An immigration judge has ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student from Columbia University who participated in protests against Israel, can be deported. Khalil’s legal team has announced plans to appeal the decision. Federal immigration officers detained Khalil last month as part of President Donald Trump’s intensified measures against students involved in campus protests against the military conflict in Gaza. Khalil, a legal resident of the U.S., is being held at an immigration detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, far from his legal representatives and his pregnant wife, who is a U.S. citizen.
Khalil, aged 30, is an international affairs graduate student who was involved as a negotiator and spokesperson for a group of student protesters at Columbia University. These activists occupied a campus lawn last spring to demonstrate against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. The university later called in police to dismantle the protesters’ encampment after a few participants took over an administration building. Khalil was not involved in the building occupation and was not among those arrested during the protests. However, images of his participation, especially his unmasked face, have drawn criticism from individuals who perceive the demonstrations and their demands as antisemitic. The White House accused Khalil of “siding with terrorists,” though it has not provided evidence for this claim. Khalil was taken into custody on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment.
The legal proceedings against Khalil do not include allegations of illegal activities during the Columbia protests. The government contends that noncitizens who engage in such demonstrations should be deported for expressing views deemed antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” referencing the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel in October 2023. Khalil’s legal team argues that the Trump administration’s attempt to deport him is a violation of his First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a seldom-used legal provision to justify Khalil’s deportation, citing potential adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.
Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans ruled in favor of the government, asserting that Khalil’s presence in the U.S. poses “potentially serious foreign policy consequences,” meeting the criteria for deportation. Comans stated that the government had provided “clear and convincing evidence” of Khalil’s removability. Previously, federal judges in New York and New Jersey instructed the government not to pursue Khalil’s deportation while his case remains in court.
Khalil’s attorneys are determined to continue their legal battle, planning to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and possibly pursuing an asylum case on his behalf. Despite the judge’s ruling on foreign policy grounds, Khalil’s attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, noted that the immigration process would not advance swiftly. The judge has set an April 23 deadline for seeking a waiver. Van Der Hout criticized the decision as a breach of due process and an attempt to suppress dissent through immigration law.
In similar instances, immigration authorities have targeted other critics of Israel on college campuses, including the arrest of a Georgetown University scholar for social media remarks on the Israel-Gaza conflict, the cancellation of student visas of some protesters, and the deportation of a Brown University professor for attending the funeral of a Hezbollah leader, an organization that has engaged in conflict with Israel.
The Human Element Explored
This decision underscores the increasing complexity and tension surrounding the expression of political views in academic settings, particularly for international students and noncitizens. The ruling has implications for those involved in activism, highlighting the risks of participating in protests deemed controversial or politically sensitive by government authorities. It raises concerns about the balance between national security and the protection of free speech rights, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
For communities and academic institutions, this case may prompt a reevaluation of how freedom of expression is safeguarded while maintaining compliance with immigration laws. Students may feel apprehensive about engaging in political discourse, potentially stifling the robust exchange of ideas that universities traditionally promote. This atmosphere of caution could impact the diversity of thought and debate within educational environments, influencing how future protests and demonstrations are conducted.