Student activist detained in the US

He's entitled to a hearing before a judge, and he's obviously going to get one.

It's not in the interests of the US for people to conclude that after becoming a legal resident, they can be arbitrarily deported for their political views. We want people to immigrate here legally and contribute to society. But it's a fact that some immigrants come here despite having a strong animus against the US, and if they cross the line by supporting terrorists organizations or otherwise breaking the law, they should go.

There's an absolute uproar about the lack of due process on the Alt National Park Service fb page (which I accept is quite anti Trump). But ultimately these ae Americans who think the whole thing stinks and that yes if he is guilty of something and it's deemed his Green Card should be revoked then that's right but that there needs to be some sort of proof/hearing to determine this.

It doesn't need to be proved - he's not in court, it's enough that the powers that be have decided that they don't want him in the US anymore. He has a green card apparently, but even that doesn't entitle him to stay if the State Department determine that he's supporting terrorism or breaking the law in another way.

No, it hasn't been proven that he has broken the terms of his stay.

They don't need to articulate any criminal charges against him. He has broken the terms of his stay in the United States and the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with that is to deport him, not allow him to stay for an expensive trial.

"White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at a news briefing Tuesday accused Khalil of organizing “group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda, flyers with the logo of Hamas"

If this is true distributing leaflets supporting Hamas isn't a great look.

They're still determining where the case will be heard. They will hear whatever evidence is available in due course.

It sounds as if the legal process is being conducted fairly. If he is proven to be guilty of promoting terrorism he should be deported .

Trump and his administration have not provided evidence of the allegations against Khalil.
A lawyer for Khalil, Samah Sisay, rejected the Trump administration's claim, saying there is no evidence that his client provided support of any kind to a terrorist organization.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-court-arrest-detention-immigration-green-card-rcna195990

He has been accused of organising a protest where allegedly such leaflets were handed out. There hasn't been any concrete clear allegations against him in the open yet. I'm glad the judge has declared that it should be made open to the public. Until then it's still not clear what charges have been made.

The government is alleging that he distributed flyers from the "Hamas Media Office".

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-says-columbia-university-activist-detained-for-distributing-pro-hamas-propaganda/

There are pictures of them here:

https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/

Infact the case against him doesn't even say that he, himself distributed literature supporting Hamas. Rather it's alleged that he organised a protest where some other people handed out pro Hamas literature.

And which literature is this?

His position or lack thereof in CUAD isn't relevant to the government's case. His distribution of Hamas literature during the protests clearly endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.

His false declarations on his visa and green card applications void both and allow them to be revoked if that's how the government wants to proceed.

But he didn't write that. He has been accused online by several pro-israeli accounts as being the head of CUAD which he has categorically denied.

Correct. I linked to the statute up thread:

9 FAM 302.6-2(A) (U) Grounds
(CT:VISA-2014; 06-20-2024)
(U) INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i) renders ineligible any applicant who:
(1) (U) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(2) (U) you know, or have reason to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity;
(3) (U) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(4) (U) is a representative of:
(a) (U) a terrorist organization; or
(b) (U) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(5) (U) is a member of a designated terrorist organization;
(6) (U) is a member of an undesignated terrorist organization, unless the applicant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(7) (U) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(8) (U) has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, when the training was received, was a terrorist organization; or
(9) (U) is the spouse or child of an applicant who is ineligible, if the activity causing the applicant to be found ineligible occurred within the last 5 years.

I have just seen the judge has extended the ban and asked for the documents relating to his case be made public.

Conveniently they are leaving out the clause in the immigration statutes which specifically states that green card holders can be deported for "mere expression of support for terrorist organizations or terrorist activities; this also includes “foreign policy” as determined by the Secretary of State)"

If he has indeed been speaking and disseminating material in support of hamas, and the government have evidence of this, then it's an open and shut case.

To reiterate, he is NOT possibly having his immigration status revoked for protesting and exercising his right to free speech. Its because he seems to have openly been supporting a proscribed terrorist organization. Big difference.

This is disinformation, people on this thread have taken this as gospel without doing any research. Not only did Khalid Mahmoud not say this but he also denied being the leader of this group.

"Activists supporting Israel have accused Mr Khalil of being a leader of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (Cuad), a student group that demanded, among other things, the university to divest from its financial ties to Israel and a ceasefire in Gaza.
Mr Khalil has denied that he led the group, telling the Associated Press (AP) that he only served as a spokesperson for protesters and as a mediator with the university."

The Trump administration are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites and some people are too blinded by their hate of Palestinians to see it.

Why has there been no repercussions for the US senator who when questioned about the deaths of Palestinian children responded with 'kill them all!'

From the articel

His detainment has sparked nationwide protests. Outside of court, demonstrators chanted and waved flags in support of Mr Khalil and Palestinians. Among the protesters was actress Susan Sarandon, who told the BBC that Trump officials were trying to "disappear" Mr Khalil.
Mr Khalil's lawyer Ramzi Kassem said outside court that his case should "outrage anybody in the United States who thinks speech should be free".
US civil rights advocates, lawmakers and some Jewish groups have said that deporting Mr Khalil would violate American due process rights and is an attack on free speech.
The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the State Department to deport noncitizens who are "adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests" of the US. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that the US could deport visa and green card holders for "virtually any reason".
Still, legal experts said the case against Mr Khalil is unprecedented.
"Targeting individual protesters just for protesting ... is highly unusual and something that we haven't seen before, even under the first Trump administration," said Jacob Hamburger, a visiting assistant professor at Cornell Law School.