The stock market has recently dealt on a true roller coaster. The so -called Department of Government Efficiency continues to arm the feathers, Iran is getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapon, and Russia and Ukraine are closely close to an armistice. But strangely, the national political conversation this week has strange not to concentrate on anything, but on protests about the uncertain fate of a single non -citic and former doctoral student at Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil.
Talk about malfunction of the priorities. Most American media consumers take care of their paperbacks and retirement provision. They probably also take care of stability on the world stage-a steamed China, a relatively calm Middle East and a boring peace agreement to end bloodshed in Eastern Europe.
In contrast, this is probably one thing here, the media consumers are likely not Care a lot: whether a Syrian national and Algerian citizen who was the face of the Pro-Hamas Columbia University Campus riots of last year is deported. Is it a miracle? Only 31% of Americans said Gallup In autumn that you have a “large” or “reasonable amount” trust in the media?
Khalil is a wild unappealing figure. The New York Times described him as the “Public face of the protest against Israel”In Columbia. He acted as a senior negotiator for a Pro-Hamas group of students called Columbia University Apartheid, who refers to Hamas on October 7, 2023 and the Israelis as “described as” called “as” described “as” as “.”moral, military and political victory“And claimed that nothing less than” fights “for nothingThe total extermination of western civilization. “”
It is even more relevant that Khalil is not a US citizen. He is a Green Card owner, a “legal extraterrestrial”. And it can only stay on our ground if the sovereign – in the USA, the “we, the people” – agrees. If we remove our consent, this person can be deported.
Exclusing the authority is a defining feature of what it means to be a sovereign. Emer de Vattel's extremely influential treatise from 1758, “The Law of the Nations”, described this power as a plenary: “The sovereign can prohibit the receipt of its territory either for foreigners in general or in certain cases or for certain persons or for certain purposes, as is advantageous for the state.” And as the late Supreme Court of Antonin Scalia found In a quote in a dissent from 2001“The proper procedure does not invest foreigners with the right to enter the United States or to get to those who are approved to remain against the national will.”
It's really easy: if someone in the USA violates the conditions of his entry in a tourist visa or in possession of a green card, he can be removed. This brings us back to Khalil- a foreign citizen who allegedly violated the conditions of his stay by supporting at least one US State Department.proven foreign terrorist organizationAnd through a common cause with an organization that demands more generally at the end of western civilization. On the day on which the United States loses the ability to deport non-citizens who represent such toxic beliefs, the day when the United States is a sovereign nation state.
In the Khalil-Saga we see the intersection of the three toxic anti-West ideologies. First, there is the “awakened” angle: Khalil has portrayed Cuad, which for a neomarxist oppressor/suppressed dichotomy and its view of Israel as one “represents”Oppressor”Based on Khalil's contradictory activism. Second, there is the Islamist angle: Cuad supports Sunni Islamist outfits like Hamas. Thirdly, there is the global neoliberal perspective: Those who protest against Khalil's detention see little distinction between citizens and non -citizens – like in John Lennon's dystopian song “Imagine” they imagine a borderless world.
Khalil's arrest and detention is therefore only partially around Khalil. On Monday, The official X account for the Democrats of the US Senate Posted, next to a corresponding photo “Free Mahmoud Khalil”. But if these Senate Democrats and Khalils are honest with countless other apologists, they are not only looking for Khalil of President Trump's immigration and customs authority too “free”. Rather, they try to free him – and all of us – from the bonds of western civilization themselves.
Josh Hammer's latest book is “Israel and civilization: The fate of the Jewish nation and the fate of the West. “” This article was produced in cooperation with the Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Knowledge
La Times Insights The ai-generated analysis provides voting content in order to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
position
Perspectives
The following content of AI-generated content is driven by confusion. The Los Angeles Times editor -in -chief does not process or process the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is lawful(1).
- It claims that Khalil had violated the conditions of his stay by supporting Hamas, a proven terrorist group, and led protests that celebrated the attack of Hamas in 2023 as a “moral victory”(1).
- Sovereignty is classified as absolutely, whereby the legal precedent leads to the fact that non-State citizens lack the protection against the constitution against deportation, regardless of marital connections to US citizens(1).
- Critics of Khalil's detention are presented as against Western civilization itself, whereby his activism is associated with “toxic” ideologies such as Marxism, Islamism and Globalism(1).
Different views on the subject
- Legal experts claim that the government still has to follow a proper procedure, including the announcement of charges and a trial, even if it relies on national security statutes(1)(2). A federal judge temporarily blocked the deportation of Khalil until the constitutional check(2)(3).
- Immigration lawyers argue that Khalil's case is unprecedented(1)(3). The government has not justified any publicly justified claims on Hamas tie(3).
- The move from Khalil to a detention center in Louisiana has expressed concerns about restricted legal access and procedural justice. Critics call it a tactic to isolate it from supporters and consultants(2)(3).
- Warning supporters warn that the case creates a dangerous precedent for the deportation of lawful residents based on political views and can undermine bourgeois freedoms for citizens and non-state citizens equally and differ alike(3).