Michael Ejercito
2025-03-11 12:06:04 UTC
https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/03/11/the-ethics-of-deporting-mahmoud-khalil-for-pro-terrorist-advocacy/
The Ethics of Deporting Mahmoud Khalil For Pro-Terrorist Advocacy
March 11, 2025 / Jack Marshall
ICE arrested Palestinian activist and former Columbia student Mahmoud
Khalil with the intent of deporting him in accordance with the announced
Trump policy of deporting non-citizens who engage in pro-“terrorist”
speech related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Predictably, the
Axis is all-in supporting Khalil, who sure appears to be a bad human
hill to die on. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned ICE’s
detainment of Mahmoud Khalil, calling it a “tyrannical” move, “Violating
rule of law, actually,” she wrote. That AOC defends him alone makes me
inclined to want to get rid of the guy, but that would be irrational.
Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York issued an order
today halting Khalil’s processing and scheduled a hearing on the case
for later this week. Ah yes, the Southern District of New York!
In a confusing essay at The Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin writes that
deporting non-citizens for the content of their speech is a Firts
Amendment violation and “a slippery slope,” then, in the fifth
paragraph, acknowledges that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), bars “Any alien who
… endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse
or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” I’d
say endorsing and supporting Hamas qualifies under that law, wouldn’t
you? So Somin says, “Such laws, too, should be ruled unconstitutional.”
But until and unless it is, the Trump administration has the law on its
side.
The question remains, is such a restriction on the free speech of
non-citizens ethical? Somin:
“The First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech, like most
constitutional rights, is not limited to US citizens. The text of the
First Amendment is worded as a general limitation on government power,
not a form of special protection for a particular group of people, such
as US citizens or permanent residents. The Supreme Court held as much in
a 1945 case, where they ruled that “Freedom of speech and of press is
accorded aliens residing in this country.”
I find this absolutist approach fairly persuasive, because free speech
is safest when the exception to the First Amendment are rare. And yet, I
can also see the utilitarian value of a principle that says that while
one is a guest in this country and not yet a citizen, one should behave.
If you want full protection of the First Amendment, become a citizen.
Somin concedes that even if non-citizens have a right to free speech,
they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US so, arguably,
deporting them for disruptive speech doesn’t violate the Constitution.
But, he says, depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech
violates the First Amendment.
Except that residing in the U.S. when one is not a citizen isn’t a
right, but a privilege.
Somin also loses me—forever!—with this foolishness: “I would argue that
freedom of movement – including across international boundaries – is
also a human right, one that should not be restricted based on
arbitrary circumstances of parentage and place of birth.” That sounds
like an open boarders argument to me, and that is signature significance
for a scholar who is estranged from reality. Utopian positions that are
impossible in the real world are unethical: they just waste time and
confuse people.
Whether deporting non-citizen pro-terrorism advocates like Mahmoud
Khalil is constitutional, legal or ethical is a close call all around.
Presumably the U.S. Supreme Court will end up deciding.
The Ethics of Deporting Mahmoud Khalil For Pro-Terrorist Advocacy
March 11, 2025 / Jack Marshall
ICE arrested Palestinian activist and former Columbia student Mahmoud
Khalil with the intent of deporting him in accordance with the announced
Trump policy of deporting non-citizens who engage in pro-“terrorist”
speech related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Predictably, the
Axis is all-in supporting Khalil, who sure appears to be a bad human
hill to die on. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned ICE’s
detainment of Mahmoud Khalil, calling it a “tyrannical” move, “Violating
rule of law, actually,” she wrote. That AOC defends him alone makes me
inclined to want to get rid of the guy, but that would be irrational.
Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York issued an order
today halting Khalil’s processing and scheduled a hearing on the case
for later this week. Ah yes, the Southern District of New York!
In a confusing essay at The Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin writes that
deporting non-citizens for the content of their speech is a Firts
Amendment violation and “a slippery slope,” then, in the fifth
paragraph, acknowledges that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), bars “Any alien who
… endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse
or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” I’d
say endorsing and supporting Hamas qualifies under that law, wouldn’t
you? So Somin says, “Such laws, too, should be ruled unconstitutional.”
But until and unless it is, the Trump administration has the law on its
side.
The question remains, is such a restriction on the free speech of
non-citizens ethical? Somin:
“The First Amendment’s protection for freedom of speech, like most
constitutional rights, is not limited to US citizens. The text of the
First Amendment is worded as a general limitation on government power,
not a form of special protection for a particular group of people, such
as US citizens or permanent residents. The Supreme Court held as much in
a 1945 case, where they ruled that “Freedom of speech and of press is
accorded aliens residing in this country.”
I find this absolutist approach fairly persuasive, because free speech
is safest when the exception to the First Amendment are rare. And yet, I
can also see the utilitarian value of a principle that says that while
one is a guest in this country and not yet a citizen, one should behave.
If you want full protection of the First Amendment, become a citizen.
Somin concedes that even if non-citizens have a right to free speech,
they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US so, arguably,
deporting them for disruptive speech doesn’t violate the Constitution.
But, he says, depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech
violates the First Amendment.
Except that residing in the U.S. when one is not a citizen isn’t a
right, but a privilege.
Somin also loses me—forever!—with this foolishness: “I would argue that
freedom of movement – including across international boundaries – is
also a human right, one that should not be restricted based on
arbitrary circumstances of parentage and place of birth.” That sounds
like an open boarders argument to me, and that is signature significance
for a scholar who is estranged from reality. Utopian positions that are
impossible in the real world are unethical: they just waste time and
confuse people.
Whether deporting non-citizen pro-terrorism advocates like Mahmoud
Khalil is constitutional, legal or ethical is a close call all around.
Presumably the U.S. Supreme Court will end up deciding.