Are Foreigners Entitled To The Same Protest Rights As Natural American Citizens?

One of the primary platforms of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign was the strict control of foreign elements entering into the United States.  American voters overwhelmingly supported closed borders as well as the deportation of illegal migrants and disruptive migrant elements including those that received visas and green cards under the Biden Administration.  The political left, not surprisingly, has refused to accept that this is the majority view of the population as they continue to interfere with the migrant clean-up using whatever methods are at their disposal. 

The question of constitutional legality has come up often.  The very same people who, only a few years ago, were trying to silence any and all dissent on the Covid mandates and vaccines are suddenly concerned with the free speech rights of people who are not American citizens or those that obtained green card status through convenient circumstances (marriage as a fast track for citizenship).

In a recent blow to their position, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that the Trump administration can deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident who was detained last month for his role in violent campus protests against the war in Gaza.  Judge Jamee Comans said the government had “established clear and convincing evidence that he is removable”, supporting the determination that Khalil poses a national security risk for the United States.  Khalil was not charged with a specific crime. 

The leftist media maintains that the evidence against Khalil is “shaky at best” and that his green card, obtained in 2024 after his marriage to a woman out of Flint, Michigan in 2023 means he should have the same protest rights as any natural American citizen. 

Khalil is a Syrian born Palestinian, and it should be noted that according to Amnesty International protesters in Gaza are routinely arrested, tortured and executed by Hamas officials for crimes as minor as demanding that Hamas repair infrastructure or stop interfering with food deliveries.  In other words, the very government that Mahmoud Khalil is defending would murder him without a second thought if he tried the same thing in Gaza.  The hypocrisy of such immigrants fomenting unrest in the US is clear, but it’s not necessarily a violation of the law.

Technically it is true that green card holders and migrants in general have the same free speech rights as native born Americans.  This is why Khalil’s deportation is subject to due process.  However, just because an immigrant has free speech rights, it doesn’t mean they can’t be deported anyway.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the US government has the right to “preserve the sociological and cultural balance of the United States” and deny foreign entry to the US based on a migrant’s political ideology.  This means that the Trump Administration does in fact have the power to remove foreigners, even those with green cards, if they are seen as an ideological threat to the west. 

That is to say, migrants have free speech rights but the federal government also has the right to kick them out.  Is this contradictory?  Maybe, but it’s also a fact of life for anyone wanting access to US soil.

Democrats claim the law no longer has standing because it is “73 years old” (the Bill of Rights is hundreds of years old and the age of a law is irrelevant).  They also say that later civil rights policies make the law obsolete.  But is this really true?  Maybe strict immigration laws are more important than ever in light of efforts by leftist politicians and NGOs working hand in hand to flood the US with disruptive foreign elements.

The political left has been engaged in a guerrilla war in which civil liberties are used as a shield to protect astroturf activism paid for by NGOs, along with deliberately destructive third world immigration.  The strategy is classically Marxist; use the rules of the opponent against him, while you have no rules of your own.

The Gaza protests are in large part simply a convenient vehicle for wider leftist disruption.  The hilarious mixture of LGBT, feminist and race activists into the Palestinian plight showcases how the woke movement often rides the coattails of whatever issue is convenient in order to steal the spotlight for their own agenda.  Is Mahmoud Khalil being made into an example as a warning to the political left?  Probably.   

There is certainly the ongoing risk of a slippery slope of governmental overreach.  Do the deportations stop with people like Mahmoud Khalil, reportedly participating in high profile civil disturbances?  Or, will this power be used against people who merely engage in peaceful criticism?  The idea that constitutional rights don’t necessarily apply to everyone equally doesn’t sit well with many Americans, but at this time in US history a line in the sand when it comes to migrants is necessary.  

The bottom line is, not every foreigner is entitled to US access.  Not every foreigner is entitled to the same rights as native born American citizens.  American society is not a lump of clay to be molded by any and all foreign activists that happen to come along.  There are civilizational boundaries and rules of decorum.  Immigrants should probably keep their heads down and remain thankful that they were allowed into the country at all.