Here’s a rewrite and expansion of the provided article, aiming for clarity and a thorough exploration of the arguments presented.
The First Amendment and the Deportation of Alien Terrorist Supporters: A Corleone Consigliere Case Study
The current administration has declared a firm commitment to removing alien individuals who support terrorism from our country. This is a laudable goal, essential for national security. However, such efforts inevitably raise complex questions regarding the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association, particularly when dealing with lawful permanent residents (LPRs), often called "green card" holders.
To illustrate the nuances involved, let’s consider an analogy, not from the courtroom, but from classic cinema. Before delving into the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Syria-born former Columbia University student facing deportation for his pro-Hamas activism, I propose a discussion of Tom Hagen, the consigliere to the Corleone family in The Godfather.
Film enthusiasts will recall Hagen as the calm, collected intermediary, representing Don Corleone’s interests. One particularly memorable scene involves Hagen’s interaction with Jack Woltz, a powerful Hollywood producer. Hagen subtly attempts to persuade Woltz to cast the Don’s godson in a prominent film role. The message is veiled but unmistakable: failure to comply will have serious consequences. When Woltz refuses, he awakens to the gruesome discovery of his prized racehorse’s severed head in his bed. Subsequently, the godson secures the desired role.
Hagen might describe his role as one of a "mediator," seeking to "reason" with Woltz, presenting "an offer he can’t refuse." However, from a legal perspective, Hagen’s actions constitute textbook extortion and racketeering. He leverages implied threats and the Corleone family’s reputation for violence to coerce Woltz into submission. In a courtroom, Hagen could not successfully argue that his interactions with Woltz were merely protected free speech, a benign exercise of his right to advocate for the Corleones with whom he chose to freely associate.
This understanding is fundamental to our legal system. The First Amendment safeguards the right to express oneself and to associate with others. It prevents the government from criminalizing mere words or simple gatherings. It does not prohibit the use of speech as evidence of criminal activity. It does not grant immunity to conspirators whose association forms a vital part of their criminal scheme.
This brings us back to Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, is facing deportation based on his alleged support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, and his involvement in campus unrest.
Khalil’s defenders claim that, as an LPR, he enjoys rights approaching those of a U.S. citizen and therefore, cannot be deported for exercising his constitutional rights to free speech and association. They argue that his pro-Hamas activism and his role as a "mediator" between student agitators and the Columbia University administration fall under First Amendment protection.
There are legal weaknesses in this defense. While LPRs possess significant rights, those rights are not identical to those of U.S. citizens. Immigration law allows for the deportation of aliens based on criminal conduct, terrorist support, and national security concerns – actions that would not trigger the deportation of a U.S. citizen.
But I want to focus on the underlying assumption that Khalil’s actions were simply constitutionally protected speech and association. Such a claim fails to recognize that speech and association can be integral components of criminal behavior.
In organized crime cases, we readily understand this principle. No competent defense lawyer would argue that a mafia boss instructing a subordinate to "take care of" someone is simply expressing his free speech rights. The instruction is an order, a critical element of a conspiracy to commit violence.
Yet, in terrorism cases, a similar argument is often advanced. Jihadists and their supporters often attempt to shield themselves behind the shield of religious liberty and political conviction, attempting to obscure the link between their words and their actions.
We must not be deceived. Khalil’s potential deportation is not based on his religious beliefs or his opposition to Israel. His political speech and association with like-minded students are not the core issue, though his supporters may insist they are.
The critical point lies in the nature of his "mediation" on behalf of the campus agitators. These agitators established an illegal encampment, obstructed other students from their studies, and vandalized university property. Khalil was not simply expressing his opinions; he was leveraging the disruption and damage caused by the agitators to pressure the university into making concessions to their pro-Hamas demands. The implicit understanding was that further disruptions and damage would ensue if the administration did not yield.
This is not political speech; it is a form of coercion, akin to extortion. U.S. citizens engaging in such behavior would likely face prosecution, not constitutional immunity. Indeed, numerous agitators have already been arrested in connection with these activities, and may face further legal consequences.
Khalil’s case does not present a novel constitutional dilemma. It concerns the government’s inherent authority to protect its citizens by deporting aliens, including LPRs, who pose a threat to national security. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, immigration laws, and criminal statutes.
My experience in prosecuting terrorism cases has taught me that jihadists and their advocates hope that by invoking the Constitution, they will convince us to abandon our common sense. They want us to overlook the link between their words, their associations, and their actions. We must not fall into this trap. The Constitution is a shield for liberty, not a cloak for those who endanger it. We must remember that the same Constitution that they venerate is the same Constitution that Hamas would tear apart at a moment’s notice.
We must retain our capacity for critical thinking. The First Amendment is a powerful tool to protect legitimate dissent and expression. It is not a license to support terrorism, to engage in extortion, or to endanger the safety and security of our nation.
