Trump's free speech assault is worrying – even if he's right to deport protester
Trump's free speech assault is worrying – even if he's right to deport protester | Opinion If the Trump administration, as well as others in the future, make these deportations a common occurrence, resident aliens within our country will essentially no longer get to enjoy free speech.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Protesters take over Trump Tower for release of Mahmoud Khalil
Demonstrators with the organization Jewish Voice for Peace were arrested after demanding Mahmoud Khalil's release by staging a Trump Tower sit-in.
Last week, the Trump administration announced that they would be seeking the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student who led anti-Israel protests on campus following Hamas' attack on Oct. 7, 2023.
Despite the legal questions surrounding the deportation proceeding, it appears that the Trump administration's action is legal from a process standpoint. The president seems to have authority to deport green card holders based on actions that would have prevented them from entering the country in the first place.
However, this doesn't mean this action is without negative consequences. Not everything legal is purely good, or even good at all.
While I agree with the decision to seek deportation in this case, Americans should be concerned about the free speech implications of deporting Khalil and the further exploration of this power.
Trump administration's actions on Mahmoud Khalil chill free speech
Despite the legal battles going on surrounding the administration's attempt to deport Khalil, I'm inclined to agree with many of the conservative experts who have found the administration's action to be legal.
The executive branch has the ability to deport those who act in detriment to the foreign policy goals of the United States. While green card holders, like Khalil, are afforded additional due process guardrails than temporary visa holders, if the government meets the burden of proof needed to deport them then officials are entirely within their rights to do so.
The extent of Khalil's individual participation is not fully known publicly yet, but he is often cited as an organizer of Columbia's New York campus, where students illegally occupied campus buildings and the Trump administration claims 'pro-Hamas propaganda' was distributed.
Opinion: I support Israel, but Trump's arrest of pro-Palestinian protester crosses a line
The administration alleges that Khalil helped to distribute flyers featuring images of now-dead Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, as well as other examples of Hamas imagery. Other posters depict a boot stomping on a Star of David or bear the term "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood," the codename for the Hamas attacks on Israel that killed 1,200 people.
Again, I agree with the deportation in this case. But what happens when a future Democrat administration seeks to deport a green card holder who is protesting outside of an abortion clinic? Would Republicans have defended the right of the Biden administration to deport green card-holding parents who were deemed terrorist threats for protesting local school board actions?
As free speech advocates have pointed out, Khalil's detainment is almost certainly to have a chilling effect on free speech among noncitizens in our country. Resident aliens are almost certain to take into account the risk of their speech resulting in their deportation before they share their views.
Furthermore, not every resident alien understands the nuances of the law to the extent that pundits do, meaning that they are likely to err on the side of caution and avoid public political speech altogether.
This chilling effect is particularly worrying because of the unavoidable fact that there is viewpoint discrimination in those being targeted by deportation. It's pretty clear to many free speech advocates, including myself, that the Trump administration is enforcing their view of immigration law based on their viewpoint.
The Trump White House's hypocrisy is on full display
As The Dispatch's Nick Catoggio highlighted, the Trump administration has not taken the same approach to antisemites aligned with the right, such as Andrew and Tristan Tate. Although their case is different, given that they are U.S. citizens, the Tate brothers were recently enabled to return to the United States from Romania with the assistance of the Trump administration.
The pair have a long history of antisemitic behavior, but Trump and many of his supporters are willing to brush that to the side given their right-wing politics.
None of this is to say I sympathize with Khalil. As a matter of fact, I despise everything that he's accused to have done on the campus of Columbia University. I even agree that he is likely one of the most extreme cases, and that his green card being revoked is a perfectly reasonable response to the allegations against Khalil, so long as it ends up being accurate and legal.
However, I am worried about the implications of this power and how it can be used in the future. We don't want an executive branch that decides what constitutes terrorist activity, and what speech constitutes support for said terrorists.
Trump has promised this will be "the first arrest of many to come." U.S. officials have pursued two others, one justifiably so for having an expired visa and another accused of "advocating for violence and terrorism."
While I agree that all participants of these student protests are lending ideological support for Hamas in practice, not every student has that intention. There are reasonable objections to the ways that Israel has conducted its military response in Gaza, which is something people on the right don't like to admit. Plenty of college students object to Israel's methodology in combatting Hamas, rather than their right to defend themselves altogether.
Opinion: Why do I criticize Trump so much if I'm conservative? I expect better from GOP.
Thus far, the Trump administration has kept these immigration actions narrow, to those who have actively promoted Hamas or advocated for violence.
Utilizing this power may be good policy in these cases, but it opens up countless possibilities for abuse by this administration and future administrations.It should be reserved for only the worst offenders, namely the organizers of such vile demonstrations, who are actively encouraging America's college campuses to turn into terror-sympathizing hot spots.
Not everything is cut and dry, as much as pundits want you to think it is
There is not a clear-cut debate. There should be consequences for resident aliens who spread support for hostile terrorist organizations on our campuses, but the administration's actions certainly open up unnerving possibilities for the use of the deportation power.
In my view, this power should be exercised sparingly. If the administration opens this up to any student studying in America on a visa who engaged in anti-Israel protests, then the detriment to free speech will be far too great.
If the Trump administration, as well as others in the future, make these deportations a common occurrence, resident aliens within our country will essentially no longer get to enjoy the right of free speech. While they don't have the rights of citizens, it's about whether America ought to be a place where speech is silenced.
As much as I personally despise the actions of Khalil and other campus anti-Israel protests, I disagree with those who think resident aliens don't enjoy any level of speech protections. The Dispatch's Catoggio characterized it as the rights of a 'tenant, possessing fewer rights than a landowner but a lot more than a 'guest.' '
If true, can Trump deport any noncitizen who says something critical of him? Can he deport them just because he feels like it? Certainly there are some rights afforded to this class of people, less than that of citizens but more than that of illegal immigrants. Maybe the Supreme Court will eventually clarify the matter.
The Trump administration's officials should exercise caution when it comes to pushing the boundaries for free speech, even when it comes to noncitizens. Though caution is not in their MO, I hope they at least weigh the free speech interest in these cases before jettisoning legal residents.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
School presidents celebrate the value of faith-based higher education
WASHINGTON — Nearly 2 million students attend faith-based colleges and universities, a fast-growing segment of American higher education that now has a new tool to share its story. Over 50 college and university presidents gathered Monday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in the nation's capital and vigorously applauded after watching the first episode of a new BYUtv documentary series, 'Higher Ed: The Power of Faith-Inspired Learning in America." 'Faith-based institutions are the bedrock of American higher education, and we've not paid adequate attention to that role and to that responsibility,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. ACE launched a Commission on Faith-based Colleges and Universities last year and Monday's event drew the presidents of dozens of commission member schools, including Notre Dame, Yeshiva University and Brigham Young University. The event also drew representatives of the U.S. Department of Education, the Faith Angle Forum, the American Enterprise Institute and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, as well as reporters from The Washington Post and other media outlets. The new BYUtv documentary highlights students and presidents at three faith-based schools — Catholic University of America, Taylor University and BYU-Hawaii. 'This is a way of saying, 'Faith institutions have a contribution to make,'' said Elder Clark G. Gilbert, the commissioner of education for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Two additional episodes will be released in August and will include students from other commission schools. Those schools amount to 10% of the nation's colleges and universities and are excited to tell their stories, four presidents said during a panel discussion. Their stories need to be told even to people of faith, said Ryan Burge, the event's keynote speaker and a well-known analyst of data on faith and religion at Eastern Illinois University. Burge said it's a myth that college is a place where students lose their faith. 'College is not antithetical to religion,' he said. 'In some ways, it accelerates religion, enhances religion.' Data shows that the more educated Americans are, the more faithful they are, Burge said. He has found that the more Americans are educated and faithful, the more they flourish in numerous data sets. 'To summarize, education is good. Religion is good. Education plus religion is good,' he said. 'It causes trust. It makes us more loving of our neighbors. It increases our income. It increases all these outcomes.' In the documentary, Isabela Barboza said she decided to attend Catholic University of America because she decided that 'if religion is part of my life, it has to be part of my education and formation.' Taylor University student Hannah Wylie, whose parents attended Harvard and Brown, said she struggled before turning down her own Ivy League offer to attend the small evangelical school in Upland, Indiana. She is grateful she did. 'I wanted to be taught to think deeply about things I was doing,' she said in the documentary. 'I wanted to do things for a purpose.' Every college and university president in America is grappling with data that shows students facing a crisis of meaning in their lives. Rabbi Avi Berman, the president of Yeshiva University, took a moment of gratitude during the panel discussion because he found the documentary powerful. 'Young people are looking to university to find themselves and their values because they are not seeing answers to their deep, existential questions in the ephemeral choices being offered them in other institutions,' he said. Lipscomb University President Candice McQueen said she was grateful the documentary illustrated what colleges and universities like her Churches of Christ school in Nashville, Tennessee, bring to the table. The Rev. Robert Dowd, president of the University of Notre Dame, said his school takes a both-and approach to the holistic growth of its students. 'Notre Dame is a place where we educate the whole person, where both faith and reason are engaged, where matters of the heart as well as the life of the mind are very much valued,' he said. 'We want our students to grow not only in understanding, in knowledge and in technical skills but in wisdom, and we want them to grow in faith, hope and love.' Among those in attendance were BYU President Shane Reese, BYU-Idaho President Alvin Meredith, BYU-Pathway Worldwide President Brian Ashton and Ensign College President Bruce Kusch. BYU-Hawaii President John Kauwe wasn't at the Kennedy Center, but he was seen in the documentary riding a skateboard on the Laie, Hawaii, campus in white Nikes with a black swoosh and a splash of blue. 'What faith-based institutions offer is another type of belonging,' Kauwe says in the 30-minute film. The presidents met in working groups in the morning to learn about best practices around issues like hiring people who fit a school's mission and how to share and elevate stories about their faith-based schools. Elder Gilbert said the Commission on Faith-based Colleges and Universities creates a friendship for every school. 'There is connectivity for those who always feel like the odd man out,' he said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
