In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
New York magazine recently published an overwrought essay penned by pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil, who contends his life has been turned into a nightmare since being “abducted by ICE” for deportation.
Khalil is a forever student and former spokesman for the Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that targets Jewish students and engages in rioting and other revolutionary activity. To give you a sense of the group’s oeuvre, it brags about fighting for the “total eradication of Western civilization,” advocates “global intifada,” and supports the “armed resistance” of Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist group by the Justice Department.
The only useful adjective to describe the act of knowingly handing citizenship to someone who foments this kind of civil unrest and holds this kind of detestation for his host country is “suicidal.”
Immigration law already allows for revocation of visas from anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” But whether applicable or not in this case, do we really need more people in the country who support the “total eradication of Western civilization?”
The New York Times reported this week that the Trump administration has sent a directive to the Department of Homeland Security to start denying green cards to newcomers like Khalil who exhibit un-American behavior. The piece laments that, in the past, “immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law” were basically assured green cards.
First off, that’s not exactly true. Immigration law has long featured ideological restrictions. Even today, applicants are asked to disclose any affiliations to the Communist Party or other totalitarian organizations that conflict with the American vision.
But even if it were true, it shouldn’t be. The New York Times reports that new directives ask agents to vet green card applicants for both “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views. The New York Times places both phrases in quotation marks to frame them as abstract ideas that only exist as pretexts to deport innocent immigrants. (The reporters don’t offer the text of the memos, only their own impressions, which we should assume are highly biased.)
TOM STEYER: THE ANTI-BILLIONAIRE MOVEMENT’S FAVORITE BILLIONAIRE
One of the potential offenses, for instance, is “desecrating the American flag.” Now, American citizens have a right to burn a U.S. flag because free expression is a neutral principle and the Constitution protects it as an inalienable right. Obtaining American citizenship isn’t an inalienable right. Or any kind of right. It’s not discussed in the Constitution. Since it’s impossible for immigration officials to bore into the souls of newcomers, the burning of an American flag offers them a glaring clue that the prospective green card holder should be ejected.
The New York Times, however, is most upset about the alleged expulsion of immigrants who are “critical of Israel,” a term used that is surely nowhere in the new directive. The phrase “critical of Israel” is a popular left-wing euphemism for supporting the goals of Hamas, and more pertinently, for targeting American Jews under the guise of “globalizing the intifada.”
The reason “antisemitic” activity is likely highlighted is that it is the most popular form of bigotry imported by newcomers from the Middle East. The chances that a person who advocates “globalizing the intifada” also detests the United States are in the vicinity of 100%.
Let’s put it another way: Imagine if thousands of foreigners who orchestrated and participated in the harassment, vandalism, and bigotry aimed at black Americans and their institutions were being allowed to enter the country. Imagine these newcomers regularly championing and celebrating with flags that represented groups that violently and explicitly targeted black people around the world? Would that be a good policy for the U.S.? Is that a kind of policy that any sane nation would embrace?
You know things are headed in the wrong direction when Qasem Soleimani’s niece, who has a green card, is allegedly sitting in her California home, cheering on the mullahs and referring to the U.S. as the “Great Satan” during a war. Surely there is an Iranian waiting on an immigration line somewhere who detests the regime and can’t wait to embrace American life.
In any event, virtually every left-wing media outlet accuses the Trump administration of invoking an “obscure 1952” law to potential Fifth Columnists that was originally designed to deport communists “during the Red Scare.” Well, the denaturalization and deportation of foreign communists in the 1950s was a great idea. Communism is incompatible with the Constitution. We have enough of the home-grown variety. And considering Khalil’s other ideological stances, the chances that he’s a communist are also exceptionally high.
The immigration card system exists so newcomers can be properly vetted. We check them for criminal histories. We do health screenings. We have financial reviews to ensure that new citizens don’t become public charges. That’s all great, but prospective citizens must also exhibit “good moral character” and pledge to “defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.” Why wouldn’t we do rudimentary ideological and moral vetting, as well?
One suspects it’s because institutions like the New York Times don’t want anyone vetted for any reason. The paper gripes that Trump has “rapidly transformed” the immigration system into a cog in his administration’s “deportation machine.” Most deportations conducted over the past year are of illegal immigrants. But, in the minds of the contemporary leftist, anyone who steps on US soil becomes an immovable object.
This week, for instance, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Trump administration had unlawfully ordered thousands of Haitian and Syrian refugees to return home, “abruptly cancelling their legal status out of alleged racial animus and without proper consideration of risks to their safety and the nation’s economy,” according to Politico. These people were granted refuge under temporary protected status (italics mine) a decade ago. The specific cases might be debatable, but Democrats always act as if “temporary” in immigration law means “in perpetuity.”
THE SCOURGE OF LEFT-WING VIOLENCE ISN’T NEW. IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE
The New York Times also dismayingly notes that the DHS has run recruitment ads with the line, “Protect your homeland and defend your culture.” Obviously, the word “culture” has been used by bad actors to spread ugly ideas in the past. On the other hand, it’s preposterous to pretend that the U.S. doesn’t have a distinct culture. And a big part of that culture includes peaceful coexistence with your neighbors. Failing to vet immigrants for ideologies that corrode that foundational idea can only be called suicidal.
My hope is that Khalil will soon be deported. But if it’s going to take millions of tax dollars and years to expel foreign Islamist agitators whose goal is to transform New York into Syria or Sudan, the only prudent thing to do is to start limiting student visas and immigration from certain areas of the world.