logo
Amid arrest of pro-Palestinian student organizer, what rights do visa holders and others have?

Amid arrest of pro-Palestinian student organizer, what rights do visa holders and others have?

Yahoo17-03-2025

The federal government's move to revoke a Columbia University graduate student's green card and deport him for his involvement in a pro-Palestinian student encampment last year is raising fresh questions about the risks associated with political activism for non-United States citizens.
Mahmoud Khalil was a prominent negotiator representing student protesters at Columbia, which was one of many campuses nationwide that was roiled by demonstrations over the war in Gaza. A number of protests featured the establishment of pro-Palestinian student encampments, such as those that were eventually dismantled at UCLA, UC Irvine, Cal Poly Humboldt, UC Santa Cruz, UC Berkeley, Stanford and San Francisco State.
Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident, was arrested March 9 at his university-owned apartment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. According to the Associated Press, agents said they were executing a State Department order to revoke Khalil's student visa. When Khalil's lawyer clarified that he is a green card holder, officials said they were revoking that, as well.
Khalil's ultimate fate is not yet clear — his possible deportation is on hold while a court considers the legal argument that he was engaging in protected free speech. But the move mirrors an executive order President Trump signed at the start of his term to deport and cancel the student visas of all "Hamas sympathizers on college campuses."
Read more: ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says
Secretary of State Marco Rubio doubled down on the administration's actions at a press conference soon after Khalil's arrest, saying, "This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with."
Khalil's arrest has "undoubtedly sent a chill through university communities all around the country, and it has definitely sparked a round of fear amongst university students, particularly those who are involved in Gaza [related] political protests," and faculty, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA's School of Law.
So what protections are there for non-U.S. citizens participating in political activism? Here's what some experts have to say.
Read more: Government asks that detained Columbia student's legal fight be moved to New Jersey or Louisiana
Immigration advocates and legal experts say everyone who lives in the United States has the 1st Amendment right to participate in activism and political demonstrations, including protests, regardless of their immigration status.
Revoking a person's green card, temporary visa or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status just because of their political activity would violate the 1st Amendment, Arulanantham said.
"The problem is it's very difficult to prove that's what's happening and the avenues for challenging such revocation are extremely limited," he said.
Even though non-U.S. citizens have the right to protest, though, there is a risk of "being charged with something that could put your status in danger," such as a vandalism misdemeanor or resisting arrest, said Veronica Garcia, staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Rubio alluded to that rationale in his press remarks.
"When you apply for a student visa or any visa to enter the United States, we have a right to deny you for virtually any reason, but I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit in what are clearly crimes of vandalization, complicit in shutting down learning institutions — there are kids at these schools that can't go to class," he said.
"If you told us that's what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in," he added. "And if you do it once you get in, we're going to revoke it and kick you out."
Read more: Fear and loathing grip L.A. hotels as Trump deportation threats loom
Generally, no. But there are some caveats.
The government has no authority to revoke your green card status because "it's a distinct legal category and under the law you have the right to reside here permanently," unless you violate a set of rules laid out specifically in the statute, Arulanantham said.
Under Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a green card holder could be subject to deportation for being charged with a violent crime or marriage fraud, for example.
"In the context of protests, someone might be convicted of vandalism, assault and battery with a police officer or resisting arrest so that could lead to [the green card holder] being deportable," said Miosotti Tenecora, staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
Pro-Palestinian tent encampments remained peaceful on some campuses and descended into violence at others, leading to law enforcement interventions and damage to university property.
In a recent blog post Arulanantham co-authored on Just Security, he argued that in Khalil's case, the Supreme Court has held that "the law does not permit the government to deport a non-citizen on grounds that are too vague to provide fair notice of what they did wrong."
"But the question is, if the government is violating the 1st Amendment and wants to deport you for it, can you do anything to stop them?" he told The Times.
Read more: Trump invokes Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to declare a gang invasion. A judge stalls deportations
The government can revoke a temporary student or faculty visa and does not have to give a reason, Arulanantham said.
The student would then have to try to prove that the revocation was because of their pro-Palestine activity, which is difficult to prove.
Another example Arulanantham gave is if the student goes home for spring break and they're trying to come back into the U.S., an official at the airport can deny them entry — and again, they don't have to give a reason.
This, too, would be difficult to prove in litigation.
Read more: Immigration officials arrest second person involved in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia
If you're a DACA recipient, you're at risk of having your status rescinded or deemed ineligible for renewal if you've been convicted of three or more misdemeanors, Garcia said. Participating in a protest is not a violation of the program.
"There are some grounds that are beyond just criminal activity, like national security-related grounds, but the government would have to argue that just your protest activity is sufficient," Arulanantham said.
Legal experts say non-U.S. citizens, regardless of their status, have 4th Amendment constitutional rights, so they can choose not to answer questions or open their door without seeing a valid warrant.
Arulanantham's advice for foreign students with temporary visas, other temporary visa holders and DACA recipients is: If you have employment authorization or other proof of status, you should carry it with you.
Students shouldn't carry documents that show they were born outside the U.S., he said, but instead those that prove they have lived here for more than two years. The government typically takes the position that if you lived here for less than two years, then you can be deported without an immigration court hearing under the expansion of expedited removal, he said.
Green card holders should carry their green card.
ICE agents could question people at a protest, for example, but Tenecora says they can't go any further without "reasonable suspicion that this person doesn't have lawful status."
Read more: UC unveils steep price tag for handling campus protests: $29 million, most for policing
Tenecora and Garcia advise against posting your participation in a protest, because the government can use it as evidence to connect you to the event.
If the protest turned violent, for example, and there is proof you at some point attended the protest, the government could use the photo or video and link you to a violent charge.
Both attorneys said non-U.S. citizens have a right to participate in protests and other forms of peaceful activism. However if you want to more clearly understand the risks associated with that, they recommend consulting a lawyer.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access
UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and the opening of all Israeli border crossings for deliveries of desperately needed food and other aid. The resolution, drafted by Spain and obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, 'strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.' Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas. Last week, the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly, where the resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created U.S. aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and south of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding U.N.-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order. The draft resolution being voted on Thursday references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement. When the U.S. vetoed last week's Gaza resolution, acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea said it would have undermined the security of Israel and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground.' Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution to be voted on Thursday also does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are U.S. demands. The Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage. About 55 hostages are still being held. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It says women and children make up most of the dead, but doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel says it has killed more than 20,000 militants, without providing evidence.

UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access
UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access

Hamilton Spectator

time24 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

UN to vote on resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and aid access

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and the opening of all Israeli border crossings for deliveries of desperately needed food and other aid. The resolution, drafted by Spain and obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, 'strongly condemns any use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.' Experts and human rights workers say hunger is widespread in Gaza and some 2 million Palestinians are at risk of famine if Israel does not fully lift its blockade and halt its military campaign, which it renewed in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas . Last week, the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid. The United States vetoed the resolution because it was not linked to the release of the hostages, while all 14 other members of the council voted in favor. There are no vetoes in the 193-member General Assembly, where the resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly. But unlike in the Security Council, assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are seen as a barometer of world opinion. After a 10-week blockade that barred all aid to Gaza, Israel is allowing the United Nations to deliver a trickle of food assistance and is backing a newly created U.S. aid group, which has opened several sites in the center and south of the territory to deliver food parcels. But the aid system rolled out last month by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has been troubled by near-daily shootings as crowds make their way to aid sites, while the longstanding U.N.-run system has struggled to deliver food because of Israeli restrictions and a breakdown of law and order. The draft resolution being voted on Thursday references a March 28 legally binding order by the top United Nations court for Israel to open more land crossings into Gaza for food, water, fuel and other supplies. The International Court of Justice issued the order in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its war in Gaza, charges Israel strongly denies. The resolution stresses that Israel, as an occupying power, has an obligation under international law to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It reiterates the assembly's commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Gaza Strip as part of a Palestinian state. The assembly is holding a high-level meeting next week to push for a two-state solution, which Israel has rejected. The resolution supports mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States aimed at implementing a January ceasefire agreement. When the U.S. vetoed last week's Gaza resolution, acting Ambassador Dorothy Shea said it would have undermined the security of Israel and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire 'that reflects the realities on the ground.' Like the failed Security Council resolution, the resolution to be voted on Thursday also does not condemn Hamas' deadly attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza. Both are U.S. demands. The Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage. About 55 hostages are still being held. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It says women and children make up most of the dead, but doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants. Israel says it has killed more than 20,000 militants, without providing evidence. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

US military adjusts Africa security strategy
US military adjusts Africa security strategy

News24

time26 minutes ago

  • News24

US military adjusts Africa security strategy

Africa should take greater ownership of its own security challenges. That was the message recently communicated by General Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (USAFRICOM). The unit is part of the US Department of Defence and is responsible for all defence operations and security cooperation on the African continent. The announcement comes as the United States rethinks its military strategy in Africa, signalling a significant shift in its approach to security on the continent. This adjustment aligns with a broader strategic pivot under the Trump administration, which is prioritising homeland security and a leaner, more lethal military force, while reducing the US military footprint overseas, including in Africa. But what could it mean for the continent? Africa's global relevance With its growing population and vast natural resources, Africa is strategically important to Europe and the United States. 'Africa is a strategic partner with a large and growing youth population - projected to double by 2045 according to the African Economic Outlook,' Adib Saani, a foreign policy and security analyst, told DW. 'The continent is rich, holding vast mineral resources and strategic reserves like uranium that both Western and Eastern countries heavily rely on.' The continent was also home to 11 of the world's 20 fastest-growing economies in 2024. 'The US and others engage with Africa not just out of goodwill but because these resources are vital for running industries worldwide,' Saani said. This makes the relationship mutually beneficial - a win-win for Africa and the rest of the world. Adib Saani However, the Trump administration's defence strategy has shifted focus away from protecting the US from threats emanating from abroad, including countering terrorist organisations such as the so-called 'Islamic State' (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda, which have expanded their presence and capabilities in Africa. 'Sharing the burden' of security operations Previously, US military efforts in Africa combined defence, diplomacy and development. 'America has been a close partner in countering violent extremism, especially in Eastern and West Africa,' Saani explained. 'We have relied heavily on US logistics, training and intelligence sharing to address these threats. In terms of human security, the US has also contributed through USAID and other programs that have helped lift many out of poverty.' USAFRICOM head Langley said the military's priorities now focus on homeland protection, encouraging instead 'burden sharing' with African partners. He said the goal is to build local military capacity to enable independent operations and reduce reliance on US forces. This shift was evident during the latest African Lion joint military exercise. The annual event is the largest military exercise on the continent and emphasizes combined air, land and sea operations with more than 40 participating nations. The latest edition, in May, lacked the US-led efforts usually apparent and instead focused on collaboration and cooperation. What could reduced US involvement mean? Yet foreign policy analyst Adib Saani warned that a diminished US presence could create a power vacuum, emboldening militant networks and undermining years of counterterrorism efforts. 'If the US withdraws its support, it would hit us hard. It could embolden terrorists to carry out more lethal and audacious attacks, knowing there is no major power backing our fight. This would also dampen the morale of our soldiers who face these threats daily, and place significant economic pressure on affected countries,' he said. Abukar Mohamed Muhudin/Anadolu via Getty Images USAFRICOM currently deploys roughly 6 500 personnel across Africa and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance. With that gone, Saani worries Africa will not be able to be fully independent when it comes to security. 'It will be difficult in terms of logistics and technology - we are simply not there yet. Security is a shared responsibility and works best when it involves multiple actors. In my opinion, Africa cannot do it alone.' Russia, China step in to fill security vacuum African countries will need to look for other allies - both new and old, say experts. China has already launched extensive military training programs for African forces, replicating aspects of the US military model, while Russian mercenaries have established themselves as key security partners in North, West and Central Africa. 'China's approach in the past has mainly been economic,' Saani explained. The US, he pointed out, has primarily focused on military support, in addition to providing economic help. 'The Russians have strong presence with both economic and military involvement. It feels like everyone is competing for attention. The clear message is that there's a need to diversify partnerships. We can't rely solely on the US; we may also need to engage more with the Russians and others.' Can Africa succeed alone? Some voices say the lack of US support could be a wake-up call for African countries, forcing them to consider their own resources and rise to the challenge. African nations must now take the opportunity to review their security resources, Saani said, and collaborate more closely. 'Building up our defence industry is also critical. This means developing industrial capacity and enhancing the capabilities of our armed forces,' he added. 'We also need to tackle corruption to ensure that funds are not getting lost in people's pockets but are instead used to improve people's lives.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store