‘A Horrifying Escalation’: How Mahmoud Khalil’s Detention Could Galvanize Trump Opposition
Pro-immigrant groups warn that the controversy can not, and should not, be just about free speech rights on college campuses.
THE DETENTION OF SYRIAN-BORN PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST Mahmoud Khalil sparked an impassioned debate about campus politics and First Amendment rights. But in pro-immigrant circles, the case has come to represent something different: a high-profile example of the Trump administration excesses they’ve been warning about.
For months, these groups have shared their fears that Trump would bend, if not break, national security and immigration laws in pursuit of mass deportations. And though the White House has done just that, there has not been a singular case that has galvanized national attention towards those efforts.
Until now.
Khalil, who helped lead Columbia University student protests after October 7th, was detained last week by ICE and sent to a facility in Louisiana. His politics on the war and his actions on campus have made him a controversial figure. But the circumstances of his detention—he is a green card holder with the legal right to remain with a distraught, 8-month-pregnant wife—have turned him into a cause, not just for free speech advocates but for immigrant-supportive groups and lawmakers who warn of a harrowing precedent being set.
“It’s a dangerous slippery slope they’ve started upon, claiming he’s supporting a foreign terrorist organization without bringing formal charges or demonstrating any formal connection to it,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) told The Bulwark. “What’s to stop them from claiming a legal permanent resident in Texas is somehow helping the cartels without formal charges or any evidence?”
The circumstances of Khalil’s case, and the profound legal implications of it, have spurred a coalition of immigration, race, and legal advocacy groups to band together and demand justice.
Patrice Lawrence, the executive director of the UndocuBlack Network, which is composed of current and formerly undocumented black people, said she was “horrified” by Khalil’s “illegal capture” and demanded his release.
“The kidnapping of someone, an immigrant even, under seemingly false pretenses is scary and reeks of the makings of a dictatorship,” she said. “This action is nothing more than an escalation against a dissenting voice. For those of us who fight for the most vulnerable, silence is not an option.”
Trump supporters have made no secret that they welcome a debate over Khalil. They’ve argued that the administration had lawful powers to initiate his deportation while playing up his alleged sympathy for Hamas. They’ve taunted Democrats who’ve come to his defense, arguing that they’re taking the wrong side of a 70-30 issue for the public.
But for those defending Khalil, the issue is not just about political debates in the present but precedents set for the future.
Immigration groups are seizing on the Khalil case to plead with Americans to recognize the threat in an administration that can target someone undocumented one week, a green card holder the next, and U.S. citizens in the future—on everything from birthright citizenship to accidental detention to racial profiling.
“His disappearance represents a very alarming escalation of the Trump administration going after people they don’t think belong here, which includes immigrants, while also targeting people who dissent, or if they don’t like how you're standing up against them, that should raise sirens for everyone across this country,” said Anabel Mendoza, communications director for United We Dream, an immigration organization founded by undocumented youth.
Mendoza noted that the moment is particularly resonant since one of the group’s fears before Trump’s inauguration was that he would use the power of the state to go after activists demonstrating against the administration.
Mendoza invoked the story of Jensy Machado, a U.S. citizen who voted for Trump, but was shocked when ICE agents approached him, guns drawn.
“They’re willing to use ICE agents to disappear people,” Mendoza said. “We have already seen instances where ICE agents have pulled guns on U.S. citizens, that is not some far theory or possibility, it’s happening.”
Safety in Solidarity
AS I MADE THE ROUNDS calling advocates and legal experts to discuss the Khalil case, some like Murad Awawdeh, the president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition—himself the son of Palestinian immigrants—said it was imperative for groups to stand in solidarity.
“If they can do it to a green card holder then none of us are safe,” Awawdeh told me. “So our safety is going to be in our solidarity in this moment.”
Like Awawdeh, Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization, said she hoped this would prove to be galvanizing for Trump opponents. She noted that the administration has made it clear that they don’t see a difference between someone who is here legally and someone who is not.
“It’s an eye-opening moment for many folks who thought they were safe,” she said. “Now we’ve had proof point after proof point that this is not a targeted approach to go after quote criminals. They are defining the threat on the fly and going after them. If you can take away legal permanent residence, what stops them from taking U.S. citizenship?”
Cardenas said she is seeing solidarity in support of Khalil from groups that have relationships in the immigration and legal spaces and which can devote resources to his case. Still, she said, progressives can and should do more.
“I hope this moment illustrates to progressives that they’re not going to be able to run from this issue,” she said. “Immigration is the tip of the spear when it comes to attacks on our democracy.”
Paola Mendoza, a film director and activist who co-founded the Women’s March, which saw millions hit the streets after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, said Khalil’s arrest should spark similar energy.
“I think we should be up in arms and hitting the streets and making our opposition to what is going on very loud because they’re using Mahmoud as a test case,” she warned. “They are seeing what they will be able to do, what we will allow them to do, what the courts will allow them to do, with people they don’t agree with and they don’t like.”
One Last Thing
A U.S. citizen child recovering from brain cancer and on her way to an emergency check up was deported to Mexico along with her undocumented parents, NBC News reports.
The family was scrambling to get from Rio Grande City to Houston, where the girl’s specialists are located. They were stopped at an immigration checkpoint. The little girl still has brain swelling and the family hopes they are able to return so she can resume her medical treatment.
“It’s a very difficult thing,” the mother said. “I don’t wish anyone to go through this situation.”
“What is happening to this family is an absolute tragedy and it is something that is not isolated to just them,” Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, told NBC.
I wish Bulwark contributors would actually read up on the positions taken by Mahmoud Khalil before condemning him. Kudos to Carrasquillo for not falling into that trap.
Every single other podcast or piece of writing from the Bulwark has taken the "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" approach, but with more vitriol, going into pains to emphasize that they think he is deplorable. However, nobody actually says what statements or beliefs they actually find deplorable. Mona Charen has been the biggest culprit, but both JVL and Sarah Longwell have also taken that approach.
I'd suggest actually looking up what he's said. Sarah even grudgingly admitted that Khalil does not say objectionable stuff, but even that concession implied that Khalil secretly holds abhorrent views. I believe her phrasing was that Khalil is "careful" not to make such statements.
This is an actual quote from Khalil:
"As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand by hand, and you cannot achieve one without the other." He characterized the movement as one "for social justice and freedom and equality for everyone".[12] Of concerns about antisemitism, Khalil said, "There is, of course, no place for antisemitism. What we are witnessing is anti-Palestinian sentiment that's taking different forms and antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism [are] some of these forms."
And no, he never said that Zionists don't deserve to live--he's vehemently denied saying that and there is zero proof he ever said that.
He was the chief negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), whose main goal was to get Colombia to divest from it's holdings that were supporting weapons manufacturers supplying weapons to Israel. That's a bad thing?
Have some of its members said offensive antisemitic stuff that the broader organization denounced? Absolutely.
It's funny how Mona Charen holds Khalil responsible for utterances he didn't make, while giving Israeli MKs or even CABINENT MEMBERS a pass for openly advocating for genocide. Hell Netanyahu himself said:
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you.”
Amalekites were persecutors of the biblical Israelites, and a biblical commandment says they must be destroyed. And by "destroyed" it means killing women and children as well. Not once have I heard JVL, Mona Charen, or Sarah Longwell criticize any such statement from Israeli government officials.
Of course, Charen also failed to condemn Israeli students for spraying peaceful pro-Palestinian protestors with a noxious substance on the Columbia campus.
Khalil is in no way an extremist. He's been vetted by the British Government and worked for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, managing the Chevening Scholarship and projects related to accountability, justice and gender equality in Syria. He also interned for UNRWA and met his American wife in Lebanon when they were both working on an aid program.
The irony is that by instinctually holding that Khalil is a deplorable extremist, Bulwark contributors make it harder to defend his freedom of speech. Whereas, if his speech isn't problematic in the first place, it makes the Trump Administration's attempt to have him deported even more objectionable.
the proverbial canary (in the coal mine) is long d-e-a-d! To continue this cliche, the coal mine has collapsed and miners are dead or trapped. It is not anti-semetic, anti-American or anti anything other then anti-Netanyahu’s policies - something legal in both Israel and the US. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevel