The stock market in recent times has been in a true Russian mountain, the so -called Government's efficiency department continues to fly to the feathers, they will go closer and closer to a nuclear weapon and Russia and Ukraine are approaching tempting a high fire. But the national political conversation this week has curiously tended to focus not on any of that, but in protests on the uncertain destiny of a non -citizen lonely and former student graduated from Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil.
Talk about a priority delivery. Most American media consumers care a lot about their pockets and retirement accounts. They probably also care about stability in the world stage: a moderate China, a relatively quiet medium and a peace agreement for a long time to end the spill of blood in Eastern Europe.
On the contrary, here is one thing that media consumers probably No I care a lot: if a national citizen and Algerian Syrian who was the face of the disturbances of the Campus of the Pro-Ahamas Columbia University last year is deported. Is it surprising that only 31% of Americans told Gallup in autumn who have a “large amount” or a “fair amount” of media confidence?
For any metric, Khalil is a tremendously unfriendly figure. The New York Times described him as the “public face of protest against Israel” in Columbia. He acted as the main negotiator of a group of pro-bum students called the disinversion of the apartheid of the University of Columbia, which has referred to Hamas' on October 7, 2023, the massacre of Israelis as a “moral, military and political victory” and said he is fighting for nothing less than “the total eradication of Western civilization.”
Even more relevant, Khalil is not an American citizen. He is a green card holder, a “legal foreigner.” And he can remain on our ground only when the sovereign, in the United States, is “we people”, consent. When we eliminate our consent, that person can be deported.
The power to exclude is a defining characteristic of what it means to be sovereign. The very influential treaty of 1758 of Emer de Vattel, “the law of nations,” described this power as a plenary: “The sovereign can prohibit the entry of its territory to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or certain people, or for certain particular purposes, according to that it may think that it is advantageous for the State.” And as the late judge of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, said in an appointment in a 2001 dissent, “due process does not invest any foreigner with the right to enter the United States, nor confer to the admitted the right to remain against the national will.”
It is quite simple, really: if someone in the United States with a tourist visa or in possession of a green card violates the terms of its admission, it can be eliminated. That takes us back to Khalil, a foreign citizen who allegedly violated the terms of his stay by supporting at least one foreign terrorist organization designated by the United States State Department, and by making a common cause with an organization that cries more generally for the end of Western civilization. The day that the United States loses the ability to deport non -citizens who defend such toxic beliefs is the day when the United States ceases to be a sovereign nation state.
The Khalil saga is where we see the intersection of the three toxic anti-western ideologies. First, there is the “Wake” angle: Khalil represented a block, which defends an oppressed neo-marxist oppressed/oppressed, and his vision of Israel as an “oppressor” underlies Khalil's disgusting activism. Second, there is the Islamist angle: Cuad supports Sunni Islamist outfits as Hamas. Third, there is the global neoliberal angle: those who protest the arrest of Khalil see little distinction between citizen and non -citizen, as in the dystopian song of John Lennon “Imagine”, imagine a world without borders.
Khalil's arrest and arrest are, therefore, only partly on Khalil. On Monday, the official X account for the Democrats of the Judicial Committee of the United States Senate published, along with a corresponding photo, “Mahmoud Khalil Free”. But if those Senate Democrats and the myriad of other apologists are being honest, not only seek to “free” Khalil from the Immigration and Customs Compliance with President Trump. Rather, they seek to free him, and all of us, from the shackles of Western civilization itself.
Josh Hammer's last book is “Israel and civilization: the fate of the Jewish nation and the destiny of the West. ” This article was produced in collaboration with the creators Syndicate. @Josh_hammer
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is legal because he is a non -citizen green card holder, and sovereign nations retain the right to revoke the residence without the due complete process.[1].
- He affirms that Khalil violated the terms of his residence by supporting Hamas, a designated terrorist group and the main protests that celebrated Hamas' 2023 attack against Israel as a “moral victory”[1].
- Sovereignty is framed as absolute, citing a legal precedent that non -citizens lack constitutional protections against deportation, regardless of marriage ties with US citizens[1].
- Critics of Khalil's arrest are portrayed as opposing Western civilization, with their activism linked to “toxic” ideologies such as Marxism, Islamism and globalism[1].
Different views on the subject
- Legal experts affirm that the Government must still follow the due process, including the notice of charges and a judicial hearing, even when National Security Statutes are invoked[1][2]. A federal judge has temporarily blocked Khalil's deportation pending constitutional review[2][3].
- Immigration lawyers argue that Khalil's case is not precedents, since deportation generally requires criminal convictions instead of unseeding accusations linked to political discourse[1][3]. The Government has not publicly corroborated the claims of Hamas's ties[3].
- Move Khalil to a Louisiana detention center has raised concerns about restricted legal access and procedural equity, and critics call it a tactic to isolate it from supporters and lawyers[2][3].
- The defenders warn that the case could establish a dangerous precedent to deport legal residents based on political opinions, erode civil liberties for citizens and not citizens equally[3].
