Please don’t think for a moment that I oppose what the White House is doing in substance with respect to deporting Mahmoud Khalil—it’s the symbolism of the “Shalom, Mahmoud!” (which I understand has now spread like wildfire on social media) that I think is bad. There will be a backlash. But as to the substance, I’m all in favor.
Of course, his supporters are trying to gin up all the feelz (model non-citizen, wife eight months pregnant, First Amendment, yada yada), the biggest of which is, “He committed no crime!”
That’s true. He was never charged with anything. That’s irrelevant to his case although, as I’ll end with, important to the symbolism, the optics, the “what is seen to be done.”
The following is a combination of my own research based on several X-planations1. Links follow, or are in the text, bolded.
Upshot #1: anyone who sets foot on these shores is entitled to due process. Yes, even a war criminal who slipped over the border illegally, to take the most absurdly exaggerated case. But it’s a myth that “everyone has equal rights here.”
You can look up stuff on AI as well as I can but roughly, the top of the pyramid is that privileged creature: a birthright bona fide American citizen. You are one lucky duck. You didn’t do anything to deserve it, but just because your momma squirted you out on US territory, you are a member of a privileged caste.
It is theoretically possible to revoke the citizenship of a birthright citizen, but very difficult. Uncle Sam can do a lot of very bad stuff to you, but a birthright citizen is almost untouchable. Then comes a naturalized citizen. Hard to revoke, but possible.2 Then come green card holders, student visa holders, tourist visa holders, illegals, and the odd war criminal who wanders over the border. They really are lesser creatures legally, y’all. Separate and unequal.3
Upshot #2: Mahmoud Khalil is a green card holder and this can be revoked if Homeland Security or the Department of State says that he’s behaved badly. Yes, it really does come down to that. Green card holders have to keep their noses clean. That’s not so hard to do in the US. Just don’t threaten to destroy Western civilization, smash up property, intimidate other students, and sashay down the street screeching “Allahu Akhbar,” and “We will open up Zionists’ heads.” Is that too much to ask?
Sorry. I got off the point. Let me get back to the issue.
According to my reading of Ben Badejo:
Legal permanent residency isn’t a shield. Green card holders are aliens under U.S. law, and 8 USC 1182 and 8 USC 1227 make it clear: if you express support for a designated terrorist organization or engage in “terrorist activities” as defined by statute, you’re deportable. No criminal charge necessary. No conviction required. The law doesn’t care if you’ve been convicted of a felony or handed out words on a flyer—if it meets the criteria, you’re gone.
There’s no due process violation here. He got a formal notice of detention, and he’ll get his removal hearing. That’s all that’s legally required. People acting like he’s been black-bagged and whisked away to a secret prison are either uninformed or being deliberately misleading.
He’s not missing. ICE’s publicly available detention database shows exactly where he is: a facility in Louisiana. (Note: He’s returned to NYC.)
This isn’t about “Jewish safety”—it’s about supporting terrorism. The Secretary of State and Attorney General have the authority to determine that someone’s presence is contrary to U.S. interests, and once they do, the decision is final. A judge can’t overrule it.
His actions do qualify as “material support” under the law. Handing out Hamas propaganda isn’t just bad optics—it meets the legal threshold for material support of terrorism. Producing and distributing documents counts, just like funding a terror group does.
And finally, this case is already decided. The government will cite the relevant statutes, the judge will confirm that the requirements are met, and that’s it. There’s no appeals process for foreign policy-based removals. The judge doesn’t get to second-guess the government’s determination.
I’m not so sure of the final bullet point. Badejo’s the lawyer, Badejo is not a lawyer4. Neither am I, so take what we say with that in mind.
We are functioning in post-Biden Crazy World, in which Democrats are doubling down on “transgender women” and lying their faces off about this Hamas-loving creep and everything that went down at Columbia University. I can easily see a grandstanding judge trying to make a name for him or herself, denying his deportation because his mind has been addled by propaganda, because he wants to make a name for himself, be a hero to the left and because —
“He committed no crime.”
And that’s true. You could murder someone but if didn’t charge you, you’re not a criminal. If they charge you and they dropped the charges, you’re not a criminal.
That’s what happened here. The authorities wimped out on the Columbia University vandals. I’m not going to describe the entire chronology because I’d need blood pressure pills (and I have naturally rather low blood pressure) but that’s what happened.
After the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall (all filmed) the DA’s office dropped charges against most of the vandals and a judge dismissed the charges on the rest. Here is the lack of evidence for your viewing pleasure:
Not to mention, the entire enterprise was sheer intimidation, crudely asserting turf. This wasn’t “I’m gonna wear my keffiyeh loud and proud!”, it was “Be grateful I’m not murdering Zionists.” On tape.5 Mobs of students preventing access, disrupting classes.
And who can forget the classic, “Go back to Poland!”?
OK, that was Canada, but it perfectly sums up the peaceful, inclusive environment of these protests riots protests riots.
Back to Khalil, he’s the spokesman for “Columbia University Apartheid Divest.” . Columbia group wants ‘eradication of Western civilization’ and all kinds of great things.
They’re the group that took over Hamilton Hall.
The Democrats are pounding the table:
“If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.”
“He committed no crime.” “His wife is eight months pregnant!”
And of course, knowing that most Americans revere the Constitution, they screech “First Amendment!” at every turn.
I think they know they’re probably going to lose, so they’re prepping the ground for what comes after. If/when Khalil is deported, they’ll turn him into a free speech martyr. After all, how many people really know what happened at Columbia? How many people know what the 1A says? If you aren’t some weirdo who downloads videos from Telegram, you might think they were just a bunch of hotheaded kids who were upset by a war. I’m seeing a lot of otherwise reasonable people on X saying, “I hate what he says but he has a right to say it…” and so on.
What’s truly sickening and depressing is that this is not Rashida Tlaib territory anymore: it’s now the standard Democrat line. Chuck Schumer and Chris Murphy are going there on X, and I’m not linking to them. I just can’t.
And this is where “He committed no crime” is so important even if it isn’t directly relevant to this case. Because it is directly relevant to what is seen to be the case.
Here’s the dry legal stuff I found on ChatGpt. This is too much to put into a footnote, and I’m too lazy to fit it into the narrative so I’m dropping it in the soup like a big dumpling.
Is this a First Amendment Issue?
No. This isn’t a First Amendment issue because the First Amendment protects against government censorship or punishment for speech—but it does not grant non-citizens an unconditional right to stay in the U.S.
Here’s why:
Immigration law treats speech differently for non-citizens.
U.S. citizens have broad free speech protections, but legal permanent residents (LPRs) and other aliens are subject to immigration laws that explicitly make certain types of speech grounds for removal. Under 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B) and 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B), any non-citizen who supports or promotes a designated terrorist organization or “terrorist activities” can be denied entry or deported. These aren’t criminal penalties—they’re immigration consequences.
Deportation is not punishment—it’s a legal consequence of alien status.
The Supreme Court has long held that removal is not a “punishment” but a civil administrative action. The government isn’t jailing Khalil for his speech—it’s simply saying, If you engage in this kind of expression, you can’t stay in the country. The same way a country can refuse entry to a foreigner for political reasons, it can also revoke permission to stay.
Foreign policy grounds override individual speech protections for non-citizens.
The Secretary of State and Attorney General have broad discretion to determine that an alien’s presence is contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests. This is covered under 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C), and courts have ruled that judges cannot second-guess this determination. If the government says Khalil’s actions violate foreign policy, the law allows for removal—whether or not he was engaged in what would otherwise be protected speech.
The U.S. has a long history of removing non-citizens for speech-related activities.
From the Palmer Raids (which deported anarchists) to the McCarran-Walter Act (which barred communists), U.S. immigration law has always distinguished between citizens, who have full First Amendment protections, and aliens, who can be removed for speech that undermines national security or foreign policy.
Bottom line:
Khalil is not being jailed or fined for his speech, which would raise First Amendment concerns. He’s being told, You exercised your speech rights in a way that makes you ineligible to remain in the U.S. That’s not a constitutional violation—it’s how immigration law works.
Department of Justice or Department of State/Homeland Security issue?
This is not a Department of Justice (DOJ) matter like it would be if a U.S. citizen were being prosecuted for threatening speech. Instead, it falls under the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because it’s an immigration issue, not a criminal one.
Here’s the key difference:
If Khalil were a U.S. citizen, and the government wanted to punish him for speech—say, for making threats or inciting violence—the DOJ would have to charge him with a crime. He’d get a trial, a presumption of innocence, and full First Amendment protections.
But Khalil is an alien, meaning his right to remain in the U.S. is subject to immigration law. This is handled by the State Department and DHS, not the DOJ. The Secretary of State or Attorney General can determine that his presence is contrary to U.S. foreign policy under 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C), and once they do, that’s it—there’s no judicial review of that determination.
Foreign policy vs. criminal law
The DOJ prosecutes crimes—which require evidence, a trial, and a conviction.
The DOS and DHS handle removals—which are administrative decisions based on statutes, not criminal convictions.
Khalil’s case isn’t about prosecuting him for threats—it’s about the government deciding his actions make him ineligible to stay. That’s why the removal process doesn’t require proving he committed a crime, only that his actions fall under removable conduct as defined by immigration law.
Bottom line: If he were a citizen, this would be a DOJ matter. But as an alien, it’s a DOS and DHS matter, which means the First Amendment doesn’t protect him from deportation.
A criminal conviction—like trespassing—wouldn’t change the core legal basis for Khalil’s deportation, but it could make the government’s case even stronger.
Why a conviction isn’t necessary
Under 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B) and 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B), non-citizens can be deported for expressing support for designated terrorist organizations or engaging in activities that violate U.S. foreign policy—no criminal conviction required. The government only has to establish that his actions meet the statutory grounds for removal, and those grounds are broad.
Would a criminal conviction help the government’s case?
Not really, because he’s already deportable under immigration law. However, a conviction could:
Make removal proceedings move faster – Convictions, especially for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) or terrorism-related activities, often eliminate certain defenses to deportation.
Remove any discretionary relief – Some green card holders can argue for relief from deportation based on strong family ties or long-time residency. A criminal conviction would make it much harder for Khalil to argue that he deserves to stay.
Would trespassing specifically make a difference?
No. Trespassing is a low-level offense and doesn’t trigger automatic deportation unless it’s classified as a CIMT ("Crime Involving Moral Turpitude,” which varies by jurisdiction). The government doesn’t need it to remove Khalil—the foreign policy grounds alone (which are non-reviewable) are enough.
Bottom Line:
A criminal conviction might have made the process even easier for the government, but it’s not necessary. Khalil is deportable without it, based solely on immigration law and foreign policy grounds.
(Back to my narrative.)
Well and good! No criminal activity needed, so “But He Didn’t Commit A Crime” is taken care of.
Not so fast. First, even the sources I cited above acknowledge that a conviction makes his deportation far easier. But more importantly…
The law is ALWAYS important, because not upholding it makes a huge tangle down the line. If the little bastards had been charged and convicted, they would have been deported swiftly, and we wouldn’t be here now. Khalil would be gone, baby, gone. No martyrdom, no nothing.
And then there’s that optics thing. That dirty word…It so happens that one of the great legal minds in British law agrees with me about that.
"It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."6
The Columbia University riots were a double whammy: justice was not done, and it was manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be not done.
Now, as to why the Columbia U vandals were let off. Someone asked me this yesterday, and I said I would try to tackle it today.
My explanation is plain and simple fear. The Democratic Party has been completely captured by the hard left, and they were terrified that the campuses would erupt if they cracked down. But what does that specifically have to do with the New York City legal apparatus, its judges and District Attorney’s office?
NYC is a machine Democrat town.
The majority of New York Jews who vote Democrat may not be comfortable with what happened at Columbia, but they weren’t driven crazy by it. Apart from X, I don’t remember anyone talking about it. The fact is that Columbia University is in a part of town most NYers never go to. I did; I have personal business up there. Even two blocks away you wouldn’t know that something was going on. This wasn’t the 1960s-70s when Moratorium demonstrations literally shut NYC down.
As to why NY Jews are such fervent Democrats, I’m not going there now, too much to go into. What’s important is that is that most Democrats simply tolerate this behavior. If a guy wore a Confederate flag jacket on the Columbia campus, the New York Jewish Democrat establishment would call a conference to discuss, with furrowed brows, the “rise of fascism among American youth.” They’d make a huge fundraising wheeze out of it.
But “Go Back to Poland” and “Eradicate Western Civilization”? Grin and bear it? Worse. Give in to it. That’s what Schumer did. He refused to meet with Jewish kids, I’ve heard.
After October 7, the ADL tweeted something about the alt-right, producing a picture of half a dozen white losers at a demo. I looked up their board and saw a class of people who are very safe in the back of their limousines. October 7 shattered the world of the ADL-type Jew, prosperous and up in years. They didn’t and don’t know what hit them.
That’s my explanation.
Anyway, here we are.
The Democrats are doing the wrong thing, full stop (whipping up hysteria, lying, distorting) and the Republicans are doing the right thing in the wrong way. All that Trump had to do was announce Khalil’s deportation and have Ben Badejo and me write a folksy summation:
My fellow Americans, I want to talk to you about deporting terrorists and supporters of terrorism, and why this matters to every single one of us. We Americans are very special in our belief in free speech and the right to dissent.
This country was founded on dissent, and liberty is in our very DNA. That’s why I’m taking action against someone we’ve welcomed with a green card—a rare privilege to be our guest—that he’s abused in the worst way. This guy’s the mouthpiece for a group that’s advocating “the eradication of Western civilization.” I don’t have to tell you what means. That’s not dissent. It’s hate.
They’re not just talking—they’ve ignited violent demonstrations, chaos in our streets, aiming to tear this nation apart piece by piece by using our freedoms against us. Our laws, plain as day in the immigration code, let us boot out anyone supporting such activities, or if the Secretary of State says their presence threatens our foreign policy.
Now, don’t worry about fairness—he’ll get his due process. He’s been told why he’s locked up, and he’ll get a hearing before we ship him out. The government will lay out the ugly truth, including his role in this vicious group, and the judge will make sure it’s all by the book. He’ll have a competent defense lawyer, sure, but the law gives me and our leaders the power to call out who’s a ticking time bomb—and that’s exactly what this is. This isn’t about any one community. It’s about shielding America from those dead-set on burning it to the ground, plain and simple.
(Why isn’t Trump using me as his speechwriter??)
In the meantime, we could have a little fun at the Democrats’ expense. Trump is doing Khalil a favor: he’ll be sent from the fascist hell that is America to his native country, which is now an Islamist paradise. He can contribute to the “resistance” there by building Syria into a powerful state, which will one day challenge the beast that is Israel. Everybody wins!
More links about Khalil’s “deportability”:
“Allahu Akhbar, Destroy The Head of Zionists!”
Death To America! (If I’m not mistaken the guy on the left is holding a pic of Nasrallah?)
And so on —
This is an open and shut case, legally. But I’m not sure that such an open-and-shut case will proceed smoothly, and even if it does, the Democrats have adopted this America-hating, Hamas-and-Hezbollah loving monster as a mascot.
Do you like that?
This case makes me wonder why this guy got nabbed and how common such fraud is. Case for example only.
That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment: to make people whose ancestry went back generations citizens. OTOH, “Native Americans” were not citizens until 1924, because they were considered members of foreign nations.
I wrote that he was and learned he wasn’t by reading his CV so I changed it, leaving in the original error. It seems to me that despite Badejo’s familiarity with the actual laws, as a non-lawyer he doesn’t have any real world expertise in how these things play out in real life, in an immigration court.
He was suspended but not expelled.
I can’t believe I didn’t think of that saying before, when I was writing this fabulous post:
One Man's Optics
I enjoy reading Daniel Jupp’s Jupplandia, but I disagree with him about optics. Though I try not to take things personally, I’m getting the feeling that he directed his latest post, “It’s Not All About The Optics,” to me, in response to an earlier comment I left on his site about that very word.
Very good job of laying it all out.
Saves me time to spend on something else.
Thank you.
Geez, Thom Hartmann did a piece on Mahmoud Khalil this morning - bemoaning the infringement on his free speech rights, yada yada, etc., etc. - so mischaracterizing the entire situation. He needs to read your article with a semi-open mind, for G_d's sake! This is a fantastic breakdown - thank you so much. https://thom.tv/ https://hartmannreport.com/ https://substack.com/@thomhartmann