Mahmoud Khalil permitted to hold newborn son for the first time despite objections from government
The visit came ahead of a scheduled immigration hearing for Khalil, a legal permanent resident and Columbia University graduate who has been detained in a Louisiana jail since March 8.
He was first person to be arrested under President Donald Trump's promised crackdown on protesters against the war in Gaza and is one of the few who has remained in custody as his case winds its way through both immigration and federal court.
His request to attend his son's April 21 birth was denied last month by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The question of whether Khalil would be permitted to hold his newborn child or forced to meet him through a barrier had sparked days of legal fighting, triggering claims by Khalil's attorneys that he is being subject to political retaliation by the government.
On Wednesday night, a federal judge in New Jersey, Michael Farbiarz, intervened, allowing the meeting to go forward Thursday morning, according to Khalil's attorneys.
The judge's order came after federal officials said this week they would oppose his attorney's effort to secure what's known as 'contact visit' between Khalil, his wife Noor Abdalla and their son Deen.
Instead, they said Khalil could be allowed a 'non-contact' visit, meaning he would be separated from his wife and son by a plastic divider and not allowed to touch them.
'Granting Khalil this relief of family visitation would effectively grant him a privilege that no other detainee receives,' Justice Department officials wrote in a court filing on Wednesday. 'Allowing Dr. Abdalla and a newborn to attend a legal meeting would turn a legal visitation into a family one.'
Brian Acuna, acting director of the ICE field office in New Orleans, said in an accompanying affidavit that it would be 'unsafe to allow Mr. Khalil's wife and newborn child into a secured part of the facility.'
In their own legal filings, Khalil's attorneys described the government's refusal to grant the visit as 'further evidence of the retaliatory motive behind Mr. Khalil's arrest and faraway detention,' adding that his wife and son were 'the farthest thing from a security risk.'
They noted that Abdalla had traveled nearly 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) to the remote detention center in hopes of introducing their son to his father.
'This is not just heartless,' Abdalla said of the government's position. 'It is deliberate violence, the calculated cruelty of a government that tears families apart without remorse. And I cannot ignore the echoes of this pain in the stories of Palestinian families, torn apart by Israeli military prisons and bombs, denied dignity, denied life.'
Farbiarz is currently considering Khalil's petition for release as he appeals a Louisiana immigration judge's ruling that he can be deported from the country.
Federal authorities have not accused Khalil of a crime, but have sought to deport him on the basis that his prominent role in protests against Israel's war in Gaza may have undermined U.S. foreign policy interests.
Khalil is scheduled to appear before that immigration judge, Jamee Comans, for a routine hearing on Thursday. Attorneys for Khalil said it was unclear whether the baby would be permitted to attend the hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
No fear or favours: how Corbyn and Sultana's party could blow up British politics
New political parties have a patchy record in British politics. Take Change UK, which launched amid much fanfare in the spring of 2019 and had disbanded by the end of the same year. So can Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana fare any better? In part it depends on the question you ask. The new and as-yet unnamed leftwing party formally announced by Corbyn and his fellow ex-Labour MP on Thursday, has one major advantage at its disposal: the former Labour leader's very strong public profile. According to a rolling YouGov poll of politicians' name recognition, Corbyn is known by 98% of voters, more than Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage. 'Everyone knows who Jeremy Corbyn is, everyone knows who he stands for. And with any new party, that is not even half the battle. It's three-quarters of the battle,' said Robert Ford, a professor of political science at Manchester University. 'A lot of people don't like what he stands for, but that doesn't matter, because he's not aiming for everyone.' That is the second likely advantage for the organisation, launched under the interim title of 'Your Party'. Unlike Change UK, a collection of centrist MPs who defected from Labour and the Conservatives, or indeed unlike Corbyn's task when he led Labour, there is no need to temper opinions to court the middle ground. Co-led by Corbyn and Sultana, the party is explicitly aiming itself at left-leaning voters who until now are likely to have backed Labour, the Greens or the collection of Gaza-focused independents who saw off Labour candidates in four constituencies in last year's election. 'With the best will in the world, not even Zarah Sultana, I suspect, is expecting Jeremy Corbyn to be the next prime minister,' Ford said. 'That's not the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to offer an outlet for those who think Labour have driven too far to the right. So he doesn't have the same problem that he and his advisers had a few years ago.' Polling before the party launched suggested it could gather as much as 10% of the vote nationally. However, new parties traditionally struggle to maintain momentum, and turning polls into votes relies on building an effective campaign machine, which is tricky to do from scratch. All this could make for a complex picture at a constituency level, with Ford noting that it could variously make electoral life harder or easier for Labour MPs, depending on the location and context. For example, even a 5% haul for a Corbyn-Sultana candidate could mean the difference between Labour win or a loss to the Conservatives or Reform UK. The new venture could also scupper the Greens in their hopes of taking seats from Labour in the 40 areas where they finished second in 2024, given its likely appeal to some Green voters. The Greens have dismissed the opening statement from the new party for making 'only a passing glance to the climate crisis', saying this left them stuck in the past, and it is possible that Corbyn's main electoral hunting ground will be voters sympathetic to the Gaza-focused independents. The only Labour response has been a brief and scathing party source quote about the electorate having 'twice given its verdict on a Jeremy Corbyn-led party', in the 2017 and 2019 elections. But the new party is different in its aims, and, politically, 2025 is not 2019. An ostensibly new party, Reform UK, is leading the polls, even if it is Nigel Farage's third incarnation of Ukip, which can trace its history back more than 30 years. And voter loyalties, which were once relatively fixed, are more fluid than ever. One thing, however, is constant: the identity of the co-protagonist. Corbyn has a name, but also political baggage, and a reputation for occasional prickliness and falling out with people. The launch of the new party has been slightly stumbling, with allies of Corbyn making plain their annoyance when Sultana announced herself as co-leader of a new group in June. It is also unusual to launch a new party without having agreed on a name. Can Corbyn and Sultana confound the historical odds? To an extent it doesn't entirely matter. In the currently fragmented multiparty world, even moderate success could have a disproportionate impact.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer: Palestinians have inalienable right to statehood
Sir Keir Starmer has said the Palestinian people have an 'inalienable right' to a state of their own. The Prime Minister made the comment on Thursday evening as he came under growing pressure from Labour MPs over the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza. In a statement, Sir Keir also condemned the 'unspeakable and indefensible' suffering in the strip and called it a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. The Labour Government backs Palestinian statehood but has argued for months that it should be formally recognised at the right moment to further peace in the region. The statement falls short of a promise to declare Palestinian statehood – something the French are pushing to be done next month. Sir Keir said: 'We are clear that statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. A ceasefire will put us on a path to the recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution which guarantees peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.' Cabinet ministers have reportedly been pushing privately for Sir Keir to announce UK recognition while Sir Sadiq Khan, Labour's London mayor, publicly joined the calls this week. Pressure on Sir Keir is likely to intensify after Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana launched a new hard-left party to challenge Sir Keir. The pair have accused the Government of enabling genocide and are expected to link up with several independent pro-Gaza MPs. A UN conference on the issue, planned for June but delayed by the Israel-Iran war, is now due to take place next week. Critics of immediate recognition have said that it should not happen until Hamas is removed from any leadership role in Gaza and all Israeli hostages are released. Israel's government has characterised any recognition by the UK and France as a 'reward' for Hamas 's Oct 7 atrocities. The US had been leading efforts to broker a Gaza ceasefire in recent months but Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, cut them off on Thursday. He said the US was bringing home its negotiators, saying Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. Mr Witkoff added that the US would now 'consider alternative options to bring the hostages home', without clarifying what they would be.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain must reject Corbyn's poison
The return of Jeremy Corbyn to the frontlines of British politics is all too predictable. It is no less unwelcome for being foreseen. Mr Corbyn's statement launching his new party criticised 'the great dividers', and proclaimed that his 'movement is made up of people of all faiths and none'. That he made these comments without any apparent sense of English irony speaks to his lack of self-awareness; few in Westminster have done more to spread division. Mr Corbyn's supporters may claim that Nigel Farage's Reform is stoking division by drawing attention to the failure of the British state to guard its borders. This is nonsense. Concerns about immigration are shared by many millions, and Mr Farage has been clear in disavowing Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Under Mr Corbyn's leadership the Labour Party was investigated for anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. He is a man who once referred to members of Hamas and Hezbollah as his 'friends', although he subsequently attempted to backtrack. He was arrested outside the Old Bailey in 1986 after joining a protest to 'show solidarity' with terrorists including the Brighton bomber. The most divisive contests and disgraceful scenes of the last election did not take place where Reform candidates were jousting with the Conservatives, but in the fights between pro-Gaza candidates and their Labour opponents. Mr Corbyn's obsessive attacks on Israel, including his backing for a complete arms embargo promises to further inflame this issue. As with the rapid rise of Mr Farage's Reform to now lead in the polls, Mr Corbyn's support speaks to a broader failure of Britain's established parties, and the ossification of our politics. While it is understandable, however, that many voters are frustrated with the visible decay of the British state, Mr Corbyn's toxic brand of Left-wing politics would only deepen the crisis we face. Confronted with a mountainous debt burden and an out-of-control welfare system, Mr Corbyn's answer is to further tax 'the very richest', and nationalise energy, water, rail and mail. It is an agenda which would put the final nail in Britain's coffin, and smother all hope of recovery for decades to come, repeating the very worst economic policy errors of the 20th century in some of the least favourable circumstances imaginable.
