One of the least pleasant aspects of being principled is that you have to defend people whose ideology you find repugnant or idiotic. But that’s the test of principle, whether you’re prepared to fight for the rights you demand for the favored for those you despise. I despise Khalil. Free him.
Mahmoud Khalil was a graduate of Columbia who was deeply involved in the anti-Israel encampment and other related conduct. Whether you prefer to characterize it as anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas, Khalil has been convicted of no crime for his actions. It may be that he has engaged in criminal conduct. If so, then he should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did, and if it can be proven, then convicted. That’s how it works here, or at least how it’s supposed to work here.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply. Thank you!
10.9k ReTruths 48.7k Likes Mar 10, 2025, 1:05 PM
Contrary to early reporting when Khalil was first nabbed by ICE and disappeared into the morass of our immigration detention sinkhole, Khalil was not here on a student visa, but was a legal permanent resident, married to an American citizen. Not only does he enjoy the same First Amendment rights as an American citizen, but he enjoys the right to due process as well. The Trump administration, however, doesn’t see it that way.
Immigrant students who express sympathy for Hamas will have their visas and green cards revoked so that deportation proceedings may be brought against them, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted to X on Monday. The State Department, which began carrying out the “catch and revoke” program last week, will use artificial intelligence to sift through foreign nationals’ social media accounts for pro-Hamas sympathies. Rubio said the U.S. has “zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists” and vowed to deport “violators of U.S. law.” While the constitutionality of the program is dubious, it is unambiguously un-American to punish people for political speech.
But what about the law, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), allowing for the refusal of entry or deportation of “any alien who…endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization”? This was expressly relied upon by Trump in his Executive Order Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. While the constitutionality remains untested, it may well be that the activists for Palestinians also espouse support for a terrorist organization. Many of the protests have expressly supported the actions of Hamas on October 7th. Even worse, they continue to call for, and justify, violence by Hamas in furtherance of Palestinian liberation.
Ilya Somin argues that this should be unconstitutional from a policy perspective.
A standard response to this view is the idea that, even if non-citizens have a right to free speech, they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US. Thus, deporting them for their speech doesn’t violate the Constitution. But, in virtually every other context, it is clear that depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech violates the First Amendment, even if the right they lose does not itself have constitutional status. For example, there is no constitutional right to get Social Security benefits. But a law that barred critics of the President from getting those benefits would obviously violate the First Amendment. The same logic applies in the immigration context.
While the scope and breadth of free speech for non-citizens that involves support for terrorists may be less than clear, the analogy to denying social security to critics of the president doesn’t seem apt, there being no element of violence toward others involved. Denying benefits to critics of the president seems quite different from a non-citizen, essentially a guest in the United States, coming or remaining here while espousing terrorism. The analogy doesn’t work for me, even if the law seems too vague and overbroad to be constitutionally applied.
The putative charge against Khalil is strikingly vague.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Khalil’s arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” The agency alleged that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” but did not provide any details.
What does “led activities aligned to Hamas” mean? It might mean something that would violate the law, or it might mean his pro-Palestinian activities were related to Hamas by logical extension. Or it might mean nothing. Who knows?
It remains unclear whether Khalil engaged in either criminal activities or activities that violated 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), assuming the constitutionality of the law. Some are arguing that his seizure is purely a free speech violation, and as of now, that’s very much the case although it is also possible that there is other conduct that is not protected and violates the law. But if so, then charge Khalil with that conduct. If it’s not purely about free speech, it’s up to the government to make that case, not just snatch him and throw him into immigration custody.
As of now, based upon the Truth Social twit by Trump, however, it appears that the government’s seizure is based on nothing more than Mahmoud Khalil’s protected First Amendment activities, and that is both chilling and unconstitutional, no matter how stupid and despicable his speech may be. Free Mahmoud Khalil.