Tea at Trianon: Why Trump Can—and Should

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, March 13, 2025

Why Trump Can—and Should—Deport Mahmoud Khalil

From Amuse on X:

The detention and pending deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. His arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 9, 2025, stems from allegations that he engaged in activities aligning with Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. As the Trump administration enforces its promise to crack down on those who support terrorist-affiliated movements, legal commentators, activists, and political figures have debated whether such action is constitutionally and legally permissible. The answer, upon thorough legal examination, is unequivocally yes. The Trump administration not only has the authority to revoke Khalil’s green card and remove him from the United States, but such action is firmly grounded in existing immigration law, Supreme Court precedent, and compelling national security interests.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1227, lawful permanent residents are removable if they fall under specific categories of inadmissibility. Most relevant here is 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), which deems deportable any alien who has engaged in terrorist activities, represented or supported a terrorist organization, or received training from such an entity. Section 1182(a)(3)(F) further establishes that an alien whose presence the Secretary of State believes to have serious adverse foreign policy consequences may also be removed. Given Khalil leadership of activities aligned with Hamas—he fits within these statutory provisions, making his green card revocation and removal well within the executive branch’s legal authority.
Some have argued that Khalil’s deportation violates his First Amendment rights, particularly given his status as an outspoken leader of pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. While it is true that legal permanent residents enjoy certain constitutional protections, their rights are neither absolute nor coextensive with those of U.S. citizens, particularly in the realm of immigration and national security. Precedents such as Turner v. Williams (1904) underscore Congress’s broad authority to exclude or remove aliens based on ideological grounds, affirming that non-citizens can be expelled for advocating beliefs deemed inimical to national security. Similarly, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) upheld prohibitions on material support to terrorist organizations, even when such support took the form of speech. Khalil’s actions undoubtably provided material support for Hamas, through financial contributions, logistical aid, and explicit endorsement, as a result his activities are not protected speech under the First Amendment. (Read more.)