In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies analysts discuss the legal and policy implications of the Mahmoud Khalil case.

Khalil, a Palestinian/Syrian/Algerian green card holder, was involved in pro-Hamas protests when a graduate student on a nonimmigrant visa at Columbia University. DHS charged Khalil under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which renders deportable any noncitizen “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.”

CIS’s Andrew Arthur and George Fishman review the facts of the case, analyze the constitutional and legal questions of what they predict will be a potential test for future efforts to remove noncitizens who support terrorism, and offer predictions. Four main questions are highlighted:

• Is this a free speech case? Can a noncitizen be removed for speech or action supporting a terrorist organization?
• Is this a foreign policy case? How does the government define “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”?
• What are the judicial precedents? How will courts balance foreign policy concerns against constitutional rights?
• Will this case set clearer lines on what a non-citizen can and cannot do? There is a need for the law to settle the spectrum of rights that apply to a spectrum of status. Will this be the case that will provide legal clarity?

As the case moves through immigration court and on to federal district court and beyond, the Center for Immigration Studies will continue providing expert analysis on its broader implications for immigration enforcement and national security.