The legal case to deport Mahmoud Khalil of "Columbia University Apartheid Divest" is airtight

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do about immigration law

When you read the relevant US codes, the case to deport Mahmoud Khalil is unassailable.

U.S. immigration agents arrested Khalil, Palestinian graduate student who acted as a leader of the Columbia University group that led pro-Hamas protests.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that Khalil was apprehended "in support of President Trump's executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism," alleging his involvement in "activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization."

What are the legal grounds for the arrest?

Khalil a US permanent resident with a green card.

According to 8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens, "Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable."

The relevant part of those subparagraphs say:

(B)Terrorist activities

(i)In general Any alien who—

(IV)is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—

(bb)

a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;

There is no question that Khalil is a representative of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD.) He represented CUAD in negotiations with Columbia a number of times; he was interviewed on TV numerous times as its lead negotiator, he is described as one of CUAD's leaders.

There is also no question that CUAD endorses and espouses terrorist activity. For example, on the one year anniversary of October 7, it handed out newspapers on campus called "The New York War Crimes" that included this full page "ad:"

Besides that, CUAD chants include explicit support for Hamas (“Yes, we’re all Hamas, pig!” and “Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now.”) Yet even without explicit support for Hamas, CUAD has praised "resistance' over and over again, and that "resistance" is terrorism. One example is that they praised the October 1 shooting attack in Tel Aviv that murdered seven civilians, saying “On October 1, in a significant act of resistance, a shooting took place in Tel Aviv, targeting Israeli security forces and settlers. This bold attack comes amid the ongoing escalation of violence in the region and highlights the growing resolve of those resisting Israeli occupation.”

Apologists for Palestinian terror are pretending that this is a free speech issue. The New York Civil Liberties Union condemned his detainment: “The Trump administration’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil – a green card holder studying in this country legally – is targeted, retaliatory, and an extreme attack on his First Amendment rights.”

The First Amendment is irrelevant to this case.

In the context of the legal codes I referenced, CUAD may or may not have the right to praise terrorism as free speech, but the fact that they do praise terrorism and terrorist acts, and Khalil's position as their representative, are the only issues that are relevant. In other words, the very First Amendment that might allow CUAD to publicly praise Hamas terror is what proves Khalil violated the law.

Even if Khalil claims that he is personally against the pro-terrorism stance of CUAD and only acted as their liaison, even if he claims that he never uttered a word of support for terror in his life, he is CUAD's representative by the legal definition and CUAD unambiguously endorses or espouses terrorist activity, making him subject to deportation. Free speech is a red herring.

Under US law, Mahmoud Khalil should be deported.