Connect with us

RSS

What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Mahmoud Khalil and His Possible Deportation

A pro-Palestine protester holds a sign that reads: “Faculty for justice in Palestine” during a protest urging Columbia University to cut ties with Israel. November 15, 2023 in New York City. Photo: Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

The case of Mahmoud Khalil has been the talk of the nation’s media in recent days.

Predictably, coverage has been short on context, but long on editorializing platitudes. Outlets like NPR and CNN have worked to depict Khalil’s story as simply one of a “prominent” protester “against Israel’s war in Gaza,” whose right to “free speech” is being attacked by the Trump administration.

But this narrative is only tenable when material information is left out of the story.

As with any legal proceeding, there is some legal and factual ambiguity, but mainstream media outlets have omitted crucial context about both the law and the facts.

Some of that context is provided below, beginning with a broad overview of the relevant laws and ending with a list of some of the relevant facts.

US Immigration Law

US immigration law provides reasons for which a green card holder may be deported (“removed”) from the country. (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)). Those relevant to the Khalil case include general security considerations, terrorist activities, and foreign policy considerations.

General security grounds for deportation include any green card holder who engages in “criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security” or “any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)).

Another grounds for deportation is if a green card holder engages in “terrorist activity,” which includes anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)).

The third grounds provides that any green card holder “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)).

First Amendment Protections

Green card holders do have some rights, including under the First Amendment. However, those rights may be restricted where there is a “legitimate governmental interest.”

For example, Mark Goldfeder, a former law professor and CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, has pointed to Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Supreme Court specifically mentioned “foreigners” as a category of individuals whose speech rights may be restricted and which “are not automatically coextensive with the rights” of “members of our society.”

In another Supreme Court case referenced by legal expert Erielle Azerrad at City Journal, our Nation’s highest court held that foreigners may be deported on the basis of their destructive or “dangerous” advocacy (Turner v. Williams).

Recognizing the importance of the freedom of expression, the Court still acknowledged that governments “cannot be denied the power of self-preservation.” Azerrad also pointed out two recent cases in which appeals courts upheld deportations on grounds that the deportees had distributed flyers on behalf of terrorist organizations (see Hosseini v. Nielsen and Bojnoordi v. Holder).

Other commentators have pointed to even more cases, such as Harisiades v. Shaughnessyand Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Even if these precedents did not exist, the First Amendment is not an automatic bar or absolute right. As explained by Goldfeder, Supreme Court precedent provides that even the right to free expression may be restricted if the law is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest” which, in this case, would be national security.

A related legal issue typically omitted by media commentators is the prohibition against providing material support for a terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). While this law does not prohibit an individual advocating for a terrorist organization on his own accord, it can and does prohibit “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project).

The Facts

So which facts fit the law in the Khalil case? Consider just a sampling of the evidence.

Khalil is a leader in the organization Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an organization whose most prominent coalition member is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Immediately after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, National SJP aligned itself with Hamas, declaring it was “part of” the “movement” operating “under unified command” which had just waged “a large scale battle … within ’48 Palestine” (referring to southern Israel).

Since then, CUAD has been directly involved in numerous illegal and violent actions, including the illegal encampment and the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall at Columbia. During the latter, university staff were violently assaulted and kidnapped.

Importantly, Khalil is not in trouble merely for his and his organization’s horrendous views.

As explained by Ken Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center: “This was not mere protest activity, but involved some degree of criminality. The federal government is not prosecuting people for engaging in political speech. The federal government is addressing criminality, violation of school rules and violation of the terms of either green cards or student visas.”

At the encampment and other CUAD-sponsored events, Hamas propaganda was distributed, including personally by Khalil himself. This included a document titled “Our Narrative … Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” with the “Hamas Media Office” marking on it.

Footage has emerged from earlier this month showing Khalil at one such event where the propaganda booklet was being distributed.

Literature distributed by CUAD contained language such as: “This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly.”

The organization has also hosted events featuring the designated terrorist organization Samidoun and a senior terrorist leader. Events and publications have regularly glorified terrorists, and participants have even encouraged Hamas attacks against peaceful Jewish counter-protesters.

Khalil’s organization also harbors deeply anti-American motives. In August 2024, for example, CUAD posted that it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization” and aligning itself with “militants … who have been on the frontline in the fight against tyranny and domination which undergird the imperialist world order.” CUAD then declared that its members “must be prepared to make … sacrifices” in order “to achieve liberation in America.”

There is also evidence that has not been made public. According to The New York Post, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was “presented with intelligence” regarding Khalil being a threat to national security. Classified intelligence may be used in deportation hearings that does not need to be disclosed either to the defendant or to the public, if the judge determines that disclosure could harm national security. (8 U.S.C. § 1534(e)(3))

Khalil will have his day in immigration court to make his legal case. But it is incumbent on the media to ensure that the law and the facts have their day in the court of public opinion.

David M. Litman is a Research Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

The post What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Mahmoud Khalil and His Possible Deportation first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Jewish Synagogue, Holocaust Memorial Vandalized in Poland After Politician Denies Holocaust

An antisemitic slur spray-painted on the ruins of a former synagogue in Dukla, Poland. Photo: World Jewish Restitution Organization

Two Jewish sites in Dukla, Poland, were vandalized over the weekend mere days after Polish member of the European Parliament (MEP) Grzegorz Braun claimed gas chambers at the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp were fake and repeated an antisemitic blood libel in a live radio interview.

Vandals spray-painted the word “F–k” followed by a Star of David on the ruins of a former synagogue that was destroyed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, and a memorial commemorating Holocaust victims located at the entrance of the Jewish cemetery in Dukla was defaced with a swastika and the word “Palestine,” according to the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO). The memorial honors Jews of Dukla and the surrounding areas who were murdered by Nazis during the Holocaust.

The two Jewish sites in Dukla are cared for by the Foundation for the Preservation of Jewish Heritage in Poland (FODZ), which was established in 2002 by the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland and the WJRO to protect and commemorate Poland’s Jewish heritage sites.

“These hateful acts are not only antisemitic, but they are also attempts to erase Jewish history and desecrate memory,” said WJRO President Gideon Taylor in a released statement on Tuesday. “Polish authorities must take swift and serious action to identify the perpetrators and ensure the protection of Jewish heritage sites in Dukla and across the country.”

“The vandalism of Jewish sites in Dukla—with swastikas and anti-Israel slurs—is not an isolated act,” insisted Jack Simony, director general of the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation (AJCF), in a statement to The Algemeiner. The nonprofit focuses on preserving the memory of the Jewish community in Oświęcim (Auschwitz) and maintains the Auschwitz Jewish Center, the last remaining synagogue in town.

“While we cannot say definitively that it [the vandalism] was sparked by Grzegorz Braun’s Holocaust denial, his rhetoric contributes to an atmosphere where hatred is emboldened and truth is under assault,” added Simony. “Braun’s lies are not harmless — they are dangerous. Holocaust denial fuels antisemitism and, too often, violence. This is why Holocaust education matters … because when we fail to confront lies, we invite their consequences. Memory must be defended, not only for the sake of the past, but for the safety of our future.”

On July 10, a ceremony was held commemorating the 84th anniversary of the 1941 Jedwabne massacre, when hundreds of Polish Jews were massacred – mostly by their neighbors – in the northeastern town in German-occupied Poland. The ceremony was attended by dignitaries and faith leaders including Poland’s Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich and Israeli Deputy Ambassador Bosmat Baruch. Groups of anti-Israel and far-right activists — including MEP Braun and his supporters – tried to disrupt the event by holding banners with antisemitic slogans and blocking the vehicles of the attendees, according to Polish radio.

Hours later, during a live radio broadcast, Braun falsely claimed the Auschwitz gas chambers were “a lie” and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum was promoting “pseudo-history.” He also claimed that Jewish “ritual murder is a fact.” Polish prosecutors launched an investigation into Braun’s comments, they announced that same day. Under Article 55 of the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Poland.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum issued a swift condemnation of Braun’s remarks and said it intents to pursue legal action. The Institute of National Remembrance — which is the largest research, educational and archival institution in Poland – also denounced Braun’s remarks, saying there is “well-documented” evidence supporting the existence of gas chambers. His comments were also condemned by the Embassy of Israel in Poland, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and the US Embassy in Warsaw, which said that his actions “distort history, desecrate memory, or spread antisemitism.” AJCF called on the European Parliament to consider disciplinary measures against Braun, including potential censure or expulsion.

Auschwitz Jewish Center Director Tomek Kuncewicz said Braun’s comments are “an act of violence against truth, against survivors, and against the legacy of our shared humanity.” AJCF Chairman Simon Bergson called the politician’s remarks “blatant and baseless lies,” while Simony described them as “a calculated act of antisemitic incitement” that “must be met with legal consequences and universal moral condemnation.”

The post Jewish Synagogue, Holocaust Memorial Vandalized in Poland After Politician Denies Holocaust first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Coalition of 400 Jewish Orgs and Synagogues Urge Teachers Union to Reverse Decision Cutting Ties with ADL

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. Photo Credit: ADL.

Following a vote by the National Education Association (NEA) on July 6 to end its relationship with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 400 Jewish communal groups, education organizations, and religious institutions have come together to call for the influential teachers union to change course.

“We are writing to express our deep concerns about the growing level of antisemitic activity within teachers’ unions, particularly since the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023,” the letter to NEA President Becky Pringle stated. “Passage of New Business Item (NBI) 39 at the National Education Association (NEA) Representative Assembly this past weekend, which shockingly calls for the boycott of the Anti-Defamation League, is just the latest example of open hostility toward Jewish educators, students and families coming from national and local teachers’ unions and their members.”

In addition to the ADL, signatories of the letter included American Jewish Committee (AJC), Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Federations of North America, #EndJewHatred, American Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith International, CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting & Analysis), Combat Antisemitism Movement, Democratic Majority for Israel, StandWithUs, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Zioness Movement, and Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

The group told Pringle that “we have heard directly from NEA members who have shared their experiences ranging from explicit and implicit antisemitism within the union to a broader pattern of insensitivity toward legitimate concerns of Jewish members – including at the recently concluded Representative Assembly. We are also deeply troubled by a broader pattern of union activity over the past 20 months that has targeted or alienated Jewish members and the wider Jewish community.”

The letter to Pringle included an addendum providing examples of objectionable rhetoric. These named such incidents as the Oakland Education Association (OEA) putting out a statement calling for “an end to the occupation of Palestine” and the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) accusing Israel of genocide.

The coalition of 400 organizations urged the NEA to “take immediate action” and suggested such steps as rejecting NBI 39, issuing a “strong condemnation” of antisemitism within the union, drafting a plan to counter ongoing antisemitism in affiliate chapters, and opposing “any effort to use an educator’s support for the existence of Israel as a means to attack their identity.”

ADL CEO and National Director Jonathan Greenblatt wrote on X that “Excluding @ADL’s educational resources from schools is not just an attack on our org, but on the entire Jewish community. We urge the @NEAToday Executive Committee to reverse this biased, fringe effort and reaffirm its commitment to supporting all Jewish students and educators.”

The post Coalition of 400 Jewish Orgs and Synagogues Urge Teachers Union to Reverse Decision Cutting Ties with ADL first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Zohran Mamdani Won’t Condemn Calls for Violence Against Jews; Why Are Jewish Leaders Supporting Him?

Zohran Mamdani Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

In the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s surge in New York City politics, a disturbing trend has emerged: prominent Jewish leaders are being urged to join “Jews for Zohran,” a newly formed effort to legitimize a candidate whose record and rhetoric are alarmingly out of step with Jewish communal values.

In a city that’s home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel — and where antisemitic incidents are on the rise — this is a profound mistake.

Mamdani has refused to explicitly condemn the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” which has been widely understood as a call to violence against Jews. His defenders insist it’s a symbolic plea for Palestinian rights. But nuance offers little comfort when the phrase glorifies violent uprisings, and is routinely chanted alongside calls for Israel’s destruction.

Institutions such as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and watchdogs like StopAntisemitism.org have made it clear: attempts to sanitize violent language must be firmly rejected.

Mamdani’s vocal support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is equally troubling. BDS does not merely critique Israeli policy; it seeks to economically isolate and politically delegitimize the Jewish state. When a candidate stands against the most visible symbol of Jewish survival — Israel — while brushing off violent slogans as misunderstood metaphors, we must ask what message this sends to our communities.

The answer should be clear. Jewish New Yorkers were the targets of over half the city’s reported hate crimes last year. From Crown Heights to Midtown, visible Jews have been harassed, assaulted, and mocked. Mamdani was flagged by national antisemitism monitors in December for promoting material that mocked Hanukkah. This is not abstract. This is personal, present, and dangerous.

Yes, Mamdani has pledged to increase hate crime funding from $3 million to $26 million. But that’s not enough. The Jewish community — especially now — needs more than budgetary gestures. We require moral clarity, as Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel powerfully stated: “Morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings, that indifference to evil is worse than evil itself….”

Moral clarity demands more than financial promises, it requires principled rejection of rhetoric that endangers Jews. Belonging isn’t forged by slogans; it’s proven through sustained empathy, shared responsibility, and unwavering commitment to safety.

Calls for Jewish leaders to publicly support Mamdani, including those made to officials like Brad Lander and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), aim to provide political cover for a candidate whose worldview clashes with core Jewish values. These aren’t harmless endorsements. They’re symbols. And symbols matter.

Endorsing Mamdani sends a troubling signal: that political convenience or progressive branding outweighs communal safety and historical memory. When Jewish leaders align with someone who flirts with the delegitimization of Jewish statehood and refuses to condemn slogans rooted in violence, they are telling our adversaries that our moral lines are negotiable.

New York’s Jewish community has long been a moral compass in American politics. What happens here echoes across the nation. If our leaders can be cajoled into supporting a candidate like Mamdani, what message does that send to Jews in swing districts, smaller cities, and across college campuses? It normalizes equivocation. It emboldens the fringe. It tells the next generation that Jewish dignity is up for debate.

This is about more than Mamdani. It’s about whether Jewish pride and Jewish safety remain non-negotiable pillars of our political participation. Some have argued that this is simply politics as usual — that strategic alliances are part of coalition-building. But the Jewish people know better than most that what begins as a small compromise can metastasize into a much greater danger.

Former Democratic Councilman Rory Lancman said it best: “If ever there was a time to put principle over party, this is it.” He’s right. And that’s why this moment requires Jewish leaders to speak not just as political actors, but as moral stewards.

Jewish leaders are free to engage with any candidate they choose. But engagement is not endorsement. One can listen, challenge, and debate without aligning oneself publicly with a candidate whose positions cross communal red lines. Outreach does not require complicity.

If Jewish political figures join “Jews for Zohran,” they risk helping mainstream dangerous ideologies. They risk fracturing communal unity even further at a time when Jewish communal unity is our best defense. They risk allowing today’s ambiguity to become tomorrow’s regret.

Jewish history teaches us the cost of silence, of appeasement, and of looking away. We cannot afford those mistakes again — not in this city, not in this era; history is beginning to repeat itself and we cannot allow that to happen.

To every Jewish leader now weighing their public stance: choose principle. Choose safety. Choose the kind of moral leadership our tradition demands; reject the logic of “Jews for Zohran.” The stakes are too high — and the message matters.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The post Zohran Mamdani Won’t Condemn Calls for Violence Against Jews; Why Are Jewish Leaders Supporting Him? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News