Is your client a terrorist? The case against the Interior Department and the Citizenship and Immigration and Nationality Act (IIA)

Shapiro: Even though this law doesn’t require him to be charged with a crime, he has a burden of proof. I would like to know if your client supported Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization. How are they defining support?

All of these laws have terms that can be used in courts, and they can also be used narrowly by courts. And part of any legal arguments that are made is how those words should be defined, how…

Shapiro: You don’t know whether the government is saying by holding a sign or putting a tent that you are doing something wrong, or sending money or anything else specific. We asked the government for an answer. We haven’t been able to. I wonder if you’ve been able to.

The person said, “Greene.” No, you’ve seen the same things we have. We have also seen the publicly filed papers. There is no evidence yet in this case. There’s been no litigation where there’s like, discovery handed over between the parties. What we know about the INA is that they are trying to remove him and that the president and the secretary of state have said in public that they are against him.

The interviewer asked, “Who are you?” 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. The administration’s complaints regarding naturalized citizenship should make us pause as to what areas of the law the administration wants to 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.

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. The person has not been charged with a crime. He won’t be able to argue his case in front of a court like the Constitutional Court. The act is performed in the 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. The Department of State has certain obligations under the statute to provide certain information. Efforts will be made to challenge the statue itself, use of statute in this instance and the way it is written.

You’re calling it something that 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 are you going to counter it?

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. The United States has the right to the freedom of speech for everyone, including lawful permanent residents. I’m not saying that the speech was attributed to Mahmoud, but generally speaking, those statements are a sign that any time someone in this country says something that this administration does not like, they’re deportable. That isn’t the way this country should operate.

“You don’t want to go to class because these people are crazy and they are running around yelling and screaming.” If you told us that’s what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. When you get in, we’re going to kick you out.

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

Attorney General Relating to the Case of a Pro-Palestinian Demonstration at a U.S. College

In an interview with All Things Considered, he said that his lawyers had been able to speak with him privately. A judge ruled Wednesday that he must be granted a privileged call with his attorneys. He said he is trying the best he can.

The Trump administration has accused Khalil of leading “activities aligned to” the terrorist group Hamas. No crime has been charged with Khalil.

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.

It is not clear if this search had anything to do with the arrest of a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University. Khalil, a U.S. permanent resident originally from Syria, was taken into custody by the authorities in front of his pregnant wife at their university apartment and told he would be deported. The incident has set off protests and a legal battle.

A recent graduate of Columbia University who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year is currently being held in Louisiana by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

President Trump has long criticized pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. Within days of taking office, he signed an executive order calling on the Department of Justice to “investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”

A Crazy Week at Columbia University: The Trump Administration’s Targeting of Higher Education as an All-Out Attack on the Norms of Democracy

The government said that Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments after last week’s $400 million cuts. According to the AP, research studies at Columbia’s medical center were affected by the last week’s National Institutes of Health cuts.

The Trump administration continues to call these protests, which are largely peaceful, antisemitic. Jewish students and groups are part of the coalition of student groups organizing the pro-Palestinian protests.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a Jewish and pro-Israel advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., called the the Trump administration’s targeting of higher education part of “an all-out assault on the norms of our democracy and against the very existence of critical institutions, programs and services across all sectors of our society.”

On Thursday night, immigration agents from the Department of Homeland Security searched two student residences at Columbia. They left without making any arrests or seizing any evidence.

The interim president of Columbia told the school community that the officers were able to enter non-public areas of the University and conduct searches of two student rooms by virtue of two warrants.

“Columbia continues to make every effort to ensure that our campus, students, faculty, and staff are safe,” she wrote. “Columbia is committed to upholding the law, and we expect city, state, and federal agencies to do the same.”

Khalil was one of the Columbia students who negotiated on behalf of the campus protesters who were pressing the school to divest from Israel last spring.

The university also must ban masks on campus meant to hide the wearer’s identity “or intimidate others,” with an exception for religious and health reasons, the letter says. Columbia must scrutinize student groups that are found to be violating University policies and hold them accountable if they are found to have done so.

It has been a crazy week at Columbia as the Trump administration appears to be looking at the university. $400 million of federal grants and contracts to Columbia have already been canceled by his administration, they claim the school failed to police antisemitism in the wake of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The arrest of the former student who was involved in the protests has kept the school in the public eye.

A spokesman for Columbia University said to NPR that the school is looking at the letter. He said that they are committed to addressing all forms of discrimination and hatred on the campus.

This conflict over federal funding at Columbia is the latest flashpoint in a year full of controversy and discord at the university. Here’s a rundown on the recent developments.

The conflict over the war in Gaza caused much of the turmoil at Columbia to begin last spring. Columbia students, for their part, established encampments on school grounds and took over a university building as they called on university leaders to divest from companies with ties to Israel. Then-president Nemat Shafik stepped down over the summer after facing criticism for calling in police to break up the demonstrations; she’d also been grilled in Congressional hearings related to antisemitism on campus.