If no criminal charges are filed against Mahmoud Khalil, then he must be released. Those charges could include: perjury, incitement to violence (against person or property), criminal damage, hate speech, providing or conspiring resources to a terror organization — and there are others I’m probably not aware of. But if no charges are filed, then as a permanent resident, Khalil should not be detained. I get that on the face of it, he has organized vicious anti-Israel and pro-Hamas protests, many of which have been engaged in criminal behavior. But if the government cannot provide specific behaviors tied to specific crimes, I don’t support his detention.
It’s no surprise that as a Jeffersonian I love this country because of the Bill of Rights. I look at countries in Western Europe and their cracking down on speech that contravenes social norms and I shudder.
As I recently wrote to my alma mater about an event they hosted launching a book entitled Understanding Hamas:
“I’m glad you are not cancelling the event. This is exactly why free speech is important. So that people can see what the LSE (among others) choose to celebrate (and yes, by hosting their launch, you are celebrating the book, its authors and contributors).”
All of that said, I’ve lived as an immigrant in three different countries and like it or not, when you are an immigrant you have to think differently. Any immigrant reading this knows that until one is a citizen of a country, nothing is guaranteed. You are there as a privilege — and privileges can be revoked. Any immigrant knows that if you’re badgered or needled by an immigration officer at a port of entry, you just have to take it. You’re in the disadvanaged position.
I’ve experienced the immigration process from both sides, as my husband is a naturalized American. There are pages of questions that must be answered under penalty of perjury, and intent is a key part of it. Do you intend to remain married? (asked when status is dependent on a relationship); do you intend to follow this country’s laws?; do you intend to commit a crime?, etc. The wording is specific for retroactive purposes.
If a person is dishonest in their immigration application, the person has committed a crime that threatens their leave to remain. It actually is that simple. And every immigrant knows (or should know) it.
If Khalil didn’t respect the process or didn’t value his privilege of being given permanent status, that’s on Khalil, not on Donald Trump, Marco Rubio or ICE.
Shana Goldberg may be reached at shana@ijn.com
© IJN 2025
