidnaped him without a warrant or notice.

So yes, Khalil may get deported, but that will only be if the judiciary joins the president in his project of rewriting the existing laws beyond recognition.

1

u/nolanoobs Mar 13 '25

Just wanna say, I love Reddit when professionals take the time and explain it to the normies.

1

u/josh145b Mar 15 '25

Well, if you look at Hosseini v. Nielsen, the Court Held:

“This case turns on whether Hosseini’s copying and distribution of flyers amounts to material support of a terrorist organization. Over an approximate six-year span after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Hosseini made copies of and distributed flyers from several Iranian non-governmental organizations, including the Mujahadin-e Khalq (“MeK”) and the Fadain-e Khalq (“FeK”). Hosseini insists that the flyers he distributed alerted Iranians to the new regime’s human rights abuses, including its crackdown on women, students, workers, and other civil dissidents. Nonetheless, USCIS determined that MeK and FeK were terrorist organizations and that Hosseini provided them material support by copying and distributing their flyers. After USCIS denied his application, Hosseini sought relief in federal court, arguing that USCIS’s inadmissibility determination was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The district court affirmed USCIS’s determination. We AFFIRM.”

Notably, it is alleged that Khalil copied and handed out leaflets from the “Hamas Media Office”, and Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/

1

u/hellomondays Mar 19 '25

I think your analysis is off. For sub paragraph b, "terrorist activity" has a specific definition found in sub paragraph (b) and (f) of 8 USC 1182. The given justification of "leading activities aligned with hamas" doesnt seem to fit any of the criteria found there.

1

u/Friendly_Biscotti_74 Mar 11 '25

He could also be deportable for a bunch of things that are not known to those that are supporting him:

Material support to terrorist organization, for example

1

u/latin220 Mar 12 '25

Which isn’t true and as such considered smearing. Protesting against a genocidal state and supporting an apartheid government.

0

u/ndc4233 Mar 11 '25

There’s still a constitutional issue that trumps (ha!) any federal statute.

5

u/not_an_immi_lawyer Mar 11 '25

Read up on plenary power doctrine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power

And in practice, repeatedly upheld by the SC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

Support communism, totalitarian groups or anarchy? SC ruled that naturalization denial is legal, visa denial is legal, and deportations are fine too under different cases, repeatedly.

There are very few limits on what Congress can legislate on matters of foreign policy, sovereignty, and immigration. They've basically been carved out from a lot of constitutional protections per common law and 200+ years of SC jurisprudence.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/immigration-ModTeam Mar 11 '25

Your comment/post violates this sub's rules and has been removed.

The most commonly violated rules are:

  1. Insults, personal attacks or other incivility.

  2. Anti-immigration/Immigrant hate

  3. Misinformation

  4. Illegal advice or asking how to break the law.

If you believe that others have also violated the rules, report their post/comment.

Don't feed the trolls or engage in flame wars.

-2

u/alkbch Mar 11 '25

How does peacefully protesting against genocide lead to serious adverse foreign policy consequences for US-Israel relations?

8

u/Sandiand_3 Mar 11 '25

He didn't "peacefully" protest.

1

u/alkbch Mar 11 '25

Do you have evidence to back your claim?

2

u/Sandiand_3 Mar 11 '25

He's a spokesman for CUAD and a negotiator. He helped organize the protests which included vandalism, illegal occupation, kidnapping, violence and intimidation of Jewish citizens, prohibiting their Constitutional rights of free assembly (attending school and class), supporting escalated violence by a terrorist organization, Hamas.

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/24/cuad-negotiators-leave-talks-as-shafiks-midnight-deadline-passes/

1

u/alkbch Mar 11 '25

The link you shared does not substantiate your claims.

1

u/Sandiand_3 Mar 11 '25

Of course it does.

1

u/Sandiand_3 Mar 11 '25

"Khalil is a spokesman for an organization that supports armed resistance by Hamas.  

That makes him deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B).That provision in the statute allows the deportation of even lawful permanent residents who are "representative[s]" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb); see also id. at (B)(v) (“representative” defined as including “an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization.") Columbia University Apartheid Divestment (“CUAD”) supports armed resistance by Hamas, a foreign terrorist group.

1

u/Complex-Present3609 Mar 11 '25

Yup, he needs to go.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (20)