&w=3840&q=100)
US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian Columbia graduate from immigration custody
A U.S. judge ordered on Friday that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be released immediately from immigration custody, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist.
Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war on Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Khalil became the first target of this policy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
After hearing oral arguments from lawyers for Khalil and for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered DHS to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana by as soon as 6:30 pm (7:30 ET) on Friday.
Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk nor a danger to the public.
'There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner (Khalil),' Farbiarz said as he ruled from the bench, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional.
Khalil was the latest in a string of foreign pro-Palestinian students arrested in the U.S. starting in March who have subsequently been released by a judge. They include Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysya Ozturk.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., says he is being punished for his political speech in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Khalil condemned antisemitism and racism in interviews with CNN and other news outlets last year.
The Syrian-born activist plans to return to New York to be with his wife Dr. Noor Abdalla and their infant son who was born during Khalil's 104 days in detention.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'This ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others," Abdalla said in a statement. 'Today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom."
The White House condemned the decision to release Khalil, saying he should be deported for 'conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests' and fraudulently obtaining a student visa.
'There is no basis for a local federal judge in New Jersey —who lacks jurisdiction — to order Khalil's release from a detention facility in Louisiana,' White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. 'We expect to be vindicated on appeal."
Even though a federal judge ordered Khalil be freed, the immigration proceedings against him continue.
The Louisiana immigration judge in his case on Friday denied his asylum request, ruled he could be deported based on the government's allegations of immigration fraud, and denied a bail hearing. Farbiarz's decision rendered the bail request moot.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Like others facing deportation, Khalil has avenues to appeal within the immigration system. Farbiarz is also considering Khalil's challenge of his deportation on constitutional grounds, and has blocked officials from deporting Khalil while that challenge plays out.
Earlier this month, Farbiarz ruled the government was violating Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a little-used law granting the U.S. secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests.
On June 13, the judge declined to order Khalil's release from a detention center in Jena, Louisiana, after Trump's administration said Khalil was being held on a separate charge that he withheld information from his application for lawful permanent residency.
Khalil's lawyers deny that allegation and say people are rarely detained on such charges. On June 16, they urged Farbiarz to grant a separate request from their client to be released on bail or be transferred to immigration detention in New Jersey to be closer to his family in New York.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At Friday's hearing, Farbiarz said it was 'highly unusual' for the government to jail an immigrant accused of omissions in his application for U.S. permanent residency.
Khalil, 30, became a U.S. permanent resident last year, and his wife and newborn son are U.S. citizens.
Trump administration lawyers wrote in a June 17 filing that Khalil's request for release should be addressed to the judge overseeing his immigration case, an administrative process over whether he can be deported, rather than to Farbiarz, who is considering whether Khalil's March 8 arrest and subsequent detention were constitutional.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
UK PM Starmer to convene cabinet over Gaza amid calls to recognise Palestinian state
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to recall his cabinet next week to address the crisis in Gaza, following mounting pressure from Labour MPs to recognise a Palestinian state read more British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will convene a cabinet meeting next week, a government source said on Sunday, most likely to discuss the situation in Gaza after coming under growing pressure to recognise a Palestinian state. The Financial Times, which initially reported the story, said ministers, currently in a summer recess until September 1, would reconvene to discuss Gaza. Starmer's office did not immediately reply to a Reuters request for comment. The recall comes after Starmer said on Friday the British government would recognise a Palestinian state only as part of a negotiated peace deal, disappointing many in his Labour Party who want him to follow France in taking swifter action. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday France would recognise a Palestinian state, a plan that drew strong condemnation from Israel and the United States, after similar moves from Spain, Norway and Ireland last year. More than 220 members of parliament in the UK, mostly Labour members representing about a third of the House of Commons, wrote to Starmer on Friday urging him to recognise a Palestinian state. Successive British governments have said they will formally recognise a Palestinian state when the time is right, without setting a timetable or specifying the necessary conditions. Starmer's approach has been complicated by the arrival in Scotland on Friday of U.S. President Donald Trump, with whom he has built warm relations. In foreign policy terms, Britain has rarely diverged from the United States. Israel has been facing growing international criticism, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government rejects, over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Clearing the air on ‘citizenship' in Bihar poll roll revision
It is fundamental that unless a person is a citizen of India he cannot be an elector. Consequently, he cannot become a legislator also. Therefore, it is very surprising that some seasoned politicians have raised objections to the Election Commission of India (ECI)'s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar (where Assembly elections are expected shortly) that citizenship should not be verified. It only demonstrates that they have absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution and the working of the system. Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the 'superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of Electoral roll and the conduct of all elections ... shall vest' in the Election Commission. The preparation of electoral rolls is a continuous process, and is revised from time to time irrespective of there being elections or no elections (Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors Etc vs A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. Etc., AIR 1985 SC 1233). Clarity on being a citizen Article 326 of the Constitution of India provides that 'the Elections to the House of People and the Legislature of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than 18 years of age in such State, as may be fixed in that behalf, by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any Law made by the appropriate Legislature' on certain grounds. Therefore, it is clear that unless a person is a citizen of India, he is not entitled to be registered as a voter in any election. Pursuant to the enabling provisions, Parliament enacted The Representation of The People Act, 1950, which deals with the preparation of electoral rolls and delimitation. The Preamble to the 1950 Act reads as follows: 'An Act to provide the allocation of seats in, and the delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election to, the House of the People and the Legislatures of States, the qualifications of voters at such elections, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling seats in the Council of States to be filled by representatives of Union territories, and matters connected therewith.' Part-IIA of the 1950 Act deals with the Officers of the Commission which includes Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers. Part-IIB deals with Electoral Rolls for Parliamentary Constituencies and Part-III deals with Electoral Rolls for Assembly constituencies. Section 15 of the 1950 Act deals with preparation of Electoral Rolls for every Constituency under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission. Section 16 of the 1950 Act deals with disqualifications for registration in an Electoral Roll, and in specific, Section 16(1)(a) provides that if a person is not a Citizen of India, he shall be disqualified for being registered as a voter. Further, Section 16(2) provides that the name of the person who is so disqualified, even if registered, shall be struck off from the electoral rolls. Besides this, Section 20 of the 1950 Act also provides who is 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency. Section 21 deals with preparation and revision of electoral rolls, while Section 22 deals with correction of entries in electoral rolls. Section 23 deals with the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and Section 24 provides that if anybody is aggrieved by an order of inclusion or exclusion, they can prefer an appeal to the authority referred to in the Section. The only period during which no amendment, transposition or deletion is permitted, is referred to under Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, which provides that no amendment, transposition, deletion or inclusion, shall be made after the last date for making the nominations for an election in that constituency. Therefore, it is fundamental that unless a person is a citizen of India, their name cannot be included in the electoral roll. And if it is erroneously included, it can be deleted under the provisions, as stated above. Under the duties of the Election Commission In fact, it is the duty of the ECI to verify whether the name of any non-citizen has been included in an electoral roll, if a complaint or doubt in this regard has been raised. In fact, to put it otherwise, the ECI or its officers, have no jurisdiction to include a non-citizen's name in the electoral roll; if it is so, it is null and void. Therefore, if an application is made for inclusion or a complaint is received that a non-citizen's name is included in the electoral roll, it is the duty of the ECI to conduct an inquiry as necessary to ensure that non-citizens' names are rejected and deleted from the list. If the ECI fails to do so, it would be failing in its constitutional duty and the purpose for which the power has been granted under Articles 324 and 326 would be defeated. In the same line, if you probe further, to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament, one has to be a voter in a constituency; if he is not a citizen of India, he cannot be a member of Parliament or a State Legislature. In fact, Article 102 of the Constitution provides for disqualification of membership of either House of Parliament, while Article 191 provides the same for a State Legislature. It is very clear under Article 102(1)(d) that a person 'shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament, if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State or if he is under acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State'. Article 191, which applies to the State Legislature, also provides the same. If someone contends that a non-citizen would be a voter, they are also contending that a non-citizen can be a member of Legislature, which is nothing but absurd. Therefore, if questioned, one has to prove to the satisfaction of the authority, that he is a citizen of India, and that he satisfies the provisions of The Citizenship Act, 1955. Though Section 7A of the 1955 Act provides for the registration of overseas citizens in India, Section 7B(2) of the said Act clearly provides that an Overseas citizen of India Cardholder shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on the citizens of India with regard to the registration of a voter. Therefore, the constitutional and statutory scheme clearly provides that unless a person is a citizen of India, his name cannot be included in the electoral roll. And even if he is included, the authority of the ECI can order deletion of their name under Section 16(2) of the 1950 Act. It is relevant to note the decision of the Supreme Court of India (reported in Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And Ors, 1990 3 SCC 355), which dealt with admission in a medical college. In the said judgment, it has been observed in paragraph 20 that it is only lawful residence that can be taken into account, and if a man stays in a country in breach of immigration laws, his presence there does not constitute ordinary residence. The Aadhaar card and citizenship One more issue which has to be dealt with is whether any person who has an Aadhaar card can be a citizen of India. A reading of the provisions of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, in particular, Section 9, clearly provides that the 'Aadhaar Number or the Authentication thereof, shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile in respect of the Aadhaar number holder'. Section 3 of the Act, which deals with enrolment, only provides that 'every resident shall be entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic and biometric information by undergoing the process of enrolment'. Therefore, mere possession of an Aadhaar card is not proof of citizenship, and despite the constitutional requirements, if the names of foreigners are retained in the electoral roll, the rolls to that extent would be void ab initio. G. Rajagopalan is a senior advocate and, formerly, Additional Solicitor General
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
State for the stateless: on France and Palestinian statehood
France's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood, in September, reflects President Emmanuel Macron's deep frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the ongoing war on Gaza, as well as his willingness to adopt a more pro-active and constructive approach towards finding a durable solution. Of the 193 members of the UN, 147, including India, China and Russia, have already recognised the Palestinian state. But powerful western nations, with close ties to Israel, have always stopped short of granting official recognition even if professing support for a two-state solution. But this position began to shift after the Gaza war in October 2023, with more European countries taking formal steps towards its recognition. Last year, Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia recognised Palestine's independence. If Mr. Macron follows through, France will be the first G-7 member nation to do so. Such a move may not have an immediate, direct impact on the peace process. That more western European countries are now ready to take irreversible measures in favour of Palestinian statehood, ignoring strong opposition from Tel Aviv and Washington, marks a clear change in sentiment towards one of the modern world's most contentious conflicts. Mr. Macron's announcement comes at a critical juncture for the Palestinians. The war has devastated the enclave with confirmed deaths reaching 60,000 in 21 months — roughly 2.5% of its total population. In the West Bank, settler violence has displaced tens of thousands of Palestinians. Israeli Ministers have openly threatened to ethnically cleanse Gaza and annex the West Bank. Images of starving and malnourished children, which came out of Gaza last week, have jolted global conscience. Even Israel's closest allies, including Britain, Canada and France, issued a rare joint statement, urging Mr. Netanyahu to 'immediately end the humanitarian catastrophe'. Under mounting pressure, Israel has announced 'tactical pauses' in its attacks. But this is far from sufficient. What Gaza urgently needs is a complete end to the bombings and shelling, and the full opening of its borders to humanitarian aid. Given that pressure is the only language Israel appears to understand, and with the Donald Trump presidency showing no willingness to apply it, Europe must do more. Efforts to end the war, which in terms of mass killings, devastation and displacement is comparable to the 1948-49 Nakba, must be accompanied by initiatives to ensure that such a catastrophe is never repeated. There should be concrete measures from the international community to pursue a durable political solution, which is the two-state solution. The first step in that direction is the recognition of Palestinian independence and statehood. France has promised to join, though belatedly, most member-countries of the UN in the statehood push. Other nations in the West must follow.
