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.
Winston Marshall posted a pretty straight forward and compelling argument in favor of deportation, which came after he initially was against it and more aligned with Taibbi but after researching did a 180. It’s quite clear Khalil in is his position as the spokesman for the pro-Hamas organization is in violation of a very specific federal statute.
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.
Wow, great piece! Very good points! I am sure very few people are aware of the law you mention, according to which green card owners are not protected by the first amendment if they support terrorism.
No one is protected by the First Amendment when he breaks a law--neither natural Americans nor guests. I was born in Brooklyn, but I can't claim a violation of my free speech rights if I champion the overthrow of the government or attempt to organize any sort of violence to anything or anyone. The only difference is that the government's only remedy in my case is to try me for sedition or some other crime and put me in jail, whereas, were I a foreigner the remedy is far simpler. No trial is needed, no expense need be wasted. They simply send me home.
Some people on the left are trying to turn this into a free speech case and force the US government into a lawsuit where it is required to prove a crime. That is not how it works for guests. You just tell them to leave. Just like in your house. You don't need any proof.
Jesus, first the left --using the powers of the government--tried to take away all our individual rights. Now it is trying to take away the powers of the government.
clarification. I should rephrase my first sentence as it is a bit sloppy. We are all protected by the First Amendment, even if we break the law. But it does not shield us from the consequences of anything we have done. What people are trying to do with Khalil is to shield him from his own excesses by turning his being sent home into a free speech case.
Justice Robert Jackson wrote that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact and only Justices Black and Douglas maintained that the First Amendment was an absolute protection for all forms of speech no matter how offensive
Apart from the excellent application and clarification of this case as an issue of national sovereignty, instead of a free speech issue, I furthermore was horrified and disgusted by the actual degree to which these nihilistic, nero-NAZIstic riot-, eh: "protesters" truly cheer on terrorism (and "progressive" barbarism out of sheer hate for the West and any modern PROGRESS): I somewhat discounted "pro-Hamas protests" as more or less hyperbolic buzzword, but they truly, actually, explicitly, totally are cheering not just for Hamas in general, but the 10/7 massacre in particular: BEYOND DISGUSTING!
Exactly! Mahmoud Khalil's speech is not banned and he can keep spewing it throughout the United States in publications and videos. But he can't enjoy the privilege of living in the US while doing so.
Unlike Cuba or China where the offending speech is banned and cannot be disseminated.
This is an excellent post, Winston! This is very new and informative to me, as well as very gutsy to be willing to tell the truth openly in the face of all the nasty protesters who side with Hamas, the terrorists!
The settler visa order is not equivalent -- it is about behavior, not speech. Zvi Bar Yosef, one of the sanctioned settlers, reportedly attacked Palestinians multiple times, including stomping one so hard with his foot that he broke a man's teeth out of his mouth.
I am not qualified to evaluate the specific legal arguments regarding Khalil, but it seems like a shockingly narrow way to look at these issues. Last year, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that government jawboning of Twitter and Facebook to deplatform conservatives and pandemic critics violated no law. If the courts are the only lens through which to evaluate speech principles, then would you say that social media censorship isn't a free speech issue?
The point I was trying to make is that Executive government used the Immigration & Nationality Act against Israelis, and not just Palestinians. I make this point because there is a narrative that America is biased against Palestinians.
I agree that there is a spirit of the first amendment that is violated in such cases as social media censorship, even if the courts find no law violation.
If you read the immigration statutes though, it is clear that Khalil is in violation.
The Chinese expulsions may be closer comparison though. I must presume their expulsion is because they are deemed a national security threat - likely because of United Front, them having allegiances to a foreign adversary. Khalil has been a prominent spokesperson for an org that openly supports America's adversaries. So its hard not to see him as a serious national security threat...
I totally agree, he’s a threat to security and has squandered his opportunity to live in the USA by supporting an organisation which is spreading anti western hate. What did he expect would happen? And the fact he’s about to be a father highlights his utter irresponsibility.
I think the narrative is generally correct if you look at the evidence. Pro-Palestinian speech is penalized in ways that pro-Israel speech is not. In Arizona and Georgia, for example, the criminal code now states that it is a discriminatory crime to call Israel a racist state -- a crime that can lead to prison time. You can say any other country in the world is racist, including the U.S., but not Israel. Similar laws ban government contractors from nonviolent protests of Israel and no other country. Pro-Palestinian movies, student groups, and organizations have been recently banned from many college campuses. No pro-Israel groups, to my knowledge, including pro-Israel advocacy groups that explicitly advocate violence against civilians, like Betar, have ever faced any such bans. (Nor should they, I am simply pointing out the disparity)
I don't know if the Khalil claims constitute a violation of the law given the total lack of evidence we've seen so far on the allegations. The few public quotes from Khalil I've read seem benign or positive. “There is, of course, no place for antisemitism” is one recent quote I've seen from him. “As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other," is another.
Do I know enough to judge his character? Of course not. But demanding evidence and due process is the minimum that should be done in these circumstances. Freedom of speech is a fragile right and must be defended, especially in moments of national outcry and mania.
I think we should be extremely wary of any government demands of speech suppression in the name of national security. The Russian, Chinese, and Saudi gov justify speech suppression on identical grounds -- i.e., no evidence, no due process and blanket claims about protecting the homeland from foreign threats. In the U.S., the worst violations of the First Amendment in our history is overwhelmingly done in the name of national security -- from thousands of Russians and Italians arrested during the Palmer Raids to the McCarthy era and then the War on Terror.
I'm interested to see how this debate unfolds and appreciate the engagement here.
Thanks. If I may pick up on one point. You say there is a “total lack of evidence”, but the evidence I lay out that he has violated immigration statues are clear, aren’t they?
Is your position that Rubio and Homan’s allegations lack evidence?
The law does not forbid calling Israel a racist nation; it forbids using accusations of racism to claim that Israel has no right to exist (which is actually a threat to half the world's surviving Jews, which makes it a genocidal claim). That is VERY different from what you described: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
I tried to find the laws you referred to, but all I found is that these states had adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism in their anti-discrimination law. That is not the same as threatening prison time for anyone calling Israel a "racist" state. You are being hyperbolic and dishonest.
Your article highlighted that U.S. law is not biased between these two warring regions. I think Europeans in general are more sympathetic to the plight of women and children in Gaza, and Muslim families in the west bank.
Why is it "shockingly narrow" to call a spade a spade? There are no free speech rights when guests violate our laws. We simply expel them--an authority that rests with the executive. Whatever went down with the Supreme Court last year is a matter for further discussion among Americans--and rest assured it will be discussed. But because the Court may have erred has no bearing on how we shall then be obliged to treat our guests.
He is biased against Israel. He doesn't want to admit he was wrong. It's painful to admit this, but I was very anti-Israel/Pro Palestinian prior to 10/7. But that's because I had no idea of the actual threat the Palestinians posed to the Israeli people. I thought the checkpoints and blockades were mean - but the Palestinians literally do want to exterminate all Jews from the Levant (at least that's what they voted for). I also had no idea how free Arab Muslims are within the state of Israel - or that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people can live free and full lives.
Given the fait accompli of Israel, I have often been openly critical. My Jewish friends sometimes took umbrage. I wanted the state to succeed and to avoid any excesses and errors.
But 10/7 was beyond the pale, was a brutally cruel and stupid thing to do, and worse to laud. It hurt. It was a small invasion, as such things go, but a big step backwards for us all.
Thank you for your clear explanation of this issue and your ability to change your view when presented with the facts. It has troubled me greatly that so many on the right have misunderstood this issue. It is not and never was about free speech. He crossed the lines of free expression by interrupting classes or encouraging the take over of University property.. let alone his support for a terrorist organization such as Hamas.. And as you point out, because he is not a citizen, the State Department has established legal authority to deport him for his activities.
It doesn’t appear you read the full section, Winston: “(v) "Representative" defined; As used in this paragraph, the term ‘representative’ includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.”
I’ve not seen any evidence that CUAD called for its members to engage in terrorism. Perhaps some trespassing, but the section also specifically lays out how it defines terrorist activity in strict language none of which applies to the conduct of the protesters. Moreover, what Khalil’s official role was with CUAD appears unclear apart from that he served a negotiator between CUAD and Columbia.
The statute uses the word “and” inclusively, not exclusively. The definition of “representative” includes those who have acted as officers or spokespersons “and” individuals who have directed members to engage in terrorist activity. It’s just the plain meaning of the sentence. If he acted as a spokesperson for a terror organization then he is a representative of a terror organization and therefore inadmissible.
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.
This is one of the first things I’ve disagreed with Matt Taibbi (and Walter Kirn) about in recent memory.
Taibbi has been anti-Israel forever. He is biased.
I haven’t seen that at all but welcome you showing the proof.
I don’t think it’s a binary of if you aren’t vocally pro-Israel or pro-Zionism, then you’re anti-Israel.
Yeah, me too. Made me think I was losing my mind 🤪. We suffer from an excess of love of country and of fellow man, sometimes it leads us astray.
Winston Marshall posted a pretty straight forward and compelling argument in favor of deportation, which came after he initially was against it and more aligned with Taibbi but after researching did a 180. It’s quite clear Khalil in is his position as the spokesman for the pro-Hamas organization is in violation of a very specific federal statute.
https://open.substack.com/pub/winstonmarshall/p/mahmoud-khalil-free-speech-martyr?r=pf4je&utm_medium=ios
Taibbi has a history of being anti-Israel. He is very biased on this issue.
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
Wow, great piece! Very good points! I am sure very few people are aware of the law you mention, according to which green card owners are not protected by the first amendment if they support terrorism.
No one is protected by the First Amendment when he breaks a law--neither natural Americans nor guests. I was born in Brooklyn, but I can't claim a violation of my free speech rights if I champion the overthrow of the government or attempt to organize any sort of violence to anything or anyone. The only difference is that the government's only remedy in my case is to try me for sedition or some other crime and put me in jail, whereas, were I a foreigner the remedy is far simpler. No trial is needed, no expense need be wasted. They simply send me home.
Some people on the left are trying to turn this into a free speech case and force the US government into a lawsuit where it is required to prove a crime. That is not how it works for guests. You just tell them to leave. Just like in your house. You don't need any proof.
Jesus, first the left --using the powers of the government--tried to take away all our individual rights. Now it is trying to take away the powers of the government.
clarification. I should rephrase my first sentence as it is a bit sloppy. We are all protected by the First Amendment, even if we break the law. But it does not shield us from the consequences of anything we have done. What people are trying to do with Khalil is to shield him from his own excesses by turning his being sent home into a free speech case.
Justice Robert Jackson wrote that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact and only Justices Black and Douglas maintained that the First Amendment was an absolute protection for all forms of speech no matter how offensive
Thoughtful piece Winston, thank you.
Apart from the excellent application and clarification of this case as an issue of national sovereignty, instead of a free speech issue, I furthermore was horrified and disgusted by the actual degree to which these nihilistic, nero-NAZIstic riot-, eh: "protesters" truly cheer on terrorism (and "progressive" barbarism out of sheer hate for the West and any modern PROGRESS): I somewhat discounted "pro-Hamas protests" as more or less hyperbolic buzzword, but they truly, actually, explicitly, totally are cheering not just for Hamas in general, but the 10/7 massacre in particular: BEYOND DISGUSTING!
Exactly! Mahmoud Khalil's speech is not banned and he can keep spewing it throughout the United States in publications and videos. But he can't enjoy the privilege of living in the US while doing so.
Unlike Cuba or China where the offending speech is banned and cannot be disseminated.
This is an excellent post, Winston! This is very new and informative to me, as well as very gutsy to be willing to tell the truth openly in the face of all the nasty protesters who side with Hamas, the terrorists!
Thank you Winston.. Please can we ask Mr Trump and his Border Force to step in Over here 🙏🙏🙏
Spectacular! This exceptional, definitive and perfectly worded column is going viral.
The settler visa order is not equivalent -- it is about behavior, not speech. Zvi Bar Yosef, one of the sanctioned settlers, reportedly attacked Palestinians multiple times, including stomping one so hard with his foot that he broke a man's teeth out of his mouth.
I am not qualified to evaluate the specific legal arguments regarding Khalil, but it seems like a shockingly narrow way to look at these issues. Last year, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that government jawboning of Twitter and Facebook to deplatform conservatives and pandemic critics violated no law. If the courts are the only lens through which to evaluate speech principles, then would you say that social media censorship isn't a free speech issue?
The point I was trying to make is that Executive government used the Immigration & Nationality Act against Israelis, and not just Palestinians. I make this point because there is a narrative that America is biased against Palestinians.
I agree that there is a spirit of the first amendment that is violated in such cases as social media censorship, even if the courts find no law violation.
If you read the immigration statutes though, it is clear that Khalil is in violation.
The Chinese expulsions may be closer comparison though. I must presume their expulsion is because they are deemed a national security threat - likely because of United Front, them having allegiances to a foreign adversary. Khalil has been a prominent spokesperson for an org that openly supports America's adversaries. So its hard not to see him as a serious national security threat...
What do you think?
I totally agree, he’s a threat to security and has squandered his opportunity to live in the USA by supporting an organisation which is spreading anti western hate. What did he expect would happen? And the fact he’s about to be a father highlights his utter irresponsibility.
I think the narrative is generally correct if you look at the evidence. Pro-Palestinian speech is penalized in ways that pro-Israel speech is not. In Arizona and Georgia, for example, the criminal code now states that it is a discriminatory crime to call Israel a racist state -- a crime that can lead to prison time. You can say any other country in the world is racist, including the U.S., but not Israel. Similar laws ban government contractors from nonviolent protests of Israel and no other country. Pro-Palestinian movies, student groups, and organizations have been recently banned from many college campuses. No pro-Israel groups, to my knowledge, including pro-Israel advocacy groups that explicitly advocate violence against civilians, like Betar, have ever faced any such bans. (Nor should they, I am simply pointing out the disparity)
I don't know if the Khalil claims constitute a violation of the law given the total lack of evidence we've seen so far on the allegations. The few public quotes from Khalil I've read seem benign or positive. “There is, of course, no place for antisemitism” is one recent quote I've seen from him. “As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand and you cannot achieve one without the other," is another.
Do I know enough to judge his character? Of course not. But demanding evidence and due process is the minimum that should be done in these circumstances. Freedom of speech is a fragile right and must be defended, especially in moments of national outcry and mania.
I think we should be extremely wary of any government demands of speech suppression in the name of national security. The Russian, Chinese, and Saudi gov justify speech suppression on identical grounds -- i.e., no evidence, no due process and blanket claims about protecting the homeland from foreign threats. In the U.S., the worst violations of the First Amendment in our history is overwhelmingly done in the name of national security -- from thousands of Russians and Italians arrested during the Palmer Raids to the McCarthy era and then the War on Terror.
I'm interested to see how this debate unfolds and appreciate the engagement here.
Cheers.
Thanks. If I may pick up on one point. You say there is a “total lack of evidence”, but the evidence I lay out that he has violated immigration statues are clear, aren’t they?
Is your position that Rubio and Homan’s allegations lack evidence?
You did clearly lay out the evidence. He does not seem to have read the article thoroughly, except to pick out pieces he disagrees with.
The law does not forbid calling Israel a racist nation; it forbids using accusations of racism to claim that Israel has no right to exist (which is actually a threat to half the world's surviving Jews, which makes it a genocidal claim). That is VERY different from what you described: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
I tried to find the laws you referred to, but all I found is that these states had adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism in their anti-discrimination law. That is not the same as threatening prison time for anyone calling Israel a "racist" state. You are being hyperbolic and dishonest.
That Is Hamas talk for elimination of anyone who supports Israel
Your article highlighted that U.S. law is not biased between these two warring regions. I think Europeans in general are more sympathetic to the plight of women and children in Gaza, and Muslim families in the west bank.
Why is it "shockingly narrow" to call a spade a spade? There are no free speech rights when guests violate our laws. We simply expel them--an authority that rests with the executive. Whatever went down with the Supreme Court last year is a matter for further discussion among Americans--and rest assured it will be discussed. But because the Court may have erred has no bearing on how we shall then be obliged to treat our guests.
He is biased against Israel. He doesn't want to admit he was wrong. It's painful to admit this, but I was very anti-Israel/Pro Palestinian prior to 10/7. But that's because I had no idea of the actual threat the Palestinians posed to the Israeli people. I thought the checkpoints and blockades were mean - but the Palestinians literally do want to exterminate all Jews from the Levant (at least that's what they voted for). I also had no idea how free Arab Muslims are within the state of Israel - or that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people can live free and full lives.
Given the fait accompli of Israel, I have often been openly critical. My Jewish friends sometimes took umbrage. I wanted the state to succeed and to avoid any excesses and errors.
But 10/7 was beyond the pale, was a brutally cruel and stupid thing to do, and worse to laud. It hurt. It was a small invasion, as such things go, but a big step backwards for us all.
Hamas seems to only have self-interest, not concern for the fallout for Palestinians.
You have always been anti-Israel, so you are biased on this issue. You are not seeing this clearly. What are you pretending not to know?
Non citizens have no place in politics. He chose this. Nobody told him to support a terror organization.
Thank you for your clear explanation of this issue and your ability to change your view when presented with the facts. It has troubled me greatly that so many on the right have misunderstood this issue. It is not and never was about free speech. He crossed the lines of free expression by interrupting classes or encouraging the take over of University property.. let alone his support for a terrorist organization such as Hamas.. And as you point out, because he is not a citizen, the State Department has established legal authority to deport him for his activities.
It doesn’t appear you read the full section, Winston: “(v) "Representative" defined; As used in this paragraph, the term ‘representative’ includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.”
I’ve not seen any evidence that CUAD called for its members to engage in terrorism. Perhaps some trespassing, but the section also specifically lays out how it defines terrorist activity in strict language none of which applies to the conduct of the protesters. Moreover, what Khalil’s official role was with CUAD appears unclear apart from that he served a negotiator between CUAD and Columbia.
I read it just fine - “representative includes a … spokesperson of an organisation”. he was a spokesperson
The org then need only have “endorsed or espoused” terrorist activity, which they did clearly on their substack
They need to have “induced its members to engage in terrorist activity.” That is different than speech about far away terrorism.
Moreover, Khalil has both denied any relationship to those social media posts and has denied being a spokesman for CUAD, claiming to just speak for the protest movement generally. See here a clip from 2024: https://x.com/josephjakeklein/status/1901496160134562143?s=46&t=48g0vUYg9Uy04QEvpBJoag
I don't know what to believe.
The statute uses the word “and” inclusively, not exclusively. The definition of “representative” includes those who have acted as officers or spokespersons “and” individuals who have directed members to engage in terrorist activity. It’s just the plain meaning of the sentence. If he acted as a spokesperson for a terror organization then he is a representative of a terror organization and therefore inadmissible.
good food for thought
ty
Interesting commentary, thank you.
respectfully;
-mark basil
Hopefully, once this poisonous toad is ejected, all of the other toxic terrorist supporters with green cards will be following closely behind him.