To be clear, this man could've been lifting "I love Hamas" signs and his arrest would still be unconstitutional. Don't let them make this an "antisemitism" problem.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
573 points (99.1% liked)
News
27182 readers
8457 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I have a fake/throwaway account on X and thought I'd check the vibe there. I was shocked how the majority of Trump supporters were arguing that constitutional rights only apply to US citizens.
Their level of confidence in being ignorant is just...wow. Scary.
In addition to ignorance, Khalil had legal citizenship which makes him a US citizen ☠️. So much for “we love immigrants as long as they’re legal”!
Khalil had legal citizenship which makes him a US citizen
As I understand it, he is not a citizen but a legal permanent resident married to a citizen. He has a green card.
Ahhh I see this is a distinction I wasn’t aware of. I just remembered reading one of the publications saying he was a citizen, but it seems you’re correct.
Agree with you ofc, just want to add how ironic it is that supporting Arabs (who are Semites) is antisemitic but nazis who are explicitly anti-Jewish are not..but ofc the fash and doublespeak.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said Khalil is to remain in the U.S. "to preserve the court's jurisdiction" as the court weighs a filing challenging his arrest and planned deportation. A hearing was scheduled for Wednesday at federal court in New York City.
Who wants to be they will deport him anyway? "oopsie, we all make mistakes, right?"
They aren't going to deport him, they ate going to put him in Guantanamo as I believe he does not have the same legal protections there.
I think?
It’s less about legal protections and more about logistical. It’s pretty damn hard for lawyers and the press to visit someone in gitmo.
He would not have those rights but Im not sure how they decide who goes there. This man's wife and newborn are in the USA.
There are no objective criteria any more. They want him gone, he goes. By the time the court rules it's illegal, he'll already be in Guantanamo.
We need to start arming ourselves and its past time to start putting bullets in ICE agents that come to remove citizens from their homes. How much are we going take? Does he literally need to start gasing the people he has locked up before we get off our ass and fight?
Or are we going go the route that Germany did in 1942?
I believe he does not have the same legal protections there. I think?
That's what been claimed, but it's been tyrannical unconstitutional bullshit since 2001.
Well Isreal did... Ironic
Hell they already disappeared him. His fucking lawyer doesn't know where he is at. He most likely already in Getmo and he isn't coming back I'm afraid. Trump going show just how far he can get away with crimes. Hell at this rate we will get consonstration camps before June. Fucking wild how fast fascism is running rampant through our country and not a single politician is doing goddamm thing to stop it.
This is an open and shut case: he had his 1st Amendment rights taken away and the ICE agents have violated the Constitution. Therefore, all agents involved must be punished to the letter of the law, no leeway or amnesty. Full stop.
Therefore, all agents involved must be punished to the letter of the law, no leeway or amnesty. Full stop.
Must? Who's going to make them? Rules and laws alone don't matter, and really never have.
Us. At this point, we have no real choice.
At this point, only democrats with guns can stop MAGA, but they're all unable or unwilling. So fuck them.
The Trump administration continues to claim he violated an executive order prohibiting anti-Semitism
I know the answer is no, and to be clear the answer is no, but does that mean you can finally get rid of the literal neo-Nazi movements now?
Antisemitism is only when leftists and brown people.
Unfortunately this is not limited to the US. Israel has employed the same strategy of shaping policies allegedly protecting Jews against antisemitism in that way. In Germany they did the same, where a recent parliament resolution mentioned crticising Israel at the Berlinale 2024 an antisemitic act, while a Neonazi trying to storm into a synagogue and murder Jews on a Jewish holiday a few years back in Halle was not even mentioned.
It is a tool to downplay actual antisemitism, because nazis are often down for the idea of a fascist ethnostate, while it is used to attack leftists and non white people, as those are often opposed to such a state.
because nazis are often down for the idea of a fascist ethnostate
There's a very striking historical picture of a Nation of Islam summit in the US (while Malcolm X was still a member), and in the audience, front and center, is the American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell, flanked by two other members with armbands and everything. Rockwell was there because, despite the obvious ideological tensions, both groups ultimately saw common cause on separatism.
Zionism benefits from making Jewish people feel that they are unwelcome outside of the Zionist ethnostate. Nazis want Jewish people to be gone, and them leaving for the Zionist Regime is a realistic and legal option for them. Real antisemitism benefits both these horrible movements.
You've got to check your card.
Literal white supremacists with tiki torches shouting “Jews will not replace us!”? Proud Boys beating people in the streets? Patriot Front marching with Nazi flags?
Definitely not anti-Semitic!
But students calling for the end of apartheid and genocide of an ethnic group being tortured and exterminated on their native land?
Definitely anti-Semitic!
Definitely illegal, and definitely a test balloon for what types of executive authority they can get away with.
They chose Khalil specifically because of the subject of his protesting - they might get a handful of judges that allow this abuse because of the near-universal bipartisan support for Israel.
Whether or not this sticks will be an indicator on how far the US slips into fascism, and I'm certainly hopeful this gets reversed quickly.
Reminder: The Bill of Rights (where we get the 1st Amendment) applies to all persons living and residing in the United States. Not just citizens.
The meaning of the word “terrorist” has become meaningless after being abused by governments like the US for decades. It’s now just a rhetorical key they turn to justify fascist actions like this arrest.
The dude was protesting for human rights. Fuck these assholes.
Fuck the fascist GOP
I agree, but people need to acknowledge that this is a Democratic Party project as well.
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.
It looks like this is probably an open question in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, in the past, avoided ruling on the matter.
My understanding is that US border control has generally had pretty broad leeway in terms of disallowing people who are not US citizens into the US. There hasn't been a Supreme Court case that has stated that First Amendment protections mean that a non-citizens' speech can be used as grounds for entry or presence in the US.
https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/
Can the government selectively enforce immigration laws based on political views? (1999)
The federal government sought to deport eight people who were members of a U.S.-based Palestinian liberation group. They were legal U.S. residents but not full citizens. The group claimed they were being targeted with selective enforcement because of their political views and appealed to the Supreme Court (Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). When challenged, the government backed off the political grounds for deportation but proceeded on technical violations of immigration law. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia addressed claims of First Amendment violations, saying, "An alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."
The US Executive Branch effectively prohibits naturalization to Communists, despite the fact that there is First Amendment protection for an American citizen who wants to advocate for such. The way this works is that they ask someone if they've been part of a Communist Party. If so, they can prohibit naturalization. If the answer is "no"
and not true
then naturalization can later be revoked as having been obtained on fraudulent grounds.
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-f-chapter-3
Chapter 3 - Immigrant Membership in Totalitarian Party
A. Purpose and Background
- Purpose
The inadmissibility ground for immigrant membership in or affiliation with the Communist or any other totalitarian party is part of a broader set of laws passed by Congress to address threats to the safety and security of the United States. Its original purpose was to protect the United States against un-American and subversive activities that were considered threats to national security.
In general, any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.[1] There are two exceptions to this ground of inadmissibility and a limited waiver available to certain aliens depending on the immigration benefit they are seeking.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States[1] that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger".
SCOTUS has ruled that the Executive Branch may not constitutionally prohibit a citizen who is a member of a Communist party from traveling abroad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptheker_v._Secretary_of_State
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights. It is the first case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad.
In Aptheker, the petitioner challenged Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it a crime for any member of a Communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport.[1]
But the question of whether the First Amendment protection applies to speech used as a criteria for non-citizen entry to the US apparently hasn't really been resolved:
Finally, there is Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court’s most recent examination of the First Amendment as it applies to the border. Decided in 1972, that case arose out of the government’s refusal to grant a visa to Ernest Mandel, a Belgian scholar who described himself as “a revolutionary Marxist” and who had been invited to speak at various prestigious academic events in the United States. Federal law at that time barred entry into the country of aliens who advocated or published “the doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship,” but the statute provided that the government could waive the bar. When the government refused to grant Mandel a waiver, various academics filed suit, challenging the statutory provision as violating the rights of the academics as American citizens to receive information under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and in doing so emphasized Congress’ virtually plenary power over the entry of aliens into the country. Nonetheless, it refused the government’s invitation to hold that that authority trumped the First Amendment in all circumstances involving aliens. Rather, it ruled more narrowly, finding that the government’s refusal to grant Mandel a waiver was based on factors other than his political beliefs, which was sufficient to defeat the First Amendment challenge. Left for another day was resolution of the First Amendment’s reach to the border in disputes over the entry of non-citizens.
IMO you're overthinking it.
The Constitution applies to all people within jurisdiction of the United States. Immigration or citizenship status isn't a factor; he absolutely has a first amendment right to say what he said.
The question you're struggling with is regarding people who aren't already within the jurisdiction, or are applying for citizenship.
All of that said, if ICE already deported him then that complicates things. Normally somebody who's been deported will be denied reentry for that reason alone; there's a waiting period (5 years iirc) if they're ever going to be allowed back in at all. But you're correct that they could also deny him reentry for his political views. It's likely that, if he's already out of the country, legally removed or not, a judge will have to order him to be allowed reentry despite both of this things.
The question you’re struggling with is regarding people who aren’t already within the jurisdiction, or are applying for citizenship.
I don't think that the critical division here is over admissability versus deportability.
https://reason.com/2025/03/10/is-it-constitutional-to-deport-immigrants-for-political-speech/
Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason that Trump's executive order "clearly is based on federal statutory authority, so one cannot make the argument that the president is exceeding his constitutional powers."
Still, the question remains whether the statute itself and the executive order enforcing it are constitutional. Strossen explains that "non-citizens with any immigration status at all, including unauthorized immigrants, have the same First Amendment rights that U.S. citizens have…insofar as they have the same protection against criminal penalties, criminal investigations, or civil law enforcement." However, it's unclear "whether non-citizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens with respect to the deportation process."
The issue is that the criteria that the Executive Branch may use for deportation are not fully-defined in the Constitution or (yet) in case law.
The issue is that the criteria that the Executive Branch may use for deportation are not fully-defined in the Constitution
Bullshit. If there was an exception to the First Amendment for that, it would've been written into it!
Huh. TIL.
I guess this is exactly what the judicial branch was created for. We've got an undefined area of legality, somebody's got to sort it out, and until they do we just can't say for sure one way or the other
Speech can be used in deciding the fitness for someone to immigrate, but he's a green card holder, so already well past that. There's wide leeway in the criteria for accepting new foreigners, but once you're here legally you have first amendment protections.
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?
1A rights apply to all
They absolutely should!!
No "should" needed. The first amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of citizens", it says shall make no law period.
Constitutional rights are based on personhood, not citizenship. Mahmoud Khalil's 1A rights were violated, plain simple.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
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:
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.
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.