A political activist from Columbia University, holding a green card, a scholarly figure from Georgetown University on a student visa, and a kidney transplantation specialist at Brown University with a work visa: These are a few examples of individuals, legally residing within the United States, who have been targeted and apprehended by immigration authorities or refused U.S. entry at airports. The President, Donald Trump, has vocalized his support for legal immigration, whilst assuring that his campaign’s pursuit of deportation on a mass scale would primarily target culprits of violent crimes. However, many cases in the limelight regarding attempted deportations concern individuals who possess the legal rights to reside in the U.S.
Specialists in immigration reveal that visa and green card holders have been previously deported under different regimes, yet certain actions under the Trump administration appear to be unique. According to Matthew Boaz, a professor of immigration law from the University of Kentucky, the Trump administration has discarded standard procedures and policies in their quest to validate their indiscriminate deportations with little to no due process, by exploiting lesser-known aspects of immigration law.
One notable case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and supporter of the Palestinian cause who was detained by immigration officials under a law from the Cold War era. This law empowers the Secretary of State to make a non-U.S. citizen subject to deportation if their activities or presence are deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests; however, immigration authorities have not yet substantiated their claim that Khalil’s activities pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.
The same Cold War-era law is being used against another Columbia University student also closely involved in campaigning for the cause of Palestine. This student was briefly saved from detention and deportation by a court injunction issued by a federal judge. Although the judge’s intervention has temporarily halted the student’s detention and deportation, it’s noted by experts in immigration law that any attempt to deport a visa or green card holder would require the government to provide solid evidence. However, this process can be protracted.
Lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, are subject to potential deportation from the U.S., but they have the right to contest the decision in court before final judgement. Only an immigration judge possesses the authority to annul a green card. Potential grounds for green card holders to be considered for deportation encompass serious felony offenses such as rape, murder or drug trafficking. Deportation can also occur if a permanent resident has committed immigration fraud.
The government has claimed that Khalil did not fully disclose his past employment with UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestine refugees, and other international bodies. Khalil’s legal representatives submitted a petition following his arrest, alleging that the arrest and detention of Khalil by ICE were based on his expressed views, thus breaching his First Amendment rights.
Convictions related to drugs can also serve as grounds for deportation. Like green card holders, individuals already on U.S. soil and carrying tourists, student, or work visas are also served with notices to appear if the government has reasons to believe that they are deportable. Such reasons can include criminal activity, fraud, overstaying visa period, or unauthorized employment. These visa holders are given the same due course of law as legal permanent residents, and the government has the burden of proof.
Badar Khan Suri, a scholar and teacher at Georgetown University on a student visa, was detained by immigration authorities and awaits immigration proceedings. Visa holders can also face refusal at U.S. borders or airports as having a visa does not necessarily guarantee entry into the U.S. The power to admit individuals or reject their entry lies with the Customs and Border Protection officers.
The case of Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant specialist on a U.S. work visa, serves as a perfect example of this. She was denied entry at the airport after border officials discovered images of Hezbollah members on her phone. The immigration officers claimed ignorance of the judge’s order until after Alawieh had already been deported.
A similar incident occurred when the French government claimed that one of its citizens, a scientist, was denied entry into the U.S. because his phone contained personal remarks criticizing the Trump administration’s policies on science. While those currently residing within the U.S. enjoy the protection of the U.S. Constitution, their residences cannot be intruded upon by any immigration official without a judge-signed warrant.
To secure such a warrant from the judiciary, immigration officers must present tangible proof of a committed crime before a judge. However, the rights of individuals vary significantly when dealing with airport scenarios.
The discussion surrounding the legal rights and protections offered to green card holders, and visa holders alike, evidences the complexity of U.S. immigration law. The debate on the right to due process and judicial warrants underlines the precarious legal landscape faced by such individuals. Amid this controversy, the U.S. government’s burden of proof and their legal duty to validate their actions within statutory norms emerge as critical areas of focus.
Despite the surrounding legal complexity and nuances, it is the lives of these students, professionals, and individuals who bear the brunt of inconsistencies in law enforcement and interpretation. The potential misuse of little-known laws and arbitration by immigration authorities underscore the necessity for greater transparency, consistency, and fairness in our immigration contexts.