Americans on the left and right are divided over the controversial detainment of pro-Hamas activist and Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil. While some argue this is a necessary step to enforce the law and stop terror support on American campuses, others are questioning the limits of free expression—a constitutionally protected right. While asking questions is valid, those who defend this man as some kind of martyr are entirely missing the point.
EMILY’S TAKE
(ILTV)
First, Khalil isn’t being detained because of anything he said; he is being detained because he violated the terms of his green card. When you accept a green card, you pledge not to support U.S.-designated terrorist organizations—of which Hamas and Hezbollah explicitly are. The United States is under no obligation to provide non-citizens with visas or green cards and is well within its sovereign rights to revoke any that have already been issued. This is not new, not racist, and not unique to the United States.
Second, beyond deportation, Khalil’s alleged behavior is also of criminal concern. He has been accused of leading the Columbia University protests in which Jewish students were violently assaulted, Columbia staff were held hostage in a building illegally taken over by Hamas-supporting mobs, and students chanted in support of U.S.-designated terror groups: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—all while U.S. citizens remain hostages. Khalil reportedly also distributed flyers from Hamas’s media office. And let’s not forget: Hamas actually praised the student protests, stating they worked in their favor during hostage negotiations.
Now, let’s talk legality. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1182), any non-citizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” is inadmissible to the United States.
Legal precedent also confirms that, even under a free speech analysis, which requires the test of “strict scrutiny” in America, the U.S. is well within its rights to act against Khalil. There is a compelling national interest—a precedent established in Morse v. Frederick and Turner v. Williams.
Finally, the glorification of terror supporters, even by elected officials, makes a mockery of the legal system and the U.S. Congress—no one on the left or right should be doing this. These laws exist to protect all American citizens.
Khalil came to this country seeking citizenship and used the opportunity to foment hatred against America. He is not a victim, and his rights are not being violated. He was the leader of a movement that, according to U.S. intelligence, has been funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran and has promoted multiple U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. The United States is under no legal obligation to permit him to stay in the country.