Mahmoud Khalil is 30 years old. He is a former graduate student at Columbia University who led anti-Israel and pro-Hamas protests and disruptions there. He was the lead negotiator for the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” that invaded Columbia’s campus.
Khalil grew up in Syria but is of Palestinian descent. He came to the U.S. on a student visa and later received a green card. He is married to an American citizen. His wife is eight months pregnant.
Khalil was arrested by ICE agents at his university-owned apartment on March 8. According to a post by President Donald Trump shortly after the arrest, Khalil is “a radical foreign pro-Hamas student” and his arrest is the “first of many to come,” as Trump seeks to make good on his promise to target “terrorist sympathizers” and deport foreign students who support terrorism.
But as good as the Khalil arrest may make some people feel — and we recognize the satisfaction in seeing something substantive being done to protect Jewish students from the upsetting wave of harassment, interference and victimization on college campuses around the country — it isn’t at all clear what the specific charges against Khalil are or whether they are sufficient to warrant expulsion of a lawful permanent resident with a green card.
Much will depend on the specific charges brought against Khalil.
Thus far, the government has not accused Khalil of committing a crime. The only claim against him is that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has determined that Khalil’s presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
That charge relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says an immigrant is deportable if their “presence or activities” in the United States gives the secretary of state “reasonable ground to believe” that the person presents such a threat.
But if Rubio’s charges are based upon things that Khalil said, as opposed to things that he did, the case will implicate serious First Amendment free speech concerns that are fueling a lot of interest in and opposition to the government’s case against Khalil. Green card holders like Kahlil have free speech rights, and the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens when it comes to the First Amendment.
That doesn’t mean that green card holders
have a right to join with groups that endorse or espouse terror activity. And immigration laws allow deportation for activity that meets the threat standard even if the activity doesn’t constitute a crime. Therefore, if the government can prove that Khalil was part of a group that endorsed or espoused Hamas’ atrocities against Israel, it may be able to deport him.
But if Khalil’s deportation is based solely on what he said, rather than on what he did, there is very good reason to be concerned about government action being used to silence unpopular or even abhorrent speech that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment.
Khalil’s case could turn out to be a very important one, on several levels. ■
