US judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can be deported for his views
Source: The Guardian
Fri 11 Apr 2025 16.09 EDT
Last modified on Fri 11 Apr 2025 16.34 EDT
Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian organizer, is eligible to be deported from the United States, an immigration judge ruled on Friday during a contentious hearing at a remote court in central Louisiana.
The decision sides with the Trump administrations claim that a short memo written by secretary of state Marco Rubio, which stated Khalils beliefs and associations were counter to foreign policy interests, is sufficient evidence to remove a lawful permanent resident from the United States.
The undated memo, the main piece of evidence submitted by the government, contained no allegations of criminal conduct. During a tense hearing on Friday afternoon, Khalils attorneys made an array of unsuccessful arguments attempting to both delay a ruling on his eligibility for removal and to terminate proceedings entirely. They argued the broad allegations contained in Rubios memo gave them a right to directly cross-examine him.
Khalil held prayer beads as attorneys for three attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security presented arguments for his removal. Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Rubios determination was presumptive and sufficient evidence and that she had no power to rule on concerns over free speech. There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general overruling the secretary of state on matters of foreign policy, Comans said. A supporter was in tears on the crowded public benches as the ruling was delivered.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/mahmoud-khalil-deportation-ruling-immigration
Article updated.
Original article -
Last modified on Fri 11 Apr 2025 16.10 EDT
Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian organizer, is eligible to be deported from the United States, an immigration judge ruled on Friday during a contentious hearing at a remote court in central Louisiana.
The decision sides with the Trump administrations claim that a short memo written by secretary of state Marco Rubio, which stated Khalils beliefs and associations were counter to foreign policy interests, is sufficient evidence to remove a lawful permanent resident from the United States.
The undated memo, the main piece of evidence submitted by the government, contained no allegations of criminal conduct. During a tense hearing on Friday afternoon, Khalils attorneys made an array of unsuccessful arguments attempting to both delay a ruling on his eligibility for removal and to terminate proceedings entirely. They argued the broad allegations contained in Rubios memo gave them a right to directly cross-examine him.
Khalil held prayer beads as attorneys for three attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security presented arguments for his removal. Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Rubios determination was presumptive and sufficient evidence and that she had no power to rule on concerns over free speech. There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general overruling the secretary of state on matters of foreign policy, Comans said. A supporter was in tears on the crowded public benches as the rule was delivered.

no_hypocrisy
(51,252 posts)Igel
(36,719 posts)The law basically places the determination in the administration's hands--what, it's up to State to make the determination?
surfered
(6,305 posts)GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)... and loose the dogs of thought police. It's ON, motherfuckers.
BumRushDaShow
(151,125 posts)(from ST6 - "The Undiscovered Country" - the late Christopher Plummer)

GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)... The Bard definitely had a way with words, did he not?
markie
(23,311 posts)
am I next?
Native
(7,064 posts)There is still hope.
question everything
(50,076 posts)Sadly, I can see judges claiming that they cannot second guessing the secretary of state..
Native
(7,064 posts)Balatro
(11 posts)So essentially, the freedom of speech of all immigrants and/or international visitors to the U.S. is limited? Then there is this whole "antisemitic" part. If all he was doing was protesting the policies and actions of a nation (Israel) when did that become grounds to kick him out of the country? If this can happen to this guy, who seems like a fine, upstanding young man, then how long before they start doing this to others? He has already talked about exporting prisoners to CECOT. It's getting a bit scary.
Basso8vb
(863 posts)maxsolomon
(36,378 posts)As we're learning, the SoS can apparently revoke resident status at will. It's a subjective standard.
Cirsium
(2,339 posts)Never mind the legalisms, are you OK with this decision?
Polybius
(19,800 posts)As Igel said in Post 17, "The law basically places the determination in the administration's hands."
Cirsium
(2,339 posts)Right wing judges are dumping on that concept all the time.
Senator Hubert Humphrey said that the act exposed deportees to bureaucratic tyranny and warned that deportations "without review would be the beginning of a police state".
You don't think it should be subject to judicial review, especially since it conflicts with the Bill of Rights?
Polybius
(19,800 posts)Are you asking me my personal opinion, or my opinion based on what I think may be the law? I do think that it will be appealed.
Cirsium
(2,339 posts)What does being a lawyer have to do with any of this? The Trump administration is taking a meat axe to the law. Give your opinion as a human being.
This case is but one example in a broad and serious assault on the Constitution. Are you OK with that?
Polybius
(19,800 posts)I think it's incredibly stupid to engage in protests and unpopular opinions while trying to become a full US citizen. However, what he did while holding a Green Card should probably be legal.
Cirsium
(2,339 posts)Unpopular opinions? You are apologizing for authoritarianism.
Polybius
(19,800 posts)Only what I thought of non-citizens causing problems. And make no mistake about it, those protests were problematic to Jewish students that didn't want to protest.
Not sure what you are trying to say.
"Non-citizens causing problems?" By doing what, writing and saying things? You know, unpopular things?
Nice to know you don't support Rubio.
GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2025, 07:10 AM - Edit history (1)
... is that Mahmoud was never advocating for Hamas, he was speaking in defense of the Palestinian people being systematically victimized by Netanyahu's brutal policies. It is wrong to conflate being Palestinian with being a Hamas sympathizer, and equally wrong to say that criticizing Netanyahu's actions is antisemitic. It is not. It is simply anti-Netanyahu. There are millions of Israelis that abhor what Netanyahu is doing.
maxsolomon
(36,378 posts)I don't think the judge is a "Nazi" for this ruling, and that was my point.
Am I OK with the SoS revoking Khalil's resident status over his protest in opposition to Israel's conduct of the War in Gaza? No.
The MFer Admin is exploiting an ambiguous, ill-defined standard for political repression.
Polybius
(19,800 posts)Not a Nazi, Bidens Administration appointed her.
Cirsium
(2,339 posts)Are you OK with the decision by Rubio and the decision by the judge?
Scubamatt
(149 posts)for him, his family and what's left for our Republic. I hope everyone who chose not to vote for VP Harris because of Biden's support of Israel takes a good look in the mirror and owns up to a piece of responsibility for this, and dedicates themselves to not allowing perfection to be the enemy of the good, should we have another election.
moniss
(7,093 posts)that anybody can be deported who has a position or advocates for a foreign policy different than an administration. Sounds like a judge looking to get a higher appointment. Justice for sale.
slightlv
(5,403 posts)the republicans have jumped on the trump revenge band wagon. Everything we protested for and against in the 60's and 70's, when people like nixon, poppa bush, cheney, and others were making no effort to hide the fact that they hated the damned hippies, is on the chopping block. That includes free thought and creativity. That includes freedom, itself. Hell, it even means recreational sex! These evil basta*ds have saved up decades of hate until they could release it under the "guise of law." They just had to wait for the correct patsy to lead them. and along came trump... the pastiest patsy that ever pastied!
Nonnia Bisnez
(22 posts)Immigration courts are under the department of justice jurisdiction to administer immigration law. It doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction on constitutional matters. The ruling simply states that the Secretary of State has the power to deport foreign nationals if it is in the foreign policy interest of the US. I suspect it will be appealed to an Article 3 court to determine if curtailing speech of permanent residents is constitutionally allowed and the SOS abused his discretion.
24601
(4,071 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(161,888 posts)The "judge" who issued this order is an immigration "judge" who was appointed by trump after trump purged all competent immigration judge. This judge is doing what he was ordered to do by trump and knows that if he rules against trump on this or any other issue, he will be removed.
This ruling will be appealed to a real judge who is not controlled by trump.
https://bsky.app/profile/realtuckfrumper.bsky.social/post/3lmkyc7orbj2c
Link to tweet
https://www.rawstory.com/mahmoud-khalil-2671753774/
The ruling greenlighting the deportation of the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident came at the end of a hearing in Louisiana as Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans concluded that the government established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable, according to The Associated Press.
But not all were swayed by the judges legal reading of the case, which marked the first in a string of arrests at universities nationwide of students living in the U.S. as permanent residents in an escalation of the Trump administrations immigration crackdown......
The fake judge (a DOJ Immigration Judge) ruled this, and he is only empowered to interpret immigration law, not the Constitution, Cato Institute immigration expert David Bier wrote on X.
Civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger told his own X followers that it was really critical to understand 2 things about the Mahmoud Khalil ruling.
1. Immigration judges are *not nominated & confirmed.* They are political appointees of the Executive. 2. Trump purged all immigration judges he didnt like at the outset of his admin. Theyre all pawns, he said.
This ruling will be appealed
iemanja
(55,852 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2025, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)
The deportations will accelerate now, and US citizens will also be targeted.
sinkingfeeling
(55,073 posts)ancianita
(40,328 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2025, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
BumRushDaShow
(151,125 posts)who are set up under the Executive Branch. Ironically, 45 wanted to get rid of that whole system of agency judges. But then it seems their "end goal" is to eliminate any type of judiciary, period.
GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)... now has impeachment on his dance card, and he'll be doing the Aztec Two-Step when they drag his sorry ass in front of the Senate for trial.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,082 posts)No way the Senate produces enough votes to convict on impeachment.
GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)... in my haste I read the first name as "James", not Jamee.
Re: your screen name: Wasn't it Wavy Gravy who coined the phrase, "We're all bozos on this bus," when Kesey and the Merry Pranksters were bouncin' around the countryside like ping pong balls in a garbage can and trippin' their brains out on acid back in '64?
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,082 posts)I heard it first from Firesign Theater; it would have been later in the '60's, after I got out of the Army.
GiqueCee
(2,139 posts)I loved Firesign Theater! "MORE SUGAR!"
Now that you mention it, didn't they release an album entitled, "We're all bozos on this bus"? I'll ask the all-knowing Google. Yup. their 4th album, "I think we're all bozos on this bus" came out in '71. I was 24.
Hugh Romney could've said it, though.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,082 posts)Same-ish age, I turned 25 in '71.
Martin68
(25,509 posts)question everything
(50,076 posts)I am thinking of Canada which, I hope, will offer him refuge for the next four years. Once his child is born, and is an American citizen, his spouse should be able to join him.
Such cruelty.