‘Doesn’t make any sense’: Mahmoud Khalil’s lawyer on govt. efforts to deport him

Mahmoud Khalil’s future remains unclear.

The recent Columbia University graduate, who participated in pro-Palestinian protests on campus last year, is being held in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a detention center in Louisiana.

He was arrested by ICE officers on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment in front of his wife, an American citizen who is eight months pregnant. Upon his arrest, authorities told him that his student visa had been canceled. But Khalil isn’t a visa holder. Khalil, who is a Syrian national of Palestinian descent, is a lawful permanent U.S. resident. In court documents, his lawyer, Amy Greer, said that authorities had revoked his green card.

He has not been charged with a crime. The Trump administration accuses him of supporting Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist group. The president said that Khalil’s arrest is “the first of many to come” of students “who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.” This comes after Trump signed an executive order in January, which cites a federal law authorizing the deportation of any foreign national who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity.”

In an interview with Morning Edition‘s Michel Martin, Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar was unable to cite specific examples of Khalil’s conduct that would constitute such activity.

Khalil’s attorneys insist he is not a supporter of Hamas and argue that his arrest is a violation of the First Amendment. Now, a federal judge in New York is considering the legality of Khalil’s detention and whether or not to order his release.

In an interview with All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro, Greer said that his legal team had finally been able to speak with him privately. A judge ruled Wednesday that he must be granted a privileged call with his attorneys. Greer said he is “doing the best he can in this moment.”

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

Ari Shapiro: Yesterday, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, argued that even people with a green card do not have an absolute right to remain in the United States. Here is how Rubio characterized the protests that your client helped lead at Columbia last year:

“You’re afraid to go to class because these lunatics are running around with covers on their face, screaming, terrifying things. If you told us that’s what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. And if you do it, once you get in, we’re going to revoke it and kick you out.”

How do you respond to that?

Amy Greer: I’ve obviously listened to that a number of times now and it just doesn’t make any sense to me, to be honest with you. I understand that [Rubio] has the bully pulpit here, but it doesn’t make any sense. We have in the United States the freedom of speech and that belongs to all people, all residents here in the United States, including lawful permanent residents. And I’m not attributing any of that speech necessarily to Mahmoud, but generally speaking, those statements mean [that] any time somebody in this country says something that this administration doesn’t like it renders them deportable. That is not how this country should operate.

Shapiro: You’re characterizing it as something the administration doesn’t like. The administration is relying on an obscure provision of an immigration law that says the secretary of state can revoke a green card and declare them deportable if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person’s presence or activities in the U.S. would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. That’s broad language. How do you counter it?

Greer: Well, I mean, part of that process is going to be heard in removal proceedings. What people need to understand is this is from the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is not like a criminal statute. Mahmoud has not been charged with any crime. Therefore, he is not necessarily going to be heard on this particular issue in front of an Article III Court, like our Constitutional Court. This act is played out, in part, in immigration court. And so, the habeas petition that’s been filed is an effort to challenge various aspects of this particular provision of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and its application to Mahmoud. But also, in an immigration context, the Department of State has certain obligations under that statute to provide certain information. And the efforts will be to challenge both the statute itself, the use of the statute in this particular case and the vagaries of the statute.

Shapiro: So, even though this law does not require them to charge him with a crime, they do have a burden of proof. Let me ask you about the government’s basic claim here, which is that your client supported Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist organization. Do you know how they are defining “support”?

Greer: Look, all of these laws use terms that can be interpreted expansively in courts and can be interpreted narrowly by courts. And part of any legal arguments that are made is how those words should be defined, how…

Shapiro: But you don’t know whether [the government is] arguing that by holding a sign or erecting a tent or, I don’t know, sending money or anything else specific. We’ve tried to get an answer from the government. We haven’t been able to. I wonder if you’ve been able to.

Greer: No, you’ve seen the same things we have, basically. The publicly filed papers are what we have also seen. There’s been no evidence produced in this case yet. There’s been no litigation where there’s like, discovery handed over between the parties. What we know is what part of the INA that they’re using to try to remove him and what the president and the secretary of state have said from their bully pulpit and what’s in the motion to dismiss that’s been publicly filed.

Shapiro: As you know, many of your client’s supporters have claimed that if the administration can do this to a green card holder, they can do it to anyone, including a U.S. citizen. Do you believe that’s true?

Greer: Yes. I mean, I’m not sure that they could necessarily do it to somebody who was born in the United States — there are some more complications there. But certainly, this administration’s grumblings around challenging naturalized citizenship should certainly give us all pause as to how this administration wants to interpret certain areas of our law, and who those areas of the law apply to and who they don’t. And I think that, obviously, that would require a significant rollback of the rule of law and the standards that we have traditionally followed, the precedents that our courts have traditionally followed. But in this day and age, I think it would be silly of us not to take these threats very seriously.