Student activist detained in the US

"Support" has traditionally been used to mean material support, not merely speech. And even then it's questionable what he said. But read the news: they aren't using that as their rationale. They're saying his presence is contrary to American foreign policy interests.

Either way he is entitled to due process and a fair hearing

But Trump is trying to get the Illegal Aliens Act reinstated which will take away hearings and due process. It’s the absolute tearing up of legal process and general dictator tendencies which concerns me,

This.

It's clearly in the statutes for green card holders that they cant promote terrorist organizations. If this person was doing that then he is in violation of the terms of his immigration status and can be deported. Its not about free speech, or protesting, but distributing hamas materials. these rules have always been in place for non citizens. Its not that hard to understand, don't go to a foreign country and support a proscribed terrorist group. If he hasn't been doing that and was just innocently protesting then it shouldn't be hard to win the case. Likewise, if the government have proof that he was promoting hamas then he has violated the terms of his green card and can be deported. Either way he is entitled to due process and a fair hearing

I agree that this is not really about Palestine/ Israel but about freedom of speech/ freedom to protest.
I can see why you find it worrying. Democracy means tolerating views we disagree with. That is a very important principle.

But people are not free to say anything they want. They can’t promote ideas that undermine or threaten democracy/ peace / racial harmony.
I hope the legal process works fairly and openly in this case

Trump has now issued an executive order invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act allowing the govt to deport without due process. Sounds like the courts are trying to stop this happening but who knows how successful they’ll be long term.

@Odras I think he’s probably going to be fine. I was just pointing out that getting involved in protests is more risky for non-citizens, especially if the police become involved as they did on the Columbia campus.

And that should be dealt with accordingly but the two posts are not connected in any way.

It is not anti semitic to hold Israel to the same standards as every other country but what is currently happening is they are not allowed to be criticised in any way or else the law will be brought down on them severely.

Why can people not protest against their actions in Palestine because there could not be one poster here who would agree that they have been completely moral and their actions have been above reproach in the last 18 months.

@Odras I’m a naturalized citizen so thought I’d share my feelings on the subject-note that this is just my personal opinion, not referring to the legal position.

When I was a permanent resident, I considered myself a guest in the country, because green cards have to be renewed every 10 years so even though it says “permanent,” you’re actually not. You can be deported for a number of reasons and I was always aware of that. I also felt that as a non-citizen and a guest, it wasn’t my place to protest about the country’s laws and actions.

Now that I’m a citizen who has made a commitment to the country and I can vote, I feel that I do have the right to protest. Even naturalized citizens can be stripped of their citizenship though under certain conditions.

So my feelings are complicated. I completely agree that his case needs to be decided by the courts in accordance with the existing immigration laws, not by a politician. But, I also think that he knew that he was potentially risking his residency and was willing to take that risk. I hope that he gets a proper hearing and for his family’s sake, is deemed not to have broken existing immigration laws.

Columbia’s own task force investigating the protests found widespread harassment of Jewish students and antisemitism.

https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Announcements/Report-2-Task-Force-on-Antisemitism.pdf

I think that's such a dangerous precedent.

Trump is ensuring that in people minds there are no innocent Palestinians which makes it easier to ethnically cleanse and murder them. Anyone who protests against Israel is now automatically labelled a Hamas sympathiser and a terrorist. This gives Israel a carte Blanche to behave in any manner they wish. It gives them renewed sense of strength which means they will not agree to any ceasefire deal because why would they when they hold the cards to such a powerful nation.

Why was he arrested?
On social media, Donald Trump declared that the arrest was part of his promised campaign to deport international students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. The administration broadly perceives pro-Palestinian protesters to be antisemitic Hamas sympathizers. Trump has already promised that Khalil’s would be the “first arrest of many to come”.

t the government isn't even arguing he committed a crime, merely that he "supported terrorism" and is against their foreign policy, and that's not within the law. They deliberately sent him to Jena which is known for being very tough

I understood that “supporting terrorism “ was an offence ?

Obviously that needs to be proven in a transparent legal process.

Didn't Trump say yesterday that news organisations that criticise him should be illegal? How embarrassing for Americans having that clown in the white house although they did vote him in.

Columbia handled the protests really poorly. The problem is that Trump wants to use that to attack universities he doesn't like. He doesn't care about antisemitism a bit.

Now, if Khalil had committed a crime, okay. He could lose his green card.
if the university had taken action and expelled him, he could have lost his student visa (he switched visas in the fall). All that would be fine and within the rules.

but the government isn't even arguing he committed a crime, merely that he "supported terrorism" and is against their foreign policy, and that's not within the law. They deliberately sent him to Jena which is known for being very tough.

it is worth noting that the group he was with, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, did applaud Hamas and Hezbollah and also did study sessions on the PFLP. But Khalil's views are being conflated with CUAD. They aren't presenting evidence that he personally supports terrorism, and traditionally, mere verbal support has been considered free speech and protected. People have been prosecuted or deported for material support of terror groups, eg money or housing terrorists.

Trump seems very keen on accusing individuals and organisation of various “crimes” with no evidence and then taking steps against them. He’s currently trying to criminalise various worthwhile organisations like Habitats for Humanity who were given grants by the last govt. he’s ordered that their bank accounts are frozen as he believes they’ve defrauded the USA. No evidence of this, he just doesn’t like the fact organisations he considers “woke” have been given grants in the past. So now he’s fucking them over.

It's just the beginning:
https://nypost.com/2025/03/14/us-news/second-anti-israel-columbia-protester-leqaa-kordia-arrested-by-homeland-security-for-immigration-violations/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/14/israel-free-speech-mahmoud-khalil

Opinion piece by Kenneth Roth.

The Guardian have an article about him today, they seem to think that normally you do have to have committed a crime in order for a green card to be revoked:

Usually, yes. A green card is considered sacrosanct – the holy grail for immigrants seeking the right to live and work in America permanently. Typically, green card holders can only be stripped of their status if they have been convicted of a crime – and Khalil has not been accused of one.
The Trump administration, however, is relying on a rarely used provision of US immigration law to try to deport him. A charging document addressed to Khalil said that the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, “has reasonable ground to believe that your presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say a mouthy political student activist is going to have an adverse foreign policy consequence. 🤷‍♀️

That’s entirely fair.