Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Here’s why Mahmoud Khalil will be deported, without a doubt. Bookmark and share this.
1. Legal permanent residents are still aliens subject to 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227, and thus explicitly deportable for any speech expressing support for designated terrorist organizations or statutorily defined “terrorist activities,” as well as deportable for foreign policy grounds at the sole determination of the Secretary of State and/or AG. These are not crimes, but they don’t have to be. They are removal grounds under 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227. No criminal conviction is required to remove aliens. IF a crime is committed, it can serve as grounds for removal, but no allegation of criminal misconduct is necessary.
2. No due process has been denied. He is entitled to a basic statement that he is being detained and subject to removal proceedings, and he got one, and he’s entitled to a removal hearing before being deported, and he’ll get one.
3. He is not missing. The ICE detention database, available to the public, clearly lists that he is in a detention facility in Louisiana.
4. These actions are not being done in the name of “Jewish safety.” They are being done on the basis of expressing support for terrorism organizations or activities and on foreign policy grounds which is the prerogative of the Secretary of State and/or AG.
5. Separately, though no crime of “material” support of terrorism (or any other crime) is legally necessary to deport an alien, his distribution of pamphlets with Hamas iconography and language is “material” support (yes, producing and distributing documents is considered material support — look it up — just like other forms of “material” support like direct financial assistance).
6. This is an open-and-shut case. At the removal hearing, the government will recite the above, and the judge will affirm that these recitations have been made. On the “foreign policy” grounds of 8 USC 1227 alone, Mahmoud Kahlil is deportable and the government’s declaration that his presence is contrary to foreign policy is non-reviewable.
The judge is not entitled to second-guess this; the judge can only require that this invocation be made by the government, and indeed, this invocation will be made.
For more on the statutes in question and Khalil’s actions at Columbia, see these two links:
https://x.com/bentelaviv/status/1899113305614037211?s=46…
View: https://x.com/cu_jewishalumni/status/1898819027822338104?s=46
View: https://x.com/BenTelAviv/status/1899498655394005461