The app for independent voices
Is the situation with the students something like that — where they’re all doing something legitimately deportable under current law, but they all just happen to vocally hate Israel, in the same way that, gosh golly, the men who broke the Twitter rules sufficiently for me to get them booted just so happened to be transwomen?
First, thank you for tagging me directly. It’s always an honor knowing that someone puts weight in what I have to say.
We need to acknowledge that the student deportations are 100% political matters. While this means that there are going to be strong opinions on both sides, it also means that we are not dealing with questions of criminality. The students being deported have not been accused of criminal offenses—and that was particularly true of Mahmoud Khalil and Rumesya Ozturk.
Those were the cases I have studied most closely and I am building my answer here around those cases.
Full disclosure: I have written on the Khalil and Ozturk cases and I support the government’s position in those deportation cases.
Are these students being deported simply for not supporting Israel? Strictly speaking, no. However, their political statements with regards to the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza are at issue and are the foundation of why they are being deported.
When a person applies for a visa to enter the United States, there are multiple reasons written into US law for which that visa may be denied, which are found at 8 USC §1182. The reasons which are of particular interest here are found in subsection (a)(3)(B)(i) of that statute, and all revolve around the question of terrorism. Specifically, reason (VII) is that if one supports terrorism in any capacity, a visa can be denied.
endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
A key fact to remember is that Hamas is designated a foreign terrorist organization and has been since October 8, 1997.
The law (8 USC §1201(i)) also empowers the Secretary of State to revoke a person’s visa with broad discretion regarding the rationale for the revocation.
After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien’s embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.
When it comes to visas, the law is basically that the government giveth, and the government taketh away. Right or wrong, good or bad, that is the law.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has further in multiple public statements articulated the standard the Department of State applies in visa revocations, and it amounts to retroactively using the criteria in 8 USC §1182 as the rationale for revocation.
Secretary Rubio: Well, not just the student. We're going to do more. In fact, every day now, we're approving visa revocations. And if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well.
And here's why. It's very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest. And you're coming as a student, you're coming as a tourist or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertions. And if you tell us when you apply for a visa, I'm coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, That runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America. It's that simple.
So you lied. You came. If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you're here. Now you do it. So you lied to us. You're out. It's that simple. It's that straightforward.
Within the discretion given by law to the Secretary of State in such matters, he has the authority to set such a policy on revocation and to carry it out.
Both Rumesya Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil have made public statements which are supportive either of Hamas directly or are supportive of entities who are explicit in their support for Hamas.
In the case of Rumesya Ozturk, she co-authored an op-ed piece in the Tufts University newspaper which expressed support for a series of resolutions put forward by the University Senate authored and advocated by a group called the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation at Tufts. The resolutions themselves unequivocally take the Palestinian side with respect to the Israeli-Hamas war, but CPLT’s broader advocacy has also extended to denouncing both President Trump’s Administration and former President Joe Biden’s.
CPLT addressed the inauguration of President Donald Trump and his incoming administration, which occurred just days earlier. The group denounced Trump and former President Joe Biden’s administration alike.
“The violence that Trump threatens is what Black and indigenous people have faced here for centuries. The Democrats uphold the colonial status quo for which fascism was born. There is no better example of this than in Palestine. Under the Biden administration, Palestinians, victims of settler colonization, were subjected to a still ongoing genocide,” another speaker said.
The reporting regarding CPLT’s resolutions regarding the Israeli-Hamas war also indicates a tincture of antisemtism within the University Senate proceedings.
Other students recounted feeling ostracized as Jews during a divisive campus issue. Some students described their family members killed in the Holocaust and how the Oct. 7 attacks on Israelis brought to mind “traumatic historical echoes.” In response, another Jewish student asked that peers stop “using generational trauma to justify another genocide.”
While it’s not the same as recruiting for Hamas, or fundraising for Hamas, CPLT valorizes Hamas. In the eyes of the Department of State, that puts Ms. Ozturk on the wrong side of the question of whether or not she is espousing or endorsing terrorism.
The Mahmoud Khalil case is an even more explicit support for Hamas, because Khalil is an acknowledged spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest. The media has reported him claiming to be a spokesperson for that group.
Specifically, Khalil acted as a “negotiator” with CUAD activists after they took over Hamilton Hall on the Columbia University campus—itself an act of criminal trespass.
There is no question that CUAD actively supports Hamas. The group has a Substack, within which they have explicitly referred to October 7, 2023 in celebratory terms as the Al-Aqsa Flood.
In a separate Substack article, CUAD saw fit to demean Veterans Day.
There is no doubt that CUAD sees Hamas and their activities as a positive thing, and that puts Mr. Khalil on the wrong side of the question regarding espousing and endorsing terrorism.
We need to also be clear about what the restriction on endorsing or espousing terrorism means. It does not mean, as was incorrectly suggested by the Rutherford Institute in their amicus brief challenging Khalil’s deportation, “material support” (e.g. fundraising for Hamas). That is itself a crime under 18 USC §2339A.
Neither Rumesya Ozturk nor Mahmoud Khalil have been charged under that statute.
We also need to understand that neither Rumesya Ozturk nor Mahmoud Khalil have been charged with any crime. That is significant because it speaks to the fact that deportation itself is not a criminal sanction, but rather is an administrative proceeding.
Every person whose visa or other lawful status is revoked, regardless of reason, is subject to deportation under 8 USC §1227
Every person who accepts a visa to enter the United States agrees to abide by certain conditions, including not supporting or celebrating terrorist groups such as Hamas. For better or worse, right or wrong, the Secretary of State is authorized by law to say what constitutes that support, and then to revoke one’s visa at his discretion.
Are Khalil and Ozturk “wrong” for supporting Hamas the way they have or to the degree they have? That’s a political question. People are going to agree or disagree on that point.
Khalil and Ozturk have advocated explicitly in support of organizations who unquestionably support Hamas. The Secretary of State has put forward the policy that such activities are a violation of the implicit agreement contained within each visa not to endorse or espouse terrorism.
Are these students being deported because of political statements they have made? Yes. The problem for them is that in order to enter the country on a student visa they agreed not to make such political statements.
They violated that agreement and the Secretary of State opted to exercise his discretion and revoke their visas.