Yes, Support For Terrorism Is Grounds For Deportation

The Law Is Explicit

In addition to Mahmoud Khalil we are now asked to be appalled at the pending deportation of Rumeysa Ozturk, after her visa was revoked by the US State Department.

Ozturk is one of several foreign nationals affiliated with prestigious American universities to be arrested under the Trump administration for purported activities related to terrorist organizations, including Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent Palestinian activist, who was taken into custody at his Columbia University housing earlier this month.

Ozturk “engaged in activities in support of Hamas,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday. The spokesperson didn’t specify what those alleged activities were.

No charges have been filed against Ozturk, her attorney told CNN.

Corporate media still insists on being shocked and appalled at such detentions and deportations, unable to fathom that a person’s visa might be revoked when the US State Department finds them supporting a known terrorist organization.

Corporate media insists you believe this is dangerous suppression of Free Speech.

Corporate media is wrong. Once again, this is not a Free Speech issue. This is an issue of visa holders not complying with the terms and conditions under which a visa is issued.

But “All” She Did Was Write An Op-Ed Piece

Rumeysa Ozturk is in the United States on an F1 Visa, pursuing a graduate degree at Tufts University. At the time of her detention earlier this week, she was close to completing her dissertation.

What is being reported as the reason for the revocation of her visa is that she wrote an Op-Ed piece last March in the Tufts University newspaper criticizing the university for not “divesting” from Israel.

In March 2024, Ozturk cowrote an op-ed in the school’s newspaper where she criticized Tufts’ response to the pro-Palestinian movement.

On its face, this certainly sounds ominous. Arrest someone for what they said certainly has an Orwellian look of censorship to it.

Surely anyone who supports Free Speech would defend her right to speak her mind. To be clear, she does have a right to speak out in favor of Hamas and the Arabs in Gaza. That is what Free Speech is. The right to voice the unpopular opinion is essential to Free Speech, and is why I say Free Speech is a Moral Imperative.

Speech Or Silence: Free Speech Is A Moral Imperative

However, the devil is always in the details, and the detail here is that Rumeysa Ozturk is not a US citizen, but a foreign national given permission to enter the United States to attend school.

Yes, that does change things. That detail brings what she wrote to the fore and opens it up for interrogation.

So what did she say in her Op-Ed piece?

On March 4, the Tufts Community Union Senate passed 3 out of 4 resolutions demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel. These resolutions were the product of meaningful debate by the Senate and represent a sincere effort to hold Israel accountable for clear violations of international law. Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.

Unfortunately, the University’s response to the Senate resolutions has been wholly inadequate and dismissive of the Senate, the collective voice of the student body. Graduate Students for Palestine joins Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine to reject the University’s response. Although graduate students were not allowed by the University into the Senate meeting, which lasted for almost eight hours, our presence on campus and financial entanglement with the University via tuition payments and the graduate work that we do on grants and research makes us direct stakeholders in the University’s stance.

The resolutions she references were adopted by the Tufts Community Union Senate (the university’s student government body) proposed by a group called the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation.

Moreover, the Senate meeting where the resolutions were debated was itself marked by a problematic treatment of the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by the Hamas terrorist group which governs Gaza.

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.”

There were allegations of anti-Semitic comments and gestures made at that meeting.

Moreover, the Coalition itself has been quite forward in criticizing not just Israel but the United States government, comparing both the current Trump and prior Biden Administrations to fascist regimes.

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.

That is the organization Rumesya Ozturk explicitly supported by her Op-Ed. It is an organization which has minimized the atrocity of October 7, which is by definition a form of support for Hamas. It’s not “material support”, which would be a violation under US law, but it is still “support”.

“Endorsing” Terrorism Is Grounds For Denying Or Revoking A Visa

Within the law, there is no doubt that supporting such causes is sufficient grounds for denying a visa. Specifically, the law¹ declares an alien inadmissible when he or she

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

Keep in mind what it means to “endorse” anything, but especially a cause, organization, or activity:

2a: to approve openly

“Espouse” is synonymous with “endorse”:

2 : to take up and support as a cause : become attached to

Rumesya Ozturk, by supporting the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation which openly valorizes Hamas and vilifies Israel, has demonstrably endorsed Hamas’ terrorist activity.

Did she raise money or recruit personnel to actively participate in Hamas terror campaigns? There is no evidence that she did—but if there were such evidence then that would be itself the criminal act of providing material support for terrorism². As of this writing, no charges have been filed.

Ms. Ozturk’s detention is due to her visa having been cancelled and deportation proceedings commenced. The State Department is within its rights to revoke her visa, at which point deportation is the default outcome. That’s the letter of the law³.

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.

Does the revocation of the visa violate Ms Ozturk’s First Amendment rights? No. Her utterances are not being criminalized—we know this because no charges have been filed. However, her utterances in support of the terrorist activity of Hamas and in particular the genocidal attack on October 7, 2023, places her very much in the category of a resident alien with a conflict against the United States.

Bear in mind that Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Bear in mind also that President George W. Bush, in a joint address to Congress on September 20, 2001⁴, announced a “global war on terror” that very much included Hamas within its scope. This was given legal form by an Authorization to Use Military Force⁵ passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. Although the AUMF is over two decades old, Congress has never passed subsequent legislation terminating its effect or declaring the conflict over terrorism over. Even if one wishes to argue that Congress should do exactly that, the reality the Bush-declared “global war on terror” and the reality of the AUMF establishes a very solid legal basis for considering non-citizens who endorses or espouse Hamas or any of its actions to be alien enemies.

There has not been a time in the United States when the status of alien enemy was not understood as one demanding removal. While Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts passed on the summer of 1798 broadly, the one act they did not oppose was the Alien Enemies Act, as James Madison’s report on the Virginia Resolution makes clear⁶:

The next observation to be made is, that much confusion and fallacy have been thrown into the question, by blending the two cases of aliens, members of a hostile nation; and aliens, members of friendly nations. These two cases are so obviously and so essentially distinct, that it occasions no little surprise that the distinction should have been disregarded; and the surprise is so much the greater, as it appears that the two cases are factually distinguished by two separate acts of Congress, passed at the same session, and comprised in the same publication; the one providing for the case of "alien enemies;" the other "concerning aliens" indiscriminately; and consequently extending to aliens of every nation in peace and amity with the United States. With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has been intimated as to the federal authority over them; the Constitution having expressly delegated to Congress the power to declare war against any nation, and of course to treat it and all its members as enemies. With respect to aliens who are not enemies, but members of nations in peace and amity with the United States, the power assumed by the act of Congress is denied to be constitutional; and it is accordingly against this act that the protest of the General Assembly is expressly and exclusively directed.

The Secretary of State Marco Rubio is clearly operating within his discretion under 8 USC §1201. Further, Secretary Rubio has publicly established the parameters under which he will exercise that discretion—conduct which would be grounds for denying a visa under 8 USC §1182(a)(3) is grounds for revoking a visa under 8 USC §1201:

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.

Should these statutory authorities be repealed or modified? That is a policy argument, but it is one that no one has seen fit to advance thus far. If the presumption is that these laws are not in need of modification, and that these laws are constitutional, then there is no objection to be made to the Trump Administration utilizing their legally established prerogatives under these statutes.

Mahmoud Khalil Makes It Clear That “Pro-Palestinian” Rhetoric Is Support For Hamas

If Rumeysa Ozturk were an isolated case, arguing her Op-Ed constituted support for Hamas might be an uphill battle.

However, Rumeysa Ozturk is not an isolated case. The earlier case of Mahmoud Khalil makes it clear that much of the “pro-Palestinian” “cause” is support for the terrorist group Hamas.

Currently in detention and waiting deportation, Mahmoud Khalil likes to style himself a “political prisoner”. He is not. He is an immigrant alien awaiting deportation.

Why is he awaiting deportation? Because he supported the very pro-Hamas activities of the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. As a self-proclaimed “negotiator” for the group when it illegally took over Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall in the spring of 2024, Khalil’s support for the organization is not at all in question. It is proven beyond any and all doubt, principally by Khalil’s own claims and media statements.

Nor is it in question that CUAD illegally occupied Hamilton Hall on the Columbia University campus. Columbia University President Minouche Shafik’s own statement at the time of the occupation makes that clear.

Early Tuesday morning, tensions on our campus rose to new heights when a small group of protestors broke into Hamilton Hall, barricaded themselves inside, and occupied it throughout the day. This drastic escalation of many months of protest activity pushed the University to the brink, creating a disruptive environment for everyone and raising safety risks to an intolerable level.

Whatever else such an action might be, it is indisputably an act of criminal trespass. Khalil’s activities on behalf of the trespassers arguably is its own legal swam with respect to his visa, as he was facilitating a criminal act with his “negotiations”.

However, even without considering that aspect, there is no doubt that CUAD unabashedly supports Hamas. Their own published statements make that crystal clear. We need look no further than their Substack essay valorizing October 7, 2023 on its one-year anniversary to see that.

Under a remarkably clear October sky, Columbia students flooded the steps of Low Library to commemorate the anniversary of the historic Al-Aqsa Flood.

However, we absolutely can look farther, for CUAD has not been shy about publishing such statements.

CUAD took great pains to derogate and demean Veterans Day in 2024, casting aspersions on all veterans of America’s armed forces.

On November 11, CUAD honored Martyrs Day. In the US, this holiday, known as Veterans Day, was created to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of American veterans. We refuse to honor the US war machine and its imperial project, and we recognize atrocities unleashed on others through its existence. Instead, we have decided to take this day and claim it for those martyred by the Israel-US war machine as Martyrs Day. Today, we will honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of our martyrs in Palestine.

This is the advocacy and policy of the organization of which Mahmoud Khalil freely admits to being a member.

There simply is no disputation that Mahmoud Khalil has supported Hamas. Given the willful disruptions and the objectives of weakening support US-Israeli relations, Mahmoud Khalil’s activities potentially rise to the level of “material support”, at which point criminal charges could be preferred.

However, with the prevalence of such organizations and the prevalence of non-citizens within their leadership across the country, a clear pattern emerges within the “pro-Palestinian” protest movement, a pattern of foreign nationals actively working to subvert official US policies while on US soil.

Should this behavior be tolerated? Should such foreign nationals be permitted to remain in this country even though they are at declared odds with the United States?

A Visa Is A Privilege, Not A Right

8 USC §1201 makes one legal point absolutely certain: Every visa and resident alien status in this country is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Every visa and resident alien status is by that fact alone a demonstrable privilege rather than a fundamental right. No person on this good Earth has the legal right to expect that any sort of visa at all as their just due.

8 USC §1182 makes it just as clear that a visa is conditional. There are strings attached. There is an agreement made between the visa holder and the United States government: the visa holder is not going to support terrorism, among other things.

Anyone who supports terrorism is by law inadmissible to the United States. Any non-citizen who is here legally and then demonstrates support for terrorism is likewise subject to revocation of their visa or status and thereafter to deportation. Not only is that the law, but that is the clear consequence they should expect for breaking the agreement made when they accepted the visa.

People can, of course, argue that 8 USC §1182 and 8 USC §1201 are unconstitutional, or perhaps should be modified. People can argue that the “global war on terror” is an illegal or at least poorly defined conflict that Congress needs to bring to an end. Perhaps they are right.

However, none of these arguments are being advanced with respect to Rumesya Ozturk or Mahmoud Khalil. Instead, the clear letter of the law regarding visas is being ignored and a sea of irrelevancies about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not apply—not because Rumesya Ozturk or Mahmoud Khalil are being censored, or because their rights are less than anyone else, but because their rhetoric and their actions result in anti-Semitic violence and property damage. Their rhetoric and their actions demonstrate support for the activities of Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

This, the non-citizen may not do.

The non-citizen is obligated to refrain from attacking the US government, belittling US citizens—veterans especially—or from politically agitating to alter US foreign policy. This is the agreement which is made by every foreign national who applies for a visa with which to enter the United States.

This is the plain reading of the law surrounding visas and resident aliens. This is the authority of the United States government which is very clearly not being challenged—certainly not directly, and certainly not by any presumptive advocate for Rumesya Ozturk or Mahmoud Khalil.

If people want to permit these things, they need to campaign for either a repeal of the law or a modification of the law.

However, so long as this is the status of US law, it is both foolish and absurd to condemn anyone, including President Trump, for using every tool and resource at his disposal to ensure that the United States, its territories, and its people, are kept safe.

Ensuring the United States, its territories, and its people are kept safe is what the President’s job is. On that point, the law is—and has always been—very explicit.

1. 8 USC §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

2. 18 USC §2339A

3. 8 USC §1201(i)

4. Bush, G. W. President Declares “Freedom at War with Fear.” 20 Sept. 2001, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html. Archived at https://archive.ph/scMql

5. Public Law 107-40

6. Madison, J. Report on the Virginia Resolutions | Wikisource, the Free Online Library. 24 Dec. 1798, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Madison’s_Report_on_the_Virginia_Resolutions.