
I joked about getting deported. In Trump's America, it's not funny.
I joked about getting deported. In Trump's America, it's not funny. | Opinion The secretary of State, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, can trigger the deportation of any noncitizen if their presence is deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Moment Tufts University student was detained caught on security camera
The moment Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk was detained by ICE was captured on a home security camera.
When times are tough, I like to remind myself that I live in a country where I'm protected by an ironclad constitution from arrest without charge.
Whatever hardships arise, at least I cannot be snatched up by government henchmen or hooded goons because of something I said, or wrote. Not without redress. Not without lawsuits, news coverage, protests, firings or prosecution for abuses of power – the guardrails of American freedom.
That assurance is simply not available in much of the world.
And the certainty of those protections, right here in the land of the free, seems to be fading in and out like the photograph of Marty McFly's siblings in 'Back to the Future.'
Eerie familiarity
My parents were not born in a place where they were free to have their say.
Political imprisonment and suppression of dissent were common where they grew up in Syria, much like many countries from which families emigrate to the U.S.
I'd be lying if I said that was the reason my parents immigrated. Their motivations were more about economic opportunity – the chance to raise children in a place where their futures would be secure.
But freedom of speech, due process rights and the unequivocal rule of law aren't just added perks. They are the foundations on which the world's strongest economy was built.
So I have a certain duty to deeply appreciate and make the best of what my parents did for me: leaving their families behind, walking away from everyone and everything they knew and traveling to the opposite end of the world to give me a life of freedom and opportunity.
But over the last two months, images of hooded and masked agents of the United States government stalking and arresting students – apparently for their political views – has thrown every notion of American comfort and security I've ever had into question.
Meanwhile, there's strange new leadership back in Syria, too. It's a mess. Decades of dictatorship have finally given way to a fledging new government that is trying to dismantle and rebuild myriad government institutions from the ground up.
The country is several years away from its next election. Arrests with ambiguous justification that may be political in nature are still common. And the country's new leaders are struggling to build and hold the trust of the populace every step of the way.
Sounds familiar. Far too familiar.
Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right.
My April Fools' ICE prank went wrong
It was a silly, lighthearted joke, I thought.
'Guys, there are ICE agents outside the building asking about me. What do I do? Hide me!'
It was April Fools' Day. I was in the mood for some pranking, and a little social experimentation.
I'm a Michigan-born U.S. citizen. Most of my friends and co-workers – certainly my family members – know that. It would be absurd, previously, to imagine Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to be on the hunt for little old me.
But the prank was fairly consistently met with genuine horror. Some were angry with me afterward.
And then the reality set in.
This is no joke.
Opinion: Trump's detention policies hurt kids. We know, we're pediatricians.
In addition to seeking comfort in the Constitution, I cope with calamity by turning to humor, and I make no apologies for the prank. But the joke didn't land, for good reason.
Our president has sought to end birthright citizenship and has expressed interest in sending 'homegrowns' – whatever that means – to a prison in El Salvador.
Citizens being targeted by U.S. immigration agents is no longer such a farfetched possibility.
It all started with Mahmoud Khalil
It started with Mahmoud Khalil, the Trump Administration's inaugural political detainee, a legal permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen who was arrested because he organized and participated in protests at Columbia University.
The secretary of State, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, can trigger the deportation of any non-citizen if their presence is deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests – a provision the Trump Administration is interpreting very loosely.
The case is making its way through the courts, but Khalil, who's never been charged with a crime, is still behind bars, more than 50 days after his March 9 warrantless arrest. He missed the birth of his first child during his inexplicably lengthy detention.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a memo seeking to make Khalil deportable despite his permanent resident status, declared 'I have determined that the activities and presence of these aliens in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.'
The memo accused Khalil of 'condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States.' The government has not elaborated on its characterization of antisemitic conduct.
The 1952 law that grants Rubio the authority to make such a determination was once declared unconstitutional, back in 1996.
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, under President Bill Clinton, was seeking to extradite Mario Ruiz Massieu to Mexico, despite multiple court rulings that prosecutors lacked probable cause to suggest Massieu had engaged in criminal activity.
'Absent a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the Secretary of State's unreviewable and concededly 'unfettered discretion' to deprive an alien, who lawfully entered this country, of his or her liberty to the extent exemplified by this case is, in this court's view, unconstitutional,' wrote U.S. District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry.
Yes, that's President Donald Trump's late sister.
Barry's ruling was overturned months later by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an opinion written by Samuel Alito, now a U.S. Supreme Court justice, who found that the district court lacked jurisdiction on the matter: 'If plaintiff wished to challenge the efforts to deport him, he was required to exhaust available administrative remedies (in immigration court) and then petition for review in this court.'
In 1999, after four years of awaiting a resolution while under house arrest, Ruiz Massieu killed himself.
In 1944, the Supreme Court said internment camps were constitutional
Another heartbreaking historic court ruling seems relevant to the abhorrent trend of indefinitely detaining immigrants.
In the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Dissenting Justice Frank Murphy, a former Detroit mayor and Michigan governor, found the ruling abhorrent.
'This exclusion of 'all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,' from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power,' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism,' Murphy wrote in his dissent.
'To infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that, under our system of law, individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy.
'To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.'
Immigrants with legal status are being snatched
Since Khalil's March arrest, more immigrants with legal status have been snatched from their communities and face indefinite detention pending potential deportation.
Rumeysa Ozturk, an international student from Turkey who co-wrote an op-ed for the school newspaper at Tuft's University, was arrested March 25 by plainclothes agents while walking in a Boston suburb.
'We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist, to tear up our university campuses,' Rubio told reporters after the arrest.
Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian international student who took part in protests last year at Columbia University, was taken into custody at a Vermont immigration office after being summoned for what he initially hoped would be a final interview before gaining U.S. citizenship.
And Rubio moved to revoke the visas of at least 1,000 international students, including students at least five colleges in Michigan.
In the face of numerous lawsuits filed by students, with courts showing signs of losing patience with the administration, the administration reversed course on those revocations last week.
But the damage has been done. Some of the students whose visas were threatened have already left the country.
And the images of three foreign students being handcuffed and hauled away to immigration detention centers, where they remain, are sure to discourage families across the world from sending their children to study in the U.S.
As the administration explores how far it can go, many, like my co-workers on April Fools' Day, are fearfully anticipating word that a rabble-rousing U.S. citizen has been plucked from their community and threatened with deportation.
Amir Makled got a taste of what that might be like earlier this month. The Detroit-born civil rights attorney, who is representing a University of Michigan student charged with resisting arrest during student protests last year, was detained for nearly two hours at Detroit Metro Airport on April 6 as he returned from a family trip to the Dominican Republic.
'I was targeted because of the work I was engaged in,' Makled told me. '… It could not have been a routine search. They were waiting for me. They knew I was an attorney. They knew my client list. They were telling me about me.'
Federal agents demanded, without warrant, to search Makled's cellphone. He refused, but ultimately allowed the agents to view his contacts, leading to his release.
He regrets making that concession.
'In hindsight, now I know a lot more about how far they can go,' Makled said. He believes the government needs an actual indication of a real national security threat to confiscate a traveler's phone.
Makled wears the experience like a badge of honor, proud to be in a position to fight for upholding civil rights.
'I'm not going to be intimidated in this setting," he said. "This is not something that puts me in a position of being scared."
He is, however, afraid for the future of constitutional civil rights in the U.S.
'This is the death of democracy and due process,' he said. 'The message they're sending is: 'Stay quiet, or else.' This is exactly how free speech gets killed.'
We have to to be the guardrails of our own rights
There are those who are indeed choosing to stay quiet, to store away their soapboxes and protest signs and wait for safer times.
And there are those, like Makled, who are only getting more fired up to fight.
It's the latter who'll keep our constitutional rights from fading out of the picture.
It'll be the lawyers with the courage to fight for their own rights and those of their clients in the face of unprecedented federal retaliation against opposing attorneys.
It'll be the preachers, educators and block club leaders who are willing to go out on a limb to inform and warn their communities of the threats coming from the White House.
It'll be the local elected officials who manage to find balance between fighting back and making compromises to protect municipal budgets from federal cuts.
It'll be the remaining federal workers who risk their jobs to document everything they possibly can.
And yes, it will be those protest activists, of all sorts and stripes and causes, of varying degrees of righteousness and courage, who demonstrate despite being monitored and targeted like never before.
Because we are the guardrails.
Our laws, it seems, can't stand alone. We the people, who believe in the Constitution, need to be the ones who keep our rights intact.
Those of us who cannot afford to take our constitutional rights for granted, because they're being pressed to their limits, those who actively cherish and are willing to work to protect free speech and due process – we must be the guardrails.
Khalil AlHajal is deputy editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press, where this column originally published. Contact: kalhajal@freepress.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate rejects Susan Collins amendment to boost rural hospitals, raise taxes on wealthy
Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans said Monday he will not seek reelection 'after some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection,' opening up a solid-blue seat in Philadelphia. Evans faced mounting questions about his ability to serve after suffering a stroke last year and missing months of votes. He insisted until recently he still intended to run for reelection, though several primary challengers were already starting to make moves. 'Serving the people of Philadelphia has been the honor of my life,' Evans said in a statement. 'And I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking reelection in 2026.' Evans, 71, has served in Congress since 2016. He succeeded Rep. Chaka Fattah, who resigned after being indicted on federal corruption charges, and is one of six Pennsylvanians on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. His retirement announcement comes amid generational upheaval in the Democratic Party. Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said earlier this year she wouldn't run again. The party base has looked to their leaders to mount a more vigorous response to President Donald Trump, with some in the party calling for primary challenges to senior leaders. Evans' retirement could kick off a fierce battle between establishment Democrats and progressives for the Philadelphia-area seat, and several possible candidates are already weighing campaigns. Democratic socialists have made headway in the city, particularly at the state level, and pro-Israel groups and the liberal Working Families Party are eyeing the race, according to multiple Democrats. 'This is completely wide open,' said a high-level Philadelphia Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 'There is not one person I can see who I would deem the front-runner.' State Sen. Sharif Street, chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has expressed interest in running for Evans' seat. A second Democrat granted anonymity to speak freely said Street could kick off his campaign as early as Tuesday, though other Democrats said an official announcement could come later. State Rep. Morgan Cephas, who is close to the city's influential building trades unions, is eyeing the seat as well, as is progressive state Rep. Chris Rabb. 'Me and my team are strongly considering a bid,' Cephas told POLITICO Monday. 'But first and foremost I wanted to express my overwhelming gratitude to the work that Congressman Evans has done for the city of Philadelphia.' Rabb said in a text that 'I am seriously considering running for this seat.' State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, another progressive, said his supporters have 'encouraged me to consider a run.' But he said he has 'nothing to announce,' adding that 'today is about Dwight Evans' and 'honoring his legacy.' In a sign of how hotly contested the race could become, some Democrats are already attacking Street publicly and privately before he jumps into the contest. J.J. Balaban, a Democratic consultant who lives in Evans' district, said he opposes a potential bid by Street because in 2021 he worked with a powerful Republican to craft a proposed congressional redistricting map. His plan was not ultimately successful. 'Any good Democrat should hope it's not Sharif Street because of how he tried to sell out the Democratic delegation,' said Balaban. 'We would have fewer congressional seats if he had carried the day.' Street did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time, Street defended his work with Republicans, saying 'it's our job to negotiate the best that we can.' Street has made some recent efforts to make inroads with progressives, including by endorsing liberal Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in his successful primary reelection campaign this year over a more moderate challenger. The extent to which Evans does — or doesn't — get involved in helping determine his successor will also shape the race. A Democrat familiar with Evans' thinking said he is 'going to wait and see what the field will look like' before deciding whether to endorse a candidate in the primary. 'Plenty of time to make a decision,' the person added. Rumors have swirled for months about Evans' future, and some Democrats speculated that he might step down in the middle of his term, which would have given power to the city's Democratic ward leaders to choose a nominee for a special election. But Evans said Wednesday that he 'will serve out the full term that ends Jan. 3, 2027.'


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump appeals order striking down EO targeting Perkins Coie
July 1 (UPI) -- The Justice Department is appealing a federal judge's order striking down a President Donald Trump executive order targeting the law firm of former political opponent Hillary Clinton. Since returning to the White House, Trump has used his executive orders to attack more than a half-dozen premier law firms, suspending their security clearances, revoking federal contracts and even restricting their access to federal buildings for being associated or linked to people and supporting interests that do not align with the president or his policies. Several law firms made deals, including preemptive agreements, worth a combined nearly $1 billion in pro bono commitments, while others, including Perkins Coie, have fought back. Critics have accused Trump of using his presidential authority to attack his perceived political opponents and as part of a larger attack on the U.S. justice system. In March, Trump terminated government contracts and revoked security clearances for Perkins Coie via an executive order that cited the firm's work for Clinton during the 2016 presidential election -- when she ran against him and lost -- as the reason for the punitive measure. In early May, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the executive order, which she said was unlike any that an American president had issued before. "Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution," she said. Other, similar rulings have followed, giving victories to Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, for a total of four executive orders naming specific law firms being turned aside. The appeal filed Monday by the Justice Department suggests it will continue to fight for Trump's executive orders. "We look forward to presenting our case to the D.C. Circuit and remain committed to ensuring that the unconstitutional Executive Order targeting our firm is never enforced," Perkins Coie said in a statement. "In the meantime, we will continue to practice law, as we have for over a century, and remain guided by the same commitments that first compelled us to bring this challenge: to protect our firm, safeguard the interests of our clients and uphold the rule of law."


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Iran-linked hackers threaten to release emails stolen from Trump associates
An Iran -linked cyberattack group that hacked President Trump's 2024 campaign is threatening to release another trove of emails it has stolen from his associates, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Roger Stone. The big picture: Reuters first reported the threat on Monday that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on X called a "calculated smear campaign" — which came the same day as the Trump administration released a report warning that "Iranian Cyber Actors" may target U.S. firms and "operators of critical infrastructure." And it came three days after Trump announced he was halting plans to potentially ease sanctions on Iran after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities didn't cause major damage. Driving the news: Hackers who gave themselves the pseudonym "Robert" told Reuters in online conversations on Sunday and Monday they had around 100 gigabytes of emails involving Wiles, Stone, Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and others. They spoke of potentially selling the emails, but did not disclose details of the material. The Justice Department alleged in an indictment last September against three Iranians in the 2024 Trump cyberattack case that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps oversaw the "Robert" hacking drive. What they're saying: CISA spokesperson Marci McCarthy said in a statement posted to X in response to Reuters' report that a "hostile foreign adversary" was "threatening to illegally exploit purportedly stolen and unverified material in an effort to distract, discredit and divide." McCarthy said the "so-called cyber 'attack' is nothing more than digital propaganda and the targets are no coincidence" and that it's designed to "damage President Trump and discredit honorable public servants" who serve the U.S. with distinction.