Federal government outlines its basis to deport Mahmoud Khalil in new memo
The memo says the Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate is deportable because of his 'beliefs, statements or associations' that would compromise US foreign policy interests. It was submitted in response to a request from an immigration judge for evidence to support the deportation case.
The administration previously said it based its deportation order for Khalil on an obscure provision from the Immigration and Nationality Act – which provides broad authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a person's immigration status if their 'activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' to the country.
'For cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien's presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest,' the memo from the secretary reads.
The secretary made his determination 'based on information provided by the DHS/ICE/HSI regarding the participation and roles of (redacted) and Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States,' Rubio states.
The actions and continued presence of Khalil in the US 'undermine U.S. policy to combat anti- Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States,' the memo continues.
The memo contains no allegations of criminal activity.
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans ordered the federal government to turn over evidence supporting its order to remove Khalil, a legal permanent resident, from the US by Wednesday evening or she would move to terminate the case, according to Khalil's lawyers.
Khalil's lawyers told CNN they do not expect the federal government to provide additional evidence to fulfill the judge's request.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war. The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas' deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack — amounts to genocide. The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations. That's because of the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews, and because many in Israel view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination. Shattering a taboo in Israel The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. 'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel, and coming to this conclusion, is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants. Israel's government on Monday didn't immediately comment on the reports by B'Tselem and PHRI. Israeli officials largely blame civilian deaths in Gaza on Hamas, saying it uses civilians as shields by embedding militants in residential areas. The reports echo international claims The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel's policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory's health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide. Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Like other rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts. Hamas' attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country's policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from 'repression and control to destruction and annihilation,' B'Tselem said. The group has long been outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army's investigations into wrongdoing weren't serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state. The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food. Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society. A 'painful' conclusion The term 'genocide' strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors' harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again. The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' 'As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it's very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,' said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said. Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza. Broader scrutiny of Israel's conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel's growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness. And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it's difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war. Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn't take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel's right to defend itself. Israelis' focus is on the hostages, not Palestinians After groups like B'Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways. Israeli historian Tom Segev said he's not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public. 'The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,' he said. But he said what's happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel. The rights groups said the international community hasn't done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up. 'We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B'Tselem.
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Two Israeli rights groups say their country is committing genocide in Gaza
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Two prominent Israeli rights groups on Monday said their country is committing genocide in Gaza, the first time that local Jewish-led organizations have made such accusations against Israel during nearly 22 months of war. The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to an explosive debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza — launched in response to Hamas' deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack — amounts to genocide. The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations. That's because of the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews, and because many in Israel view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination. Shattering a taboo in Israel The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. 'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel, and coming to this conclusion, is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants. Israel's government on Monday didn't immediately comment on the reports by B'Tselem and PHRI. Israeli officials largely blame civilian deaths in Gaza on Hamas, saying it uses civilians as shields by embedding militants in residential areas. The reports echo international claims The rights groups, in separate reports released jointly, said Israel's policies in Gaza, statements by senior officials about its goals there and the systematic dismantling of the territory's health system contributed to their conclusion of genocide. Their claims echoed those of previous reports from international rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Like other rights groups, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have not been allowed into Gaza during the war. Their reports are based on testimonies, documents, eyewitnesses and consultations with legal experts. Hamas' attack on Israel that started the war sparked a shift in the country's policy toward Palestinians in Gaza from 'repression and control to destruction and annihilation,' B'Tselem said. The group has long been outspoken about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. It halted cooperation with the military nearly a decade ago, saying the army's investigations into wrongdoing weren't serious, and it has accused Israel of being an apartheid state . The PHRI report was a detailed, legal-medical analysis focusing on what it called the step-by-step dismantling of Gaza's health and life-sustaining systems including electricity, clean water and access to food. Its report says Israel has committed three of the acts of genocide defined by international law, including 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.' The Israeli rights groups said repeated statements by Israeli officials and the military endorsing the total destruction, starvation and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, combined with policies on the ground, have demonstrated that Israel is intentionally trying to destroy Palestinian society. A 'painful' conclusion The term 'genocide' strikes a chord in Israel, where Israelis grow up learning about the Holocaust and hearing survivors' harrowing stories, while promising it would never happen again. The 1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the murder by Nazi Germany of 6 million Jews. It defines genocide as acts 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' 'As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, it's very painful for me to be reaching this conclusion,' said Shalev from PHRI. But after growing up in a society where the Holocaust was so important, it demands some kind of responsibility, he said. Until now, Israeli criticism of the war in Gaza has been focused on Netanyahu and whether his wartime decision-making has been politically motivated and delayed the return of hostages — 50 of them still in Gaza. Broader scrutiny of Israel's conduct in Gaza has been limited for multiple reasons. Despite the vast destruction and death in the territory and Israel's growing international isolation, most Israelis have believed for much of the war in its righteousness. And with most Jewish Israelis serving in the army, it's difficult for most people to fathom that their relatives in uniform could be carrying out genocide. Some soldiers, however, have refused to fight in the war. Jeffrey Herf, a historian who has published much on antisemitism, said the allegation of genocide doesn't take into account that there is a war between two parties. He said it ignores Hamas as a military force and Israel's right to defend itself. Israelis' focus is on the hostages, not Palestinians After groups like B'Tselem in recent years accused Israel of apartheid, more mainstream voices in Israel also picked up the claim, although in less sweeping ways. Israeli historian Tom Segev said he's not sure the new reports and their allegations will have an impact on the public. 'The major thing for Israelis is a question of the hostages, not necessarily the fate of the population in Gaza,' he said. But he said what's happening in Gaza is undermining the ideological and moral justification for the existence of Israel. The rights groups said the international community hasn't done enough to protect Palestinians and are calling on the world, including Israelis who have stayed silent, to speak up. 'We have an obligation to do everything we can to speak the truth about this, to stand by the victims,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international director for B'Tselem. 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 .
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
President Ocasio-Cortez isn't as far of a reach as it once was
In a move that surprised many on both sides of the political aisle, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently voted — with an overwhelming majority of House Democrats and Republicans — to support funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. To be sure, Ocasio-Cortez's vote made little difference to the final tally. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), which could have cut U.S. support, was shot down 422-6. Nevertheless, voting to support continued funding was extremely revealing for what it says about Ocasio-Cortez's grander ambitions. Indeed, not only did her vote mark a clear break with other members of the progressive 'Squad,' who made up five of the six objections. More importantly, it positioned Ocasio-Cortez closer to the Democratic mainstream at a time when her name has been brought up as a candidate for the Senate, and potentially even President. Further, this vote positions the congresswoman well vis-à-vis Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who trails Ocasio-Cortez by 19-points (55 percent to 36 percent) in a poll reported by Politico. This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has broken from the progressive wing in order to strengthen her candidacy for higher office, although it is the most serious. In 2021, in the wake of another war between Israel and Gaza, Ocasio-Cortez publicly lobbied against Iron Dome funding only to reverse course and vote 'present.' At the time, MSNBC called her actions a bid to 'preserve the possibility of challenging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.' Much like that vote, Ocasio-Cortez has maintained her image as a critic of Israel, but one who recognizes its right to exist and to self-defense, albeit her recent statements make it clear that she has an extremely narrow definition of 'self-defense.' This position, much closer to the wider Democratic Party and national electorate, is also in stark contrast with other progressive rising stars, such as Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, the front-runner to be New York City's next Mayor has said Israel should not exist as a Jewish State, expressed support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement, and who has taken a decisively one-sided view to Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks as well as the ensuring war. And yet, given the vastly different circumstances between the 2021 vote and present day, Ocasio-Cortez's July 18 vote carries considerably more weight. For months, even as many have doubted Ocasio-Cortez's viability for statewide or national office, she has travelled the country, drawing thousands to her rallies. Even in red states and districts, voters are coming out to see her. At one rally in Plattsburgh, N.Y., a district represented by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly drew a full 10 percent of the entire town. In that same vein, she has shown herself to be unmatched at fundraising ability. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $15.4 million this year, nearly twice as much as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and 23 times more than Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the longest serving woman in the House. Moreover, virtually all (99 percent) of Ocasio-Cortez's contributions have come from individuals — her average donation in the second quarter was just $17 — rather than big-spending political action committees. Tellingly, almost three-quarters (72 percent) of her contributions have come from out of state, with a significant share also being spent on advertising in states other than New York. In fact, at this point — three years out from the 2028 elections — Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly more popular, marketable and noteworthy than former President Barack Obama was three years before the 2008 election. Obama, it will be remembered, was not even included in polls during the summer of 2005. His first appearance in a national poll came that December but was still considered such a longshot that his next appearance did not come until October of 2006. Conversely, the Race to the White House polling aggregator shows Ocasio-Cortez (12 percent) in fourth place, and she's consistently a top five finisher in individual polls. Polymarket even shows her having the second-best odds, 17 percent, behind only Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) at 21 percent. Additionally, in Democratic primaries, the left-wing of the party tends to dominate, giving her a considerable boost, particularly given the enthusiasm she tends to generate among this group. Taken together, it increasingly appears that Ocasio-Cortez's growing national appeal supports her growing political ambitions. However, as I've stated elsewhere, there are legitimate reasons to doubt whether her viability for higher office corresponds with her aspirations. Aside from her age, she will turn 39 three weeks before the 2028 election, and inexperience, Ocasio-Cortez's political leanings could alienate a sufficient number of swing voters. The 2024 election indicated that Americans, including a significant number of Democrats, do not want a far-left Democratic Party, and Ocasio-Cortez has historically been squarely on that side. Likewise, even if she is taking steps to quietly move to the center on some issues, she may be underestimating the potential damage it may do among her own base of support. Just days after the vote on the amendment, a far-left group defaced Ocasio-Cortez's Bronx office, painting 'Ocasio-Cortez funds genocide' in red paint. Her campaign advisor has also said that they've received death threats due to her vote. Without downplaying the seriousness and inexcusability of political violence, it is doubtful that the far-left would stay away if Ocasio-Cortez began to be considered a legitimate frontrunner in the next three years. Furthermore, were she to become the party's nominee for either the Senate or the presidency, there is likely a 'built in' vote among Democratic voters who would support the party, regardless of the candidate. That's especially true given that she addresses critical needs for Democrats — their lack of fresh ideas, new faces and overall lack of energy. Of course, this is certainly not to suggest that she will be the nominee. She may very well decide that making a run at the Senate first makes more sense. Her appeal may also begin to fade between now and 2028. Ultimately, the prospect of Ocasio-Cortez becoming Democrats' 2028 presidential nominee is not out of the realm of reason, and even looks considerably more plausible than it did just one year ago. Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of 'The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.'
