The Trump administration’s latest wave of attempted deportations — including Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student and green card holder who openly supported Hamas and promoted terrorism — represents a civilizational tipping point.
How the United States navigates what should be an entirely uncontroversial issue will decide whether we will win or lose a battle against radicalism that has festered on our shores for decades. At the core of this battle is the understanding that the deportation of people such as Khalil has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with national security and the fundamental concept of sovereignty.
This is about whether America, as a nation, has the will to say: If you come here and advocate for our destruction, you don’t get to stay.
Let’s get something straight. Mahmoud Khalil isn’t a U.S. citizen. He’s a foreign national whose presence in the United States is contingent on his permanent residency status: a status that is a privilege, not a right. The fact that his pregnant wife is an American citizen is irrelevant. You simply don’t have a right to be in a country that is not your own, regardless of whom you marry or impregnate, let alone having a demonstrated history of supporting genocidal terrorist organizations that rape, murder, and kidnap civilians while seeking the destruction of the same country you wish to inhabit.
The Trump administration’s ramping up of deportations for foreign nationals who support terror isn’t just appropriate; it’s essential. It’s a test of whether we, as a country, still have the basic instinct to protect ourselves. And it’s a test of whether we’ve learned the fundamental lesson of national survival: You cannot remain a sovereign country if you import people who seek to destroy you from within.
But in our world of constitutional lawfare, it’s hugely important that the Trump administration does the right thing in the right way. Predictably, the Left is trying to turn this into a First Amendment issue, arguing that slogans such as “death to America” or “glory to the martyrs” are just edgy poetry readings that are fully protected by the First Amendment. And while it is true, in a broad sense, that non-citizens do have certain protections under the First Amendment, that doesn’t mean they have an unqualified right to remain in the United States.
Under U.S. immigration law, non-citizens can be deported for a host of reasons, including advocating for terrorism or belonging to a terrorist organization. The government has broad discretion to deny entry, revoke visas, and remove permanent residents when national security is at stake. If we allow this to become a debate over free speech, then the First Amendment will simply be interpreted as a shield for foreign nationals to agitate for jihad on U.S. soil, sparking the end of American sovereignty as we know it.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACCUSES KHALIL OF HIDING ASSOCIATION WITH UNRWA IN GREEN CARD APPLICATION
This isn’t about free speech. It’s about something deeper: the suicidal idea that America has some moral obligation to tolerate foreign-born subversion in the name of tolerance. That’s not tolerance; that’s surrender.
So, we need to make the argument clearly: This isn’t a question of civil liberties — it’s a question of civilizational boundaries. We decide who gets to come here. We decide who gets to stay. And if you come to this country and abuse our freedoms to promote terrorism, you’re out.
Ian Haworth is a syndicated columnist, speaker, and podcast host. You can find him on Substack and follow him on X at @ighaworth.