The administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump is currently exploring ways to legally justify which, according to legal specialists and activist groups, appears to be an overt infringement of the First Amendment rights of an apprehended pro-Palestinian campaigner, Mahmoud Khalil. On a recent Saturday, officials from the Department of Homeland Security trailed Khalil, a Columbia University alumnus who took a leading role in marshaling pro-Gaza demonstrations in the previous year’s spring, and his spouse, Amy Greer, as they entered their residential building close to Columbia’s campus.
Khalil and Greer were informed that his student visa had been cancelled, and consequently, he was slated for deportation. Amy Greer, a U.S. citizen and 8-month pregnant, challenged the authorities highlighting her husband’s status as a legal permanent inhabitant. However, the response of the DHS agents was to threaten her with the possibility of arrest, ahead of whisking Khalil off to a detention center in Louisiana, a massive 1,300-mile journey away from New York.
Trump cast accusations at Khalil, labeling him a ‘Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas’ figure that posed as an imminent threat to the country’s safety. However, the Trump administration failed to provide any tangible evidence to substantiate a connection between Khalil and the U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization Hamas, or proof of Khalil promoting violent acts. Khalil currently faces no criminal charges.
Esha Bhandari, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, remarked that the administration had made no attempts to conceal that Khalil’s constitutionally defended freedom of speech activities were the grounds on which his detention was based.
Bhandari explains that to invoke the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as per its description by Leavitt, the state secretary would have to formally assure Congress that the individual with revoked immigration status presented a threat to foreign policy. The parameters of the INA and its legislative history, both clarified by Congress, assert that the provision wasn’t designed to preclude individuals based merely on their expressed views.
Applying the legal provision is more common against high-ranking officials who are part of agencies not favorably disposed to the U.S. The application of this provision for students appears unusual. Fitzpatrick observes that while Trump and his officials might perceive Khalil’s views as anti-American, this doesn’t subtract from their protection.
According to Fitzpatrick, all indications suggest that Khalil’s major offense seems to be his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians. He points out that pro-Palestinian advocacy, and even support for Hamas, is safeguarded by the First Amendment, unless it escalates to providing ‘material support for terrorism’. This distinction means that offering moral backing to terrorist entities is under the protection of the First Amendment, while providing them with military support is not.
Fitzpatrick asserts that the essence of the First Amendment and the principle of free speech in America is that every opinion and idea has its place. Individuals can choose to ignore a view, offer a counter-argument, or disengage altogether, but imprisoning the speaker isn’t an option.
Maya Berry, the Executive Director of the Arab American Institute (AAI), points out that Arab-Americans, and Palestinians in particular, advocating for Palestinian human rights have been systematically sidelined in terms of acceptable political opinions and perspectives for years.
Despite the authority of the U.S. government to implement ‘ideological exclusion’ against foreigners seeking lawful entrance into the country, the Constitution does not include an exception which places green card holders and other visa bearers beyond the ambit of First Amendment’s safeguards.
Recently, Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court placed a stay order on the government’s decision to proceed with Khalil’s deportation until the constitutional implications highlighted by his detention have been scrutinized by a court.
Irrespective of the warnings directed at demonstrators, protesters opposing the detention of Khalil continue to gather at Columbia University. These ongoing public displays of solidarity highlight the controversy surrounding this case and the broader conversation it contributes to regarding constitutional rights in America.