Mahmoud Khalil: Free Speech Martyr?
Why I Changed My Mind
Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestine activist and Columbia University graduate, has become an overnight international icon. A keffiyeh-clad progressive poster boy. Detained in New York by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), his story is curious for several reasons. Suddenly progressives are outraged by cancel culture. But in a further strange turn of events free speech is no longer a “right-wing talking point”.
When I first looked at Khalil’s arrest I too believed this was a free speech issue, and possibly unjust.
In all the footage of him pottering around Gaza Plaza, New York City’s Palestine encampment at Columbia, he treads carefully. Both in behaviour and speech. Any evidence that he verbally supported Hamas is at best circumstantial and not explicit. I had assumed that as a U.S. resident, though not a citizen, he was protected by the First Amendment.
And I certainly could not find any concrete evidence of him showing *material* support for Hamas or any terrorist organisation, as is forbidden by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
Border Czar Tom Homan suggested his new detainee had been “committing crimes, attacking Israeli students, locking down buildings, destroying property”. Though I had found evidence Khalil had been adjacent to such activity, I couldn’t find anything that would hold in court. And if Homan had evidence shouldn’t Khalil be convicted for them first?
Even conservative commentator Ann Coulter seemed perplexed, posting on X: “There’s almost no one I don’t want to deport, but, unless they’ve committed a crime, isn’t this a violation of the first amendment?”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Khalil of being “a supporter of Hamas” and “complicit in what are clearly crimes of vandalisation”. Now if Rubio had evidence of explicit support, it was not in the public domain.
Nevertheless I have had my mind changed. It appears as though Mahmoud Khalil is in clear and explicit violation of immigration statutes, and I see little possibility of his remaining in the U.S.. Even with an American wife who is 8-months pregnant with what will be an American child. Even with thousands protesting in the streets. My mistake had been thinking this was a First Amendment case. It is not.
Khalil, born in Damascus, Syria, is a legal permanent resident in the U.S., not a naturalised citizen. He is thus bound by the Immigration & Nationality Act. Specifically, Title 8 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), the section of federal law that governs ‘aliens and nationality’. Statutes which he will have had to agree to in order to attain his visa in the first place.
And the specific code he cannot get around is 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(aa)-(bb). That provision allows the deportation of even a lawful resident who is a "representative" of a "political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.”
Khalil came to prominence after October 7th as a spokesperson and negotiator for C.U.A.D. - Columbia University Aparthied Divest. The group have on many occasions endorsed terrorist activity. They have done so across social media and even here on Substack.
On November 7th, 2024, they published a piece titled ‘A TRIBUTE TO YAHYA SINWAR’. C.U.A.D. lauded Sinwar, the recently killed leader of Hamas in Gaza, as a “brave man” whose “crowning achievement” was the “Al-Aqsa Flood”, or as we know it: October 7th. “Al-Aqsa Flood was the very essence of what it is to resist ‘with what we have’.” They outright celebrate the attack that killed over 1,200 people and framed it as a heroic act of resistance.
On October 8th, 2024, CUAD called for “liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” arguing that “violence is the only path forward”. They called October 7th a “moral, military, and political victory” in materials distributed around its one-year anniversary, as reported in The New York Times.
Hezbollah, another U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation, also gets C.U.A.D.’s approval. Their Substack articles, like one on October 17th, 2023, describe Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians as “heroic”. They mourned Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah after his death, quoting him in a post praising “martyrdom” as a liberation path. Another piece defended Hezbollah and the Houthis (Ansarallah, another F.T.O.) as “progressive forces” for weakening U.S. imperialism, despite their terrorist designations.
On this evidence, Khalil does not stand much of a chance against The Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The real debate then, for those still defending him, is not whether he broke the law, but whether or not the law should be retained going forward. At that point it becomes a debate about American sovereignty and control of borders rather than Free Speech.
Khalil’s defenders have also claimed, as did Cenk Uygur in a debate with me on Piers Morgan Uncensored, that this story exemplifies a political bias against Palestinians. Uygur even suggested it demonstrates the control Israel has over America.
But that is to ignore some striking counter-examples. Notably - President Biden’s so-called “violent settler” visa ban in 2023. On December 5th, that year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, announced “the State Department is implementing a new visa restriction policy targeting individuals believed to have been involved in undermining peace, security, or stability in the West Bank”.
The State Department began barring settlers and their families immediately. On February 1st, 2024, President Biden issued Executive Order 14115, expanding the visa ban into a broader sanctions framework. Israelis with U.S. visas found them revoked, and new applicants were denied under the Immigration & Nationality Act’s Section 212(a)(3)(C), which allows barring those whose entry harms U.S. foreign policy interests.
My point here is that the American executive branch of government uses the Immigration & Nationality Act to control who they allow into the country. And that they have used it against Israelis, not just Palestinians.
Furthermore, under the Biden administration at least 70 Chinese students were turned away at the border or deported. This despite having visas and, crucially, without any reasons given. The difference between them and Khalil is that Khalil has been told why he faces deportation, with court proceedings which will no doubt clarify further.
But to the broader question of free speech and the culture wars…
Last year a video of my appearance on Gutfeld went viral, retweeted by Elon Musk himself calling Britain a “police state”. In the video I describe how people were being arrested for tweets. I think it is worth distinguishing the difference between what happened then and the case of Mahmoud Khalil.
After the horrific murder of three young girls in Southport by killer Axel Rudakubana, and the ensuing riots up and down England, British nationals were being arrested, in Britain, for tweets, TikTok streams and reposting memes. I took objection because people were being prosecuted for legal speech. The cases of Mark Heath and Jamie Michael exemplified the situation. Heath and Michael both pled not-guilty to their charges and were cleared. Others were sentenced because they succumbed to pressure and pled guilty. Had they not, many would not have been found guilty.
The case of Khalil is different. In his case, a Palestinian national faces deportation from America for directly breaking U.S. statutes. Had he been a U.S. national, he would be protected by the First Amendment.
The story of Mahmoud Khalil will not chill free speech, as some activists claim. It will chill guests in America supporting proscribed terrorist organisations. Or closely affiliating with organisations who do.
For America to give up the ability to deport foreign nationals, would be to give up control of their borders. And to give up control of their borders, would be an act of national suicide.
Mahmoud Khalil broke the rules he agreed to when he moved to America. He is now free to support which ever terrorist organisation he wants to, just not there.
WM
Great, thank you Winston for helping clear this matter up. I have been baffled by Matt Taibbi's (and others') arguments that are, as surely you know, contrary to yours (and my own). Americans are often hoisted by our own laws and held hostage to our most cherished beliefs and institutions; it is time to call this for the intolerable bullshit it is. What we have here in the USA is what others either want, or want to destroy. Mr. Khalil is among the latter. There is no need for us to welcome Trojan Horses into our midst, nor tolerate them post arrival. Many people speak as if once we let him in, we have to protect him ad infinitum. (Like as not we subsidize his Columbia U. apartment). I say, let Mr. Khalil take his wife and child and push his free speech rights back home in Syria or Gaza, and see if they give him a nice upper Westside apartment to boot.
Exactly right. Visas and green cards are extended by the State Department as part of the legal process of entering and remaining in the US. These agreements between the US and immigrants have enforceable legal requirements to remain valid. They are not rights, guaranteed by the constitution.
This is not a free speech issue but that's the progressive and propaganda media narrative. Unfortunately that obfuscates the conversation that we should be having about the role of US support for Israel and the intractable hate these organizations have for Israel and their Iranian support. Khalil is a very tiny piece of the overall State Department response to those issues. Rather than discuss the broader implications, the same progressives who were quite happy to support censorship during the Pandemic are now trying to co-opt the free speech issue to attack Trump.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com