This post focuses on the fundamentals of Mahmoud Khalil’s case, including the core legal and ethical questions, why attorneys are already calling it "sloppy", and why this is really about Marco Rubio.
Thank you for your coverage of this issue. It's frightening to see so many otherwise good people choose their hatred of pro-Palestinans over their love of due process. It doesn't matter who Mahmoud Khalil is. In America, rule of law MUST win over rule of men.
So glad to have found your Substack. I'm an immigration attorney at a non-profit with 19 years experience. I also do a lot of teaching of basic immigration law to organizations in our metro-area. This is a great resource.
The comparison to Emma Goldman goes deeper than is apparent at first blush. A WWI-era attorney general used Goldman's notoriety as political leverage to open up deportation proceedings against thousands of other Jewish immigrants who were, like Goldman, already U.S. citizens or legal residents. Trump is using Khalil, a green card holder, as his opening shot to move to deportation of legal U.S. residents following on his campaign against the undocumented.
Thank you for this article. Do you have anything whatsoever regarding the meat of Khalil’s actual actions, rhetoric materials he distributed and actions of others in response to his input in the conflict?
With respect, yes, the government made a mistake about what 212(a)(3)(C) means, but I think you did too. 212(a)(3)(C) isn't about providing material support for terrorism--that would be 212(a)(3)(B). 212(a)(3)(C) is about a foreign policy determination by the Secretary of State--so is the inadmissibility counterpart to 237(a)(4)(C)(i), the section they want to deport Khalil under.
But you are right that 212(a)(3)(C) is certainly not the basis on which Khalil was granted adjustment of status.
I think what they are trying to say--and did not articulate clearly due to this clearly being a rush job on the orders of Rubio and Trump--is that not only should Khalil's green card be revoked, it should not have even been granted in Nov 2024 because they say he was inadmissible due to 212(a)(3)(C). But that gets interesting, because 212(a)(3)(C) is also about a personal determination by the Secretary of State. No such determination could have been made in Nov 2024 when Blinken was Secretary of State, who presumably would not have made such a determination.
it's exactly like you say: "is that not only should Khalil's green card be revoked, it should not have even been granted in Nov 2024 because they say he was inadmissible due to 212(a)(3)(C)."
It is because once the LPR status is revoked, then it is considered never existing and the the whole admission check is reapplied. In other words: once he commited any act that would make him inadmissible and USCIS finds out about it, then he becomes inadmissible.
Thank you Prof Kochar for this detailed explanation of under what pretext Mahmoud was ‘disappeared’. As a interested citizen with a postgraduate degree though not in in field of Law, I have learned, however flawed the paperwork, govt agents were able to ‘arrest’ a student. I have been to unravel the data on ICE and CBP websites on the # of arrests/detentions in the last 4-6 years with little success.
"In a way, the case of Mahmoud is not really about Mahmoud—it’s about Marco Rubio and whether you think Marco Rubio should have the power to deport anyone that Trump tells him to, including lawful green card holders."
Well said. There's been no real charges leveled against Mahmoud Khalil. This is strictly a political act made in the vain attempt to set a very chilling precedent. Adam Serwer is absolutely correct: "You may believe that Khalil does not deserve free speech or due process. But if he does not have them, then neither do you. Neither do I.”
Let that sink in, Americans. We ALL have rights guaranteed by the Constitution or NONE of us has any rights. Is this the sort of government you wish to have from now on?
Once detained, Mahmoud was moved to a rural detention center across the country in Louisiana—a common tactic to limit Mahmoud’s access to attorneys and avoid giving protestors a place to target for organizing. SO, THIS IMPLIES THAT `WE THE PEOPLE´ CAN INDEED PUT PRESSURE ON THOSE IN POWER TO BE CONSCIOUS OF WHAT THE COMMON GOOD CONSIDERS FAIR AND JUST
Is this political? Yes and it’s always political. We put up with Biden’s agenda for 4 years and then we elected Tump in (guess what) a political election! Khalil is not a citizen and can be deported for pretty much any reason. In this case the govt is right to deport him. If his wife wants to accompany him good for her. But, life here is pretty good.
Thank you for your coverage of this issue. It's frightening to see so many otherwise good people choose their hatred of pro-Palestinans over their love of due process. It doesn't matter who Mahmoud Khalil is. In America, rule of law MUST win over rule of men.
Thank you for breaking this down so eloquently. Truly terrifying.
So glad to have found your Substack. I'm an immigration attorney at a non-profit with 19 years experience. I also do a lot of teaching of basic immigration law to organizations in our metro-area. This is a great resource.
Thank you!
The comparison to Emma Goldman goes deeper than is apparent at first blush. A WWI-era attorney general used Goldman's notoriety as political leverage to open up deportation proceedings against thousands of other Jewish immigrants who were, like Goldman, already U.S. citizens or legal residents. Trump is using Khalil, a green card holder, as his opening shot to move to deportation of legal U.S. residents following on his campaign against the undocumented.
See:
https://forward.com/opinion/704392/mahmoud-kahlil-emma-goldman-trump-targeting-legal-immigrants/
I've been trying to figure out the Mahmoud Khalil situation with no success. Your essay is extremely helpful. Thanks!
Thank you for this article. Do you have anything whatsoever regarding the meat of Khalil’s actual actions, rhetoric materials he distributed and actions of others in response to his input in the conflict?
With respect, yes, the government made a mistake about what 212(a)(3)(C) means, but I think you did too. 212(a)(3)(C) isn't about providing material support for terrorism--that would be 212(a)(3)(B). 212(a)(3)(C) is about a foreign policy determination by the Secretary of State--so is the inadmissibility counterpart to 237(a)(4)(C)(i), the section they want to deport Khalil under.
But you are right that 212(a)(3)(C) is certainly not the basis on which Khalil was granted adjustment of status.
I think what they are trying to say--and did not articulate clearly due to this clearly being a rush job on the orders of Rubio and Trump--is that not only should Khalil's green card be revoked, it should not have even been granted in Nov 2024 because they say he was inadmissible due to 212(a)(3)(C). But that gets interesting, because 212(a)(3)(C) is also about a personal determination by the Secretary of State. No such determination could have been made in Nov 2024 when Blinken was Secretary of State, who presumably would not have made such a determination.
I think you're wrong on the last paragraph. According to this: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-q-chapter-1
it's exactly like you say: "is that not only should Khalil's green card be revoked, it should not have even been granted in Nov 2024 because they say he was inadmissible due to 212(a)(3)(C)."
It is because once the LPR status is revoked, then it is considered never existing and the the whole admission check is reapplied. In other words: once he commited any act that would make him inadmissible and USCIS finds out about it, then he becomes inadmissible.
Devious, I admit, but very effective.
Thank you, David.
Great read! Thank you for this fantasticly clear explanation. One can only learn from your writing.
Thank you Prof Kochar for this detailed explanation of under what pretext Mahmoud was ‘disappeared’. As a interested citizen with a postgraduate degree though not in in field of Law, I have learned, however flawed the paperwork, govt agents were able to ‘arrest’ a student. I have been to unravel the data on ICE and CBP websites on the # of arrests/detentions in the last 4-6 years with little success.
The interview on NPR was absolutely inedible word salad marinated in an Orwellian ... you get the idea. Thanks for including it.
It sure was!
Immigrants Built this country. We all came from immigrants. Native Americans are the true NATIVES.
Outstanding points of Facts, you and your wife, would likely pass the bar exams by now! Thank you for Pouya’s information as well.
"In a way, the case of Mahmoud is not really about Mahmoud—it’s about Marco Rubio and whether you think Marco Rubio should have the power to deport anyone that Trump tells him to, including lawful green card holders."
Well said. There's been no real charges leveled against Mahmoud Khalil. This is strictly a political act made in the vain attempt to set a very chilling precedent. Adam Serwer is absolutely correct: "You may believe that Khalil does not deserve free speech or due process. But if he does not have them, then neither do you. Neither do I.”
Let that sink in, Americans. We ALL have rights guaranteed by the Constitution or NONE of us has any rights. Is this the sort of government you wish to have from now on?
We ought to deport Melania and the Trump children. Same thing for the eyeliner family and space Nazi family.
Once detained, Mahmoud was moved to a rural detention center across the country in Louisiana—a common tactic to limit Mahmoud’s access to attorneys and avoid giving protestors a place to target for organizing. SO, THIS IMPLIES THAT `WE THE PEOPLE´ CAN INDEED PUT PRESSURE ON THOSE IN POWER TO BE CONSCIOUS OF WHAT THE COMMON GOOD CONSIDERS FAIR AND JUST
Is this political? Yes and it’s always political. We put up with Biden’s agenda for 4 years and then we elected Tump in (guess what) a political election! Khalil is not a citizen and can be deported for pretty much any reason. In this case the govt is right to deport him. If his wife wants to accompany him good for her. But, life here is pretty good.