Judge says Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can't be deported from U.S. as protesters call for his release
www.nbcnews.com
The Columbia University grad, who helped organize the school’s pro-Palestinian rallies, was detained Saturday night and told his student visa was being revoked, his attorney said.

Summary

A federal judge blocked the removal of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil from the U.S. after his arrest by ICE.

Khalil, a Columbia University graduate who helped organize pro-Palestinian protests, was arrested Saturday by ICE agents who claimed his visa was revoked for supporting Hamas.

The Trump administration continues to claim he violated an executive order prohibiting anti-Semitism, though no evidence was provided. Protesters in NYC demand his release, calling the arrest unconstitutional.

His location remains unclear. The ACLU and immigrant rights groups argue the detention violates free speech, warning it sets a dangerous precedent.

  • FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee
    5·
    2 days ago

    I have read conflicting sources on his citizenship. Some have said he’s a naturalized citizen, and if that is the case why wouldn’t the first amendment apply to him? How can anyone be secure in their status as a citizen if it can be revoked for reasons that only apply to non-citizens?

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      Some have said he’s a naturalized citizen

      I’m sure that he’s not. It’s established case law that (a) US citizen cannot be denied entry to the US and (b) that a legitimately-granted citizenship cannot subsequently be constitutionally revoked by the government; revocation must be voluntary. Like, this wouldn’t be an argument were it not.

      kagis

      https://time.com/7266683/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-green-card/

      What To Know About Mahmoud Khalil, and Why His Green Card Was Revoked

      Yeah. If you have a green card, you’re on the path to citizenship…but you do not yet have citizenship.

      EDIT: WRT my above statement:

      SCOTUS ruling that involuntary removal of citizenship is unconstitutional: Afroyim v. Rusk.

      Holding: Congress has no power under the Constitution to revoke a person’s U.S. citizenship unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.

      As a consequence of revised policies adopted in 1990 by the United States Department of State, it is now (in the words of one expert) “virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it.”[5]

      His wife is a citizen.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Khalil_(activist)

      At the time of his arrest, Khalil’s wife, an American citizen…

      However, SCOTUS has ruled that the right of a US citizen to enter the United States does not extend to a non-citizen spouse:

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-says-u-s-citizens-don-t-have-right-to-bring-noncitizen-spouses-to-u-s/ar-BB1oFzGW

      • FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee
        3·
        2 days ago

        Thank you for finding a better source than whatever my search engine was throwing at me. It didn’t make any sense that they’d start with someone granted citizenship, and all the sense that they’re going to make an example out of an immigrant still seeking citizenship.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          No problem. I should add that immigration law is complicated as all hell, and sometimes very unintuitive, and the situation has changed over the years. And I’m not an immigration lawyer, so I’m just giving my best layman’s understanding from what past case law and history I’ve read.

          I’d also reiterate that it’s not as if SCOTUS has said “the First Amendment doesn’t protect the guy” against deportation for his speech. It just hasn’t ruled that it does: there’s been no ruling to define the scope of the Constitution on the matter that I’m aware of.

          I’d also bet that there are a lot of wrinkles there. The rationale that the Executive Branch has used in the past to justify use of speech as a filter for permitting entry to the US is “national security”. But I think — without looking into the matter — that it’s likely difficult to characterize the guy as a threat to US national security. Israel’s national security, maybe. But the US’s? I think that that’s a harder case to make. So…I’m not actually sure that even if SCOTUS takes a case and rules that you can use speech as a criteria for disallowing entry for non-citizens to the US on national security grounds, that it’d agree with the Executive Branch on this guy being deportable.