Lawyer for Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil argues on Thursday that the government does not present evidence to prove that its presence in the US has consequences of adverse foreign policy, which according to Trump’s administration is the basis for its deportation from the US from the US
Khalil is scheduled to appear before the Immigration Judge in Louisiana on Friday, the trial that came after the judge gave the government deadly this week to provide evidence to support some of the accusations made to Khalil, including that he misinterpreted information about the green card application.
Khalil was arrested with immigration and customs enforcement in his Columbia Housing last month. He is a green card holder and permanent laws of law who are married to American citizens, who are nine months pregnant.
The government submitted evidence of the two -page memo signed by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he found that the presence of Khalil in the US “will endanger the interests of an interesting US foreign policy.”
The memo did not mention the previous accusations that he misinterpreted information about the Green Card Application and vice versa duplicated the unclear part of the Immigration and National Law which considered a deported migrant “if the State Secretary had a reasonable reason to believe that the presence or alien activities in the United States would have a serious potential for foreign policy that harmed the United States.”
The two -page memo also made a case why other people, whose names were deleted, must be deported with the same argument.
In the memo, Rubio stressed that he had the power to determine someone could be deported even if their actions “if invalid.”
Rubio wrote that Khalil had to be deported because of his alleged role in “antisemite protests and disturbing activities, which pushed hostile environments for Jewish students in the United States.”
Marc Van Der Hout, one of Khalil’s lawyers, sharply criticized the memo during the Zoom press conference on Thursday.
Rubio “spoke of the first amendment activity in the United States and its influence on people in the US ‘determination’ has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy.”
Mahmoud Khalil student negotiator is at the Columbia University campus in New York at a pro-Palestinian protest camp on April 29, 2024.
Ted Shaffrey/AP
Van Der Hout also described as “fake” previous accusations about the alleged error of representation of the Khalil Visa application and about the negotiations involved with Columbia for the student camp.
“But that is zero in connection with the accusations of foreign policy, and there is no support for the government’s accusations about the error of representation,” said Van Der Hout. “We don’t care about that at all.”
Lawyer Khalil said they did not believe the government had provided any evidence to suggest he should be released based on immigration and nationalism laws.
This case can set a precedent that the government can silence its critics and delete it, in what could be “dangerous slopes,” said Van Der Hout.
“What was discussed by Rubio’s letter they tried to protect – said they – Jews in the United States, from Antisemitism. But what is antisemitism? This criticizes Israel and the United States for the massacre that occurred in Gaza and Palestine,” said Van Der Hout.
“That is about this case, and that is what is actually centered by this case, the rights of people in this country, citizens and immigrants – all of which are protected by the constitution, by the first amendment – to be able to speak whatever their views, are popular or not,” said Van Der Hout.
Lawyer Khalil plans to ask to overthrow Rubio in court to understand what reasons he must make that the presence of Khalil in the US raises risks to the interests of US foreign policy.
Mahmoud Khalil spoke to media members about the rebellion for the rafah camp at Columbia University during the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, in New York, June 1, 2024.
Jeenah Moon/Reuters, File
The Immigration judge said he would do the findings of whether Khalil could be released on Friday, according to Khalil’s lawyer.
“But we are far from the end of the road if that happens,” Johnny Sinodis, a lawyer and partner at Van Der Hout who represented Khalil, said Thursday. If the immigration judge determines that Khalil, in fact, can be removed, this case will move to the next phase but Khalil can still submit the right to remain in the US
“This process is played in the Immigration Court, and it will definitely require some more hearing before the final decision can be made in immigration cases,” Sinodis said.