I respectfully somewhat disagree in some respects (and I say this as someone who loathes Trump and his sycophants, including Rubio). Admittedly there is little established law in this area, but from everything I've read there is no requirement of proving a crime has been committed to invoke the relevant section of the US immigration laws to revoke Khalil's green card. See for example https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/131-five-questions-about-the-khalil. I agree the Trump Administration has been opaque in stating what Khalil exactly has done to establish that the relevant immigration statutes have beeen violated. I also agree that they are seeking to make a test case out of this (and at this point it's hard to know if they can win on the merits before a US immigration judge, a federal appeals court and SCOTUS). I would also prefer to see Khalil released with appropriate monitoring until his case is heard on the merits before a US immigration judge. I want Khalil's due process rights as a green card holder to be honored and I want an adjudication on the merits using the proper legal standard.
The Vladeck article is excellent, and I'm usually inclined toward his point of view anyway because he's a distinguished professor at my Alma Mater. I'll also confess that I haven't "done my own research" (as they say in MAGAland), but since my academic background is in diplomacy and foreign relations, I'll still hazard a defense of my point of view.
In general I think it important to accept that words have meanings, and in international relations even moreso. On those grounds, the reason given so far for revoking Khalil's Green Card, that Rubio certified that Khalil's continued presence "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest" strikes me as absurd on its face. I can't imagine how this justification could stand up to any scrutiny, unless this pitiful terrorist fanboy has unreported influence with high officials either in our government, in the governments of our allies, or in the governments of our adversaries, and is a kind of Edward Snowden or an Elon Musk with a Green Card rather than a passport. It should be obvious that a person with no discernable influence on anyone cannot "compromise" any US foreign policy interest, much less a "compelling" one. I doubt that Rubio has the goods to back that up, but if he does, let him show them to a judge.
The second standard, that Khalil “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” may be stickier, but as Professor Vladeck points out, the Administration hasn't offered that argument yet. Let's see whether they do, and whether they can back it up. If Khalil is more than just a terrorist admirer or wannabe, maybe Trump & Co. can make a case, but they haven't shown us anything more than suspicions and feelz yet.
At this point I agree it's all about the proof (if any) they can show to support their allegations. This could be a real edge case: for example, if it can be established that Khalil was in a leadership position at CUAD (and was not just a "negotiator") and had a role in pro-Hamas statements or the distribution in some of the vile pro-Hamas literature allegedly distributed at Barnard praising Sinwar and Oct. 7, it might meet the definitions you cite in US immigration law. We'll see.
I respectfully somewhat disagree in some respects (and I say this as someone who loathes Trump and his sycophants, including Rubio). Admittedly there is little established law in this area, but from everything I've read there is no requirement of proving a crime has been committed to invoke the relevant section of the US immigration laws to revoke Khalil's green card. See for example https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/131-five-questions-about-the-khalil. I agree the Trump Administration has been opaque in stating what Khalil exactly has done to establish that the relevant immigration statutes have beeen violated. I also agree that they are seeking to make a test case out of this (and at this point it's hard to know if they can win on the merits before a US immigration judge, a federal appeals court and SCOTUS). I would also prefer to see Khalil released with appropriate monitoring until his case is heard on the merits before a US immigration judge. I want Khalil's due process rights as a green card holder to be honored and I want an adjudication on the merits using the proper legal standard.
The Vladeck article is excellent, and I'm usually inclined toward his point of view anyway because he's a distinguished professor at my Alma Mater. I'll also confess that I haven't "done my own research" (as they say in MAGAland), but since my academic background is in diplomacy and foreign relations, I'll still hazard a defense of my point of view.
In general I think it important to accept that words have meanings, and in international relations even moreso. On those grounds, the reason given so far for revoking Khalil's Green Card, that Rubio certified that Khalil's continued presence "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest" strikes me as absurd on its face. I can't imagine how this justification could stand up to any scrutiny, unless this pitiful terrorist fanboy has unreported influence with high officials either in our government, in the governments of our allies, or in the governments of our adversaries, and is a kind of Edward Snowden or an Elon Musk with a Green Card rather than a passport. It should be obvious that a person with no discernable influence on anyone cannot "compromise" any US foreign policy interest, much less a "compelling" one. I doubt that Rubio has the goods to back that up, but if he does, let him show them to a judge.
The second standard, that Khalil “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” may be stickier, but as Professor Vladeck points out, the Administration hasn't offered that argument yet. Let's see whether they do, and whether they can back it up. If Khalil is more than just a terrorist admirer or wannabe, maybe Trump & Co. can make a case, but they haven't shown us anything more than suspicions and feelz yet.
At this point I agree it's all about the proof (if any) they can show to support their allegations. This could be a real edge case: for example, if it can be established that Khalil was in a leadership position at CUAD (and was not just a "negotiator") and had a role in pro-Hamas statements or the distribution in some of the vile pro-Hamas literature allegedly distributed at Barnard praising Sinwar and Oct. 7, it might meet the definitions you cite in US immigration law. We'll see.