I am honoured to be both a green card holder and an alumnus of Columbia University’s esteemed journalism school. This past week, both Columbia and the issue of permanent residency in the United States have dominated headlines for all the wrong reasons. On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil, a Syria-born graduate of the university’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), was detained by federal agents after being accused of orchestrating campus “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation”.
The White House further noted that Khalil, a green card holder—or legal permanent resident—had organised violent protests where pro-Hamas propaganda was distributed. He was subsequently designated a national security threat. President Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated: “This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organisations that have killed Americans.”
The White House and State Department also referenced a rarely-invoked provision allowing green card holders to be evicted from the country if they pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
Public opinion has since been divided around the nature and constitutionality of Khalil’s arrest, as well as the evidence pointing to his material support of a terrorist organisation.
The green card is a coveted golden ticket to the American Dream, offering a clear path to citizenship. Every single American citizen and legal resident in the United States is entitled to the full scope of legal privileges and First Amendment protections. These protections are robust and firmly enshrined in law. Khalil is no different. However, if a fair and thorough legal process finds that he has violated U.S. law—such as by providing material support to a terrorist group like Hamas— then he should be deported.
While I find much of the extreme rhetoric espoused by Khalil and his supporters to be reprehensible, political speech and grassroots activism are core American values. Such protections, however, do not shield anyone from engaging in illegal activities. Holding a green card is not an inalienable right; it can be revoked if the holder commits a felony or provides false information in their green card application documents.
Though I strongly oppose many of Khalil’s views, he has the right to protest peacefully. What he does not have the right to—green card holder or not—is engage in violence, harassment, trespassing, property damage and sending public safety officers to the hospital. Jewish-American and Israeli Columbia students, with whom I have spoken extensively over the past 16 months, have been terrified to attend class for fear of being tormented or attacked by agitators. Universities have an obligation to ensure their campuses are not breeding grounds for antisemitism.
To claim that Khalil’s detainment was purely down to him speaking up is inaccurate. He is indeed entitled, as is any American citizen or resident, to express his views. As hard as it may be to hear, in the United States the speech we most despise is oftentimes the speech that warrants the greatest protection. However, the Khalil case goes beyond mere speech.
Jonathan Harounoff
He was a lead negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which has fashioned itself as a revolutionary movement hellbent on the destruction of the United States, Israel and Western civilisation. Earlier in 2024, a CUAD member proclaimed that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Another CUAD Substack article eulogised Hamas leader and October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar as a “brave man.”
Groups like the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association applauded Khalil’s detainment not as a crack down on free speech but because, “we have a problem with students taking over buildings, which prevents students from going to class, and distributing pro-Hamas materials which advocate for violence.”
Now, the media and Twittersphere are abuzz over Khalil’s fate. But amidst all the noise, a clear distinction is emerging: whether individuals like Khalil should be allowed to remain in the United States from a moral standpoint versus a legal one.
The moral debate will continue to unfold in public discourse, and will have no legal basis. As for the legal question, only a fair and rigorous legal process will determine whether or not Khalil will be deported.
An overlooked and, frankly, disheartening aspect of this entire saga is that those who have passionately defended Khalil have been so conspicuously silent on the matter of the 59 hostages who have been held in Hamas terror tunnels for over 520 days, five of whom are US citizens. To those calling for Khalil’s return: Where is your outrage over the unlawful detainment of Edan Alexander, Itay Chen, Omer Neutra, Gadi Haggai and Judi Weinstein Haggai?
- Jonathan Harounoff, Israel’s international spokesperson to the United Nations, is the author of “Unveiled: Inside Iran’s #WomanLifeFreedom Revolt,” out in August 2025.
