The
arrest and possible deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian
activist, has galvanized the left and drawn criticism from liberals and civil libertarians. Even some neoconservatives have condemned the White House’s aggressive action earlier this month. MAGA conservatives should also oppose it.
At least one prominent MAGA-friendly voice, the author Ann Coulter,
has already spoken out against deporting Khalil, who was born in Syria.
“There’s almost no one I don’t want to deport, but, unless they’ve
committed a crime, isn’t this a violation of the first amendment?”
Coulter wrote last week on X.
Khalil, a green card holder whose wife is a U.S. citizen (and eight
months pregnant), does indeed enjoy rights under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled in
1945 that alien residents cannot be deported for political speech,
including speech in support of groups seeking to overthrow the U.S.
government. Notably, the Court rejected the government’s argument that
the targeted alien held an “affiliation” with a subversive organization,
judging that the claim relied on too loose a definition of that term.
The case, Bridges v. Wixon, is highly relevant to the controversy surrounding Khalil.
The Trump administration, in rescinding Khalil’s green card, invoked
a 1952 immigration law to justify the move. That statute, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, empowers the government to deport any
lawful permanent resident whom the secretary of state deems a danger to
U.S. foreign policy interests. The White House has said that
Khalil, through his protest activities at Columbia University, promoted
antisemitism. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security said
that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas,” a designated terror
organization.
These justifications are spurious. The First Amendment does not
carve out an exception for speech that Marco Rubio labels “antisemitic,”
and in any case Jewish students at Columbia have vouched for
Khalil’s character. As for the vague assertion that Khalil is “aligned”
with Hamas, the administration has not produced evidence that he was
affiliated with the group in any meaningful sense. If the arrest of
Khalil is legal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, then the
relevant provisions of that law are null and void under the
Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
MAGA conservatives have a principled reason to defend Khalil’s right
to free speech, even if they don’t agree with his anti-Israel views.
Free speech is a cornerstone of our republican system of government, as
the Founders knew well. One early-modern aphorism, which Benjamin
Franklin quoted approvingly in
1722, captures the relation between free speech and a free people:
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing
the freeness of speech." Conservatives tend to emphasize ordered,
political liberty rather than individual rights, but in matters of free
speech, the latter bolster the former.
MAGA also has tactical reasons to defend Khalil’s constitutional
rights. If his deportation, which a federal judge (who happens to be
Jewish) has temporarily blocked, is allowed to go forward, the precedent
could enable a future Democratic president to target conservatives.
Under Joe Biden, the FBI proposed infiltrating traditional Catholic
churches for “threat mitigation.” The bureau also harassed pro-life
activists and pressured social media companies to suppress dissident
views. Many such actions fell flat thanks to the strength of the
free-_expression_ principle. Now is no time to erode it.
MAGA conservatives have yet another reason, in addition to those
relating to the protection of free speech, to oppose the Trump
administration’s persecution of Khalil. John Mearsheimer, a political
scientist at the University of Chicago, got near the mark in a recent
podcast conversation. “The single greatest threat to freedom of speech
in the United States at this point in time is Israel and its supporters
here in the United States,” he said. Mearsheimer’s argument was about free speech, but he alluded to a principle that is even more fundamental.
Right-wingers tend to conceive of politics not in terms of rights,
but of power. One political ideal that relates to power and that MAGA
conservatives should cherish is sovereignty. What Mearsheimer’s comment
suggests, even if he wouldn’t put the point in this way, is that Israel
and the Israel lobby presently undermine the sovereignty of the United States.
Sovereignty refers to the exclusive authority of a state over the
country it rules and the nation it defends. It is the glue that holds a
political grouping together and safeguards its survival and liberty. A
state, to truly possess sovereignty, must have the power to make
decisions free from foreign influence. One reason the actions against
Khalil should give MAGA pause is that the administration seems to be
acting on behalf of Israel, not the American people.
Here’s the plain truth: Khalil was arrested not because he posed a
threat to the United States, but because he protested against Israel.
Drop Site News reported that Khalil’s arrest “followed a two-day targeted online campaign against Khalil by pro-Israel groups and individuals” (emphasis added). President Donald Trump has alleged that Khalil supports Hamas, an enemy of Israel. Khalil led protests against the Israeli war in Gaza. Miriam Adelson, a top donor to Trump’s presidential campaigns, has pushed the president to take pro-Israel actions and is leading the charge against critics of Israel on college campuses.
As if to make clear which nation’s interests are actually implicated
in the Khalil episode, the White House’s X account has written “Shalom
Mahmoud,” using the Hebrew word for “goodbye.”
I had thought English was America’s official language now.
Some conservatives have supported Khalil’s deportation on grounds
that he is an unwelcome foreigner who chose to stir up trouble in
America. But sovereignty, not strong borders or social calm, is the most
salient principle in this controversy. Under my preferred immigration
policies, Khalil would never have been granted a visa or green card. But
that is irrelevant. Once here, Khalil obtained the right to protest and
express his political views, and the wishes of the Israeli government
and its supporters do not override that constitutional guarantee.
(Anti-immigration conservatives may be interested in this tidbit from
Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper: ICE has “reportedly paused its human
trafficking and drug smuggling investigations to have agents monitor
social media for posts and likes from pro-Palestinian students.”)
Other conservatives have observed that Khalil’s protest group
committed unlawful acts of civil disobedience, such as trespassing on
university property. That observation is accurate, but disruptive
protests at Columbia are a matter for the university to handle with the
local police—they are not “terrorism.” Had Khalil helped organize a
Black Lives Matter protest or a pro-Ukraine one, the response from the
administration would not have been nearly so aggressive, if indeed it
would have responded at all.
The undue influence that pro-Israel groups exert over the U.S.
government deserves close scrutiny and blunt criticism. Israel’s Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long tried to drag the U.S. into war with Iran, which poses little threat to the American homeland. The president seems on the verge of giving Bibi what he wants, though in Trump’s first term he griped that the Israeli leader was “willing to fight Iran to the last American soldier.” In recent months, Israel’s supporters have sought to thwart foreign policy appointments perceived as inimical to Israel, and they may have succeeded last week.