Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian student activist facing deportation, is being represented by veteran immigration lawyer Marc Van Der Hout and a team of national lawyers. They argue that Khalil's deportation under the Trump administration is unconstitutional, as it penalizes him for his beliefs. Van Der Hout draws parallels to a landmark case involving pro-Palestinian activists in the 1980s, emphasizing that the legal framework being applied is rarely used and fundamentally unjust. Khalil's argument hinges on free speech rights, prompting significant implications for dissenting voices in a potential second Trump era.
You cannot deport someone under the laws for their beliefs. That's against the Constitution. But that's what the government's trying to do in this case and in other similar cases.
It is completely outrageous that they are using this type of statute to go after Mahmoud in this case.
Free speech has limitations, but the essence of this case challenges the very foundation of dissent in our democratic society.
The outcome of Khalil's case could serve as a litmus test for dissent in the second Trump era.
Collection
[
|
...
]