March 12, 2025
NOTE: The Following Is Not Legal Advice: Just My 1st Amendment Opinion. See your own attorney for legal advice.
The recent New York Post Op-Ed by Daniel DiMartino and Ilya Shapiro spoken about by Daniel in this video here:
argues that the arrest and pending deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and Palestinian activist, is both legal and beneficial under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Their argument rests on the premise that the executive branch has broad authority to deport individuals whose ideology is contrary to U.S. interests, and that this is a necessary measure to protect Western civilization from those who allegedly “hate” it.
With all due respect to DiMartino, Shapiro, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, this argument misinterprets immigration law, misapplies legal precedent, and fails to provide sufficient justification for the government’s actions against Khalil. This article will systematically address their claims and provide a legally sound counterargument, grounded in the INA, Supreme Court rulings, and fundamental constitutional principles.
Claim #1: "The law upheld by the Supreme Court allows the executive branch to ideologically screen migrants."
Legal Reality:
While it is true that the government has broad discretion to deny entry to non-citizens based on ideological grounds, this authority does not apply in the same way to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have already been admitted into the U.S.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(3)(C) allows the government to deny visas to individuals whose presence may have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
However, this applies to new immigrants seeking entry—not green card holders like Khalil.
For those already in the U.S., INA § 237(a)(4)(C) does allow for deportation if the Secretary of State deems a person’s presence a serious foreign policy threat, but this statute is dangerously vague and has rarely been used successfully in court.
Precedent:
In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that a lawful permanent resident cannot be deported simply for their political views, even if they are accused of being sympathetic to communism.
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court affirmed that LPRs are entitled to constitutional due process protections before removal.
Does This Apply to Khalil?
Khalil is not a new migrant; he is an LPR. He cannot be deported based solely on ideological grounds unless the government can prove a national security threat with clear and convincing evidence.
No material support for terrorism has been presented, which is the key legal standard required under INA § 212(a)(3)(B).
Claim #2: "This is legal because the INA has long had ideological restrictions on immigration."
Legal Reality:
While the INA historically restricted the entry of anarchists, communists, and certain radicals, this does not mean permanent residents can be expelled merely for protesting U.S. foreign policy.
INA § 237(a)(4)(C) does not allow blanket deportation based on political expression, as courts have ruled that political speech alone is not enough to establish foreign policy harm.
Precedent:
Landon v. Plasencia (1982) established that LPRs have greater due process rights than those seeking entry.
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) upheld exclusion for visa applicants, but the ruling did not apply to permanent residents already residing in the U.S.
Does This Apply to Khalil?
Khalil’s lawful activism does not meet the threshold for deportation under INA § 237(a)(4)(C).
The government must show more than just ideological opposition—it must prove direct foreign policy harm or material support for terrorism.
Claim #3: "Islamists should not be welcomed into the U.S."
Legal Reality:
The INA does not allow deportation based on religious beliefs or non-violent political ideologies.
Even if Khalil were an Islamist (for which no evidence exists), that is not grounds for removal unless he engaged in terrorism-related activities.
Does This Apply to Khalil?
There is no evidence that Khalil subscribes to radical Islamist ideology.
Being #Palestinian or Muslim is not a deportable offense.
Claim #4: "It is not a violation of free speech because he occupied private property illegally."
Legal Reality:
The INA does not list protesting or trespassing as a deportable offense.
Khalil was never charged with trespassing, and Columbia University did not press charges.
Precedent:
In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that political speech, even unpopular speech, is protected.
Does This Apply to Khalil?
No, because no criminal charges have been filed against him for trespassing.
The claim that he occupied private property “illegally” is unsupported by actual criminal proceedings.
Claim #5: "This individual clearly hates Western civilization."
Legal Reality:
Disliking U.S. policies or protesting U.S. allies is not a deportable offense.
Khalil’s activism does not equate to national security harm.
Does This Apply to Khalil?
No. The claim that Khalil “hates Western civilization” is an opinion, not a legal justification for deportation.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Americanism, and criticism of a U.S. ally is not equivalent to terrorism.
A Christian Appeal to Secretary of State Rubio
Secretary Rubio, I address you as a fellow Christian, not a political adversary. You have been a champion of religious liberty, due process, and justice. However, this case appears deeply flawed.
If Khalil provided material support to Hamas, then deportation would be justified.
But if the evidence does not support such a claim, this is not justice—it is persecution.
The law you are relying on (INA § 237(a)(4)(C)) has been criticized as unconstitutionally vague, including by President Trump’s own late sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry.
The administration risks a legal defeat if the court finds a lack of evidence, which would weaken legitimate national security efforts.
As a Christian, I urge you to prayerfully reconsider this case. Christ calls us to justice and truth:
“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” – John 7:24
We must ensure that deportation decisions are based on facts, not political pressure.
Conclusion: This Is Not About National Security, It’s About Silencing Dissent
Unless the @realDonaldTrump administration provides concrete evidence of material support for Hamas, this deportation is unconstitutional and unjust. The INA does not authorize deportation for protesting against #Israel, and Khalil’s LPR status entitles him to due process protections.
With respect, I urge Secretary Rubio, Ilya Shapiro, and Daniel DiMartino to reexamine the legal realities of this case—lest we allow a dangerous precedent where any dissenting voice can be silenced under vague national security claims.
May The Grace, Mercy, and Wisdom Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All.
In His Love,
~WLBJ~