Immigration and The Defense of the American Nation

Episode Thirty-Nine: Immigration and the Defense of the American Nation

In this focused discussion, Lee Smith welcomes attorney Erielle Azerrad to examine the intersection of immigration law, national security, and the responsibilities tied to entering the United States. Using the case of Mahmoud Khalil as a focal point, the conversation explores the legal grounds for deportation, the limits of First Amendment protections for non-citizens, and the implications of allowing individuals who support anti-Western or terrorist-aligned ideologies to remain in the country.

Azerrad explains that U.S. immigration law has long recognized the government’s authority to deny entry or remove individuals whose actions pose a threat to national security, while also challenging the growing narrative that frames such cases as free speech disputes. The discussion ultimately turns to broader questions of leadership, visa vetting, and the expectations placed on those seeking to live in the United States, offering a clear reflection on what it means to protect the integrity of the American nation.

Follow Host Lee Smith on X: https://x.com/LeeSmithDC

Follow Erielle Azerrad on X: https://x.com/politicalelle

New episodes drop every Wednesday at 3 PM ET.
To watch Roots, Rights and Reason, visit https://www.americasfuture.net/the-roots-rights-reason-show/

Subscribe to our Rumble channel : https://rumble.com/c/AmericasFuture?e9s=src_v1_sa

Follow Us On Social Media

Facebook: (20+) Facebook

Twitter: (2) America's Future USA (@amerifuture) / X

Instagram: Americas Future USA (@americasfutureusa) • Instagram photos and videos

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Secret inheritance. Roots, right, powered by America's future.

SPEAKER_01 0:20

Hi, I'm Lee Smith. Welcome and thanks for joining us for this new episode of Roots, Rights, and Reason. Today, we're discussing one of the building blocks of our republic: immigration. The greatness of our country is owing to the people from many parts of the world who came to these shores for opportunity and freedom and the chance to become part of the great American story. And from wherever they came, Ireland or Italy, Central Europe or Central America, the men and women seeking to build better futures for themselves and their families, all understood it was a privilege to come to America. And yet of late, many have come to believe it is their right to partake of our freedoms, even as they mean to use our God-given rights to destroy America. Our guest today, Ariel Azaret, explains how this is playing out. She has written about a case involving the deportation of former Columbia University student, Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil is an Algerian national with a green card who organized pro-Hamas riots on the campus of Columbia University in New York City. The government says this is ground enough to send him packing, while his defenders frame the deportation effort as a violation of free speech. In the wake of Hamas's massacre of more than 1,200 people on October 7th, 2023, Khalil served as a prominent organizer and spokesperson for campus demonstrations on behalf of Hamas, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization. Immigration law allows the federal government broad discretion to deport foreign nationals whose activities are linked to terrorism or cause harmful foreign policy consequences, even when those activities are not necessarily in themselves criminal. Progressive activists contend that deporting Khalil would violate the First Amendment. But as Ezarad shows, constitutional protections for speech apply differently to non-citizens in immigration proceedings than to citizens in criminal cases. While lawful permanent residents do possess certain rights, immigration authorities have wide latitude to revoke visas or residency when national security or foreign policy concerns arise. Khalil's defenders are keen to downplay the dangers of his support for a terrorist organization. Moreover, they want to obscure the fact that foreigners have no right to remain in the United States while engaging in political activities designed to endanger Americans. Immigration, as most who come to our country do understand, is not a right, but a privilege. Ariel Azerat, thanks so much for being here with us today. You are working now as Deputy Chief Counsel for Senator Ted Cruz.

SPEAKER_03 3:18

I am. Thank you for having me, Lee. And just as a disclaimer, all the views expressed here by me or my own personal views and are not necessarily representative of the senator. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 3:29

Thank you, Ariel. Today we're talking about something very fundamental to our country, one of the building blocks of our Republic, and that's immigrant immigration. A lot of people, unfortunately, have confused, rather, a right with a privilege. It's not a right to come here, and you don't have a right to threaten the national security of American citizens or our allies. And you've written about this case and you've talked about this case quite a bit. There's a case we're looking at with Mahmoud Khalil. Can you talk about this a bit?

SPEAKER_03 4:00

Yeah, absolutely. Um, so Mahmoud Khalil was one of the leaders of the Pro Hamas protests at Colombia. He was one of the chief negotiators for this group called CU AD. Um, and it's effectively an organization that has been operating not under the radar at Columbia, um certainly above radar, but not as an official group. But nonetheless, it is actually an amalgamation of several official groups at Colombia, I would actually say dozens of official groups at Colombia. They were the ones that uh basically a reconstituted version of National Students for Justice in Palestine. So Pabil was uh the chief negotiator for this group with the administration. He was the one that was uh advocating all sorts of anti-Western, pro-terrorism, anti-Semitic commentary coming from C UA D at the time of the encampment and after.

SPEAKER_01 4:54

Well, I just I just want to just to step back a little bit here. This started up after uh the October 7th, 2023 massacre in Israel, where over 1200 people were killed. And so he was he he was out there organizing support on the campus of Columbia University.

SPEAKER_02 5:13

Correct.

SPEAKER_01 5:15

He's the uh pro-terror organizer spokesman, and he's the uh the interface with the Columbia University administration. So was Columbia okay with with this person, or do they have it have any questions? You know, that's a student who's you know who's agitating for Hamas. I'm not sure how we feel about this.

SPEAKER_03 5:35

Or what just uh yeah, no, not just agitating for Hamas, they were actually advocating for the destruction explicitly of Western civilization. Uh, they had uh several different calls to violence. Uh and and this individual in particular, um, he was Syrian born. He was here on a student visa. And I'm not sure if you know listeners are aware, but the actual process for the student visa requires you know a decent amount of communication between the principal university that's going to be educating the student and the State Department, right? So the university actually effectively acts as your sponsor and um you know assists in completing the forms for students when they come over to be, you know, to be students and to have on a student visa. So first and foremost, what I think is really interesting is that Columbia thought this person was worthy of sponsorship. Um this man was in his 30s, so we can get into sort of why it is that he was actually even a quote unquote student at Columbia. Um but anyway, he was the one that was leading the C UA D group, advocating for violence against America and the wet west writ large. Uh deportation was sought against him for um promoting uh you know, promoting terrorist activity and expressing support for a designated foreign terrorist organization according to DHS. Um, the materials that he had been distributing at Columbia University were actually materials that have been tied to Hamas and in particular Hamas's press office. Um, I think that if you look at the materials that were coming out of uh C UAD at the time just preceding his deportation order, uh it is pretty alarming and striking at the similarities between what Hamas was putting out and what was being distributed on Columbia's campus.

SPEAKER_01 7:24

Did the university have a sense before they uh before they admitted him and what before they started to sponsor him? Did they have any understanding of what his background was? This was clearly a an activist.

SPEAKER_03 7:37

Yeah, I I don't so I'm not privy to what sorts sort of screening processes that Columbia took part in, but I do know that you know these protests were Columbia was one of the first encampments. Uh it was extremely violent. I don't know if you remember the protesters completely destroyed Hamilton Hall. Um there were millions of dollars worth of damage. I also believe, I don't know if Lee, if you recall, I think one of the individuals who was held hostage at during these protests was a janitor at Columbia, if I'm not mistaken. Um, you know, this was not an ordinary, this was really a riot.

SPEAKER_01 8:14

Right. A lot of this, a lot of this is forgotten. I'm sorry, a lot a lot of people have forgotten exactly what happened with these events, and they call them protest, but there was lots of violence. You're right. And uh and a janitor was taken hostage. I mean, it's absolutely insane that this is happening in the United States, and the fact that it's happening uh in and and some of the instant our institutions of higher learning. Columbia is one of the great schools of the Ivy Leagues, and that this was going on now, and people are def defending this stuff on on free speech grounds, it's it's it's it's nuts.

SPEAKER_03 8:46

And you're right, you hit on something really important, free speech. So I've seen a lot of arguments. Well, he has a right to his speech, he's not a U.S. citizen. Being on a green card is not the same as being a United States citizen. You aren't afforded the same protections or privileges that the First Amendment grants us, or I should say the rights that the First Amendment um, you know, recognizes. Uh if you I believe our rights come from God, and so the First Amendment recognizes those rights. You do not have, you are not afforded the same recognition that a US citizen is afforded. So what does that mean in practice? There's a Supreme Court case, um, Turner v. Williams, which dealt specifically with the issue of sort of special individuals in society, whether they're prisoners, whether they're non-citizens, you know, what are the limitations of their First Amendment rights? And the Supreme Court has basically said they don't enjoy the same uh protection that the First Amendment bestows upon citizens. And in fact, the United States government can take action if there is speech that is considered an incitement to violence. And so our immigration code, or I would say our the immigration nationalization naturalization act actually re the INA reflects that limitation, i.e., the deport, the bases of deportation and inadmissibility perfectly reflect the fact that um, you know, there are instances where speech can rise to such a level that it may be either you may be denied entry on that basis or you may be deported. Um, and I I cite these two sections in particular because there is a significant amount of overlap between them. Um, why you are denied admission into the United States has very similar basis as to why you may be deported. So a lot of times looking at cases that involve uh denial of entry is is helpful for looking at well, you know, what be what might be considered a basis of deportation. Um there are numerous instances where uh individuals have been denied entry to the United States for putting up posters that were supportive of a foreign terrorist organization when they were abroad. There's cases um in the Sixth Circuit dealt with this, the Ninth Circuit, and just in the last 10 years, there was one individual who was in the 1970s supportive of a group that eventually was labeled an FTO in Iran. Uh and because of that support, they were denied entry in, I think in the 2010s. Um so this is not, this is really uh what I would say is um really mundane case that somehow the left has seized upon. But if they really wanted to go through the annals of immigration law judges and sort of the opinions that have been uh put put forth, they would be very surprised that this is a fairly mundane run-of-the-mill occurrence, i.e., if you are distributing materials that are produced by a foreign terror terrorist organization, no, you are not able to call upon the First Amendment. We don't have a green card terrorist carve out individuals who do that activity. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 11:51

Well, look, you you wrote an amicus, I mean, the State Department, the decision that the State Department made was for I look, and please, but if you correct me, but my understanding it was the Secretary of State Marco Rubios for foreign policy reasons. Right. And you wrote an amicus brief for the State Department to uh hasten along Mr. Khalil's deportation. So if you can tell us what what what was the case your amicus brief made and where are we right now with his deportation?

SPEAKER_03 12:21

So his deportation, he's expected to be deported this month to Algeria. Um the Third Circuit, our our amicus brief was in the district court of New Jersey, eventually went up to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit has basically said that his deportation cannot be blocked. Um there was a lot of debate over whether under eight USC 1227, whether you know the State Department could be making or Secretary Rubio could be making the determination that he ho he presents a foreign policy concern. Um you know, I I fully support and trust the discretion of Secretary of State Rubio and that he does pose a foreign policy concern. I believe there were all there was a case made by the State Department that he was being deported also for um spreading anti-Semitism, um, and that that in and of itself was a foreign policy concern because insofar as it threatened the global Jewish community. Uh so that was something that also came up at the district court proceedings, the one in which I had written an atchus brief with others. Um, but I I say this by way of uh, you know, there is obviously a push to go after any sort of discretionary decision, and you'll see that often in the courts, that there's constantly a question of, you know, was this decision made with proper discretion?

SPEAKER_01 13:42

I find it very hard to explain what you mean about discretionary decisions.

SPEAKER_03 13:46

Sure. So this is a situation, right, in which there is a a um a provision within the the the bases of deportation that allows the secretary of state to step in and say, you know, this person should be deported for foreign policy concerns. What makes Mahmoud Khalil's situation, I think, you know, more laughable than anything else, is that not only is that satisfied here, as it was by Secretary of State Rubio, but it was also satisfied by another provision of another basis of deportation, which is if you espouse support for terrorist activity or you persuade others to support a foreign terrorist organization or to support terrorist activity, that is a basis of deportation. This is so there are multiple bases here that could have been leaned on that were leaned on, I'm sure, internally. So the idea that again, he's so unusual and he needs we need to make an immigration martyr out of him. I always joke, Lee, the left needs to pick better heroes. Right. Um he's not a good one.

SPEAKER_01 14:52

They're gonna know someone who's who's come to this country, who's immigrated legally and who's had to fill out all sorts of different forms, uh, including originally visa forms and then permanent resident forms. And the fact is, if you support foreign terrorist organizations, then you don't belong here and you don't get in. So what happened? What what happened to the State Department before this State Department, before this Secretary of State? What happened to the what happened to our immigration system? Because this just to me seems nuts that questions that are asked normally of people and they have to answer them honestly, and if they don't, they're in trouble. But this just seems to me like an a an enormous wrench thrown into the system by someone on this side to allow a bad actor from that side to cross into the country.

SPEAKER_03 15:46

Um, you know, I don't have uh I don't have an answer that's super comforting, but I'm gonna give it a try. I think the first thing is that if you talk to uh any foreign service officer, I won't say any, but many foreign service officers, if you speak with them, you'll find uh that especially those who conduct visa interviews, there is a significant amount of of dishonesty that takes place in those interviews. A a good amount of lying. Um and this is just from public Senate testimony. You know, we we recently had um a hearing in the Senate on this topic. Uh this is something that's come up frequently. You know, that uh I do, you know, I do wonder how much of that plays a role. You know, what what are the what what vetting procedures were used prior to the State Department? How um how thorough were they? You know, how I I you'll speak to some officers and they'll say they'll do hundreds of interviews in one day, something like that. I mean, there really is, it really is a very quick moving process. Um, and I don't I can't speak to how thorough the vetting procedures were prior to the State Department, but I would be curious to speak with more for foreign service officers that worked in prior administrations.

SPEAKER_01 17:01

Um I also yeah I was gonna ask him the ones that, you know, the ones who testified uh you know gave their Senate testimony if they feel bad about it. I mean, not about the Khalil case in particular, maybe, but generally it's like, yeah, we want to do our job well. We're here to do our job well. And sometimes stuff gets bias, and you know, we're not making excuses for how many interviews we have to do a day. And the idea that somehow a terrorist or a terrorist supporter would cross our borders and and and damage our, you know, damage our national security is very upsetting to all of us. We're real professionals. Or if they're just like, hey, you know, uh it's what's the big deal? You know, the guy wasn't carrying a bomb in, so so what? If he causes problems, local police or the FBI can catch him. So what's what's their sentiment? Where are they on this?

SPEAKER_03 17:52

That's a good question. I haven't had the chance to ask that question in particular. Um, I think ultimately there is an element of this that should be apolitical. And most of, you know, I think if you'll talk to Foreign Service officers who have worked in multiple types of administrations, they will tell you that they are apolitical and that they are there to do a job and to ensure that those who are receiving visas are doing so in an honest fashion and are satisfying the various criteria that they need to satisfy. Um, and so I won't, you know, I won't presume to speak for them, but I will say that this administration, I really commend them for the degree to which they're taking national security, you know, are taking it so importantly. And uh there's a degree to which, yeah, we have we have had what I would think is sort of a free speech absolutist approach. And this is in sort of um various different sectors, but particularly in the immigration context, because you've as you noted, so many people, once Khalil was was um pointed out for deportation, were like, oh, this is a free speech issue. I'm like, no, it's not. Since when do someone do green card holders or when are they eligible for when are they eligible for protections of the First Amendment? So I think there's a misunderstanding. I think that the free speech element of the First Amendment has been stretched so far and manipulated so far that maybe there is a discomfort with going through someone's social media to figure out if they're an appropriate fit.

SPEAKER_01 19:16

But as you point out, if you're right, there's a campaign against the canceling, against this and that. And with Khalil and also Madawi, the uh, you know, another uh uh pro-Hamas supporter, Mosan Madawi, one of the one of the campaigns on their behalf was, oh, they're just being, you know, people want to deport them because they criticized Israel. It's like, no, as you pointed out at the top of our our our top of our talk, these guys are talking about destroying America. They're talking about West destroying Western civilization, pulling down the pillars of Western civilization. So yeah, I'm I'm it's fanatical and it's crazy. And guess what? They're not citizens. They're not entitled to that. So yeah, it's this is not about free speech.

SPEAKER_03 19:57

It's not, and I and I think you also hit a you hit the nail on the head with another point. They're fundament they fundamentally hate the West. Like if this were about Israel, we could do some sort of like surgical excision here, but it's not. These people you know cast themselves as anti-imperialists, uh, communist, Marxists, oftentimes, uh, anti-Western, uh, anti-Trump. I mean, everything's sort of baked in there, but they really are the people that feel Western civilization is a scourge that uh must be eradicated. And that's exactly the type of language they use. They call for the eradication of Western civilization. And the fact that this group was using Columbia's moniker, which I actually find somewhat amusing because Columbia recently, I don't know if you saw this, said publicly, Oh, this is not an official Columbia group. I'm like, I would love to see this cease and desist letter that you sent to C U A E, letting them know that uh they can't use your name because by golly, they've been using it for, you know, at least two years since of course. I mean, on the radar.

SPEAKER_01 20:59

Right. All these universities have have plenty of lawyers, they have general counsel and plenty of people who say, hey, you can't use our name. You can't use our name for these bogus t-shirts promoting our football team because you have nothing to do with it. You're just making right. So they could clearly do something about the use of that with a uh group that promotes anti-American terror.

SPEAKER_03 21:18

Yeah, absolutely. And it's also, you know, there are actually plenty of professors that are part of this group too. So I think that's sort of thorny for them. Like they've got professors that have said they're part of C UAD. Um, and Columbia says C UAD doesn't exist. So I'm not really sure where you go forward with that. But yeah, I mean, they're fairness.

SPEAKER_01 21:37

I mean, I want to know, speaking of going forward, as we're, you know, we're we're just about wrapping up here, but I want to know what it looks like going forward. Have people learned, have people learned a lesson here? Are, you know, I I don't want to make this uh explicitly partisan, but you know, we're we're um uh uh giving credit to the Donald Trump administration for being attentive to this. Can we count on other American administrations, other secretaries of state, regardless of whether whether they're uh Democratic or Republican, will they be paying attention to this as well? Or do we have a real problem coming up with our immigration system, not just in terms of our borders, but the fact that people who are actually showing up and doing interviews with the State Department and the and consular offices and they're not paying attention. They're waving through bad people. So what does it look like in the future?

SPEAKER_03 22:31

Yeah, that's a good question. So I think, you know, first off, I commend our Foreign Service officers for doing the best that they can to try to figure out what's truth and what's not, what's, you know, not fact. Um I think where the issue lies, as you point out, is with the administration from the head with the administration itself. Um, and whether the administration says, you know, you can't fast track these individuals. We don't want to fast track these individuals, or we do want to fast track these individuals. So for instance, with the um Afghan refugee situation in the 2020s, uh, the Biden administration made a point to fast track those individuals. And so there's lots of questions about what kind of messaging comes from the top. More so I think than those who are, you know, the line workers who are doing their best to conduct these interviews that they've been told to do. Um, and so I think again, the question is uh is of leadership from the top. And I can't presume to say what the next administration is going to do, um, but I can just express gratitude that finally there's somebody in the White House who's waking up and saying, you know what, this is a serious problem. Um, and we haven't really addressed it to the extent that we should be addressing it. And, you know, when was the last time we really had deportations of this level? Um, I think that people are starting to take the question of immigration seriously, of social fabric seriously. You know, is there a extent to which there's a certain number of individuals in society that actually change the social fabric and alter um what it means to live in America, what it means to be in America? I mean, these are the types of questions that Europe is wrestling with right now, right? What does it mean to go visit Paris now? Like, are you getting the full French experience? I don't know, right? Um, these are like why do people go to Paris? They go to Paris to see France, they go to Paris to be around French people. What does it mean to be French? Uh these are questions that the West is actually, I think, wrestling with in a healthy way, as they should.

SPEAKER_01 24:30

Supporters, right? Supporters of anti-American terror don't make the United States a better country.

SPEAKER_03 24:36

No, they don't.

SPEAKER_01 24:37

Um and immigration getting to come to this country as a foreigner hoping to make this your home. This is not a right, it's a privilege.

SPEAKER_03 24:46

It's a universe privilege. It's a uniform privilege.

SPEAKER_01 24:48

It's it's a gift. And, you know, as you were saying, what as as important as our laws, which we've been discussing, are our mores, are our customs as well. And that's part of what builds our social that that that is our that's the essential as that's the essential fabric of what holds us together as a country. And the idea not just that people would be crossing the borders illegally, but that people are lying to get in, or that people, their real designs are to go anti-American. You're an American. It's it's it's nuts.

SPEAKER_03 25:19

Yeah, I think I what I was really found heartwarming though were the Persian, um, the Persian Americans who were, you know, coming out in favor of the the Trump administration and Israel strikes against the Ayatollah. I thought that was fantastic. I thought it was one of the most pro-American things you can do. Uh, and so more of that, that's great. We love that. Um, you know, I think again, it goes back to what you were saying. It's a value system as well. Like, do you do you support the West? Do you believe the West is an inherent force for good? I think that's really a strong metric.

SPEAKER_01 25:53

Ariel Azaret, thank you so much for being here with us today on Roots, Rights, and Reason. And thanks to all of you for watching. We'll see you in our next episode, Roots, Rights, and Reason.