Daily Alert Archives

The Columbia Protest Case Is about Immigration Law, Not Free Speech

(Washington Post) Tal Fortgang - The reactions to the Trump administration's attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil are not just overblown. They are completely misplaced. This is simply not a case that implicates free speech or the First Amendment. Undisputed facts, and the law that allows the U.S. government to deport even lawful permanent residents without a criminal conviction, make that abundantly clear. No one disputes that Khalil was the face of Columbia University Apartheid Divest during CUAD's "Gaza Solidarity Encampment" at Columbia last April. CUAD does not just have an implied affinity for terrorists; it celebrates them. When Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was killed by Israeli troops last year, CUAD published a "tribute" to this "hero of the revolution," extolling him for organizing Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel. CUAD and its affiliate groups organize the mass commission of minor crimes, such as trespassing, vandalism and disorderly conduct, with a clear aim of trying to intimidate others into capitulating to their demands. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government may deport a noncitizen who serves as "a representative...an officer, official, or spokesman" of "a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity." The U.S. government may also deport anyone for whom there is "reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in...any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means." Last summer, CUAD called for the "total eradication of Western civilization." Finally, the Act says a noncitizen who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" is liable to deportation. Supporting terrorism through action is precisely CUAD's stance and strategy. None of its actions are protected by the First Amendment or merit protection on principled free-speech grounds. Distinguishing between speech and conduct is crucial. CUAD's trespassing, vandalism and destruction of property cannot be ignored merely because its members expressed political reasons for its actions. The writer is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
2025-03-20 00:00:00
Full Article