Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Anti-American Agitation by Foreigners
The Federalist ^ | 04/17/2025 | Adam Johnston

Posted on 04/17/2025 6:48:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The First Amendment is not a suicide pact between a nation and foreigners who wish it harm.

Last week, an immigration judge ruled that the Trump administration met the legal requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who is a U.S. permanent resident and also a prominent pro-Palestinian political organizer.

As a quick refresher, the arrest of Khalil is part of a broader crackdown by the Trump administration on revoking the student visas of political activists who have taken part, or supported, the Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israel movements that have taken hold of American college campuses since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

Under the INA, while foreign nationals cannot be excluded or deported for lawful speech or action, an exception exists if the secretary of state personally determines that an alien’s presence or activities would potentially have serious adverse consequences for U.S. foreign policy.

This exception is the justification for deportations used by Secretary of State Rubio as well as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who assert that foreign nationals who advocate for causes like “The total eradication of Western Civilization” pose a serious threat not only to America’s foreign policy, but also America’s social fabric.

The case has stirred intense debate over constitutionally protected free speech in the United States and the chilling effect targeting political organizers under immigration law could have on political dissent.

Khalil’s attorneys echoed these concerns, stating, “This case is intentionally projecting a message of repression about who can say what in this country and the consequences to your liberty and your life if you object to U.S. policy.”

Libertarians, who are notorious free speech absolutists, have also expressed concern that the secretary of state possesses “seemingly unlimited discretion to decide when people are subject to deportation because of their political views” under the INA.

Admittedly, one individual determining what qualifies as acceptable political speech appears incompatible with modern “democratic” norms, particularly when people perceive the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution as applicable not only to American citizens but to the entire world.

But the question of whether one person, in this case, the secretary of state, should have the power to decide what ideas are acceptable and which are not tolerated, the reality is that someone always decides, as German political theorist Carl Schmitt argued, “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

The secretary of state’s ability to invoke the INA’s exception clause is a modern enactment of Schmitt’s sovereign argument — a clear exercise of power that targets a particular type of political speech as unacceptable. In this case, the Trump administration is targeting not only groups that they deem to be antisemitic but also groups that align more broadly with anti-Western movements.

On this point, an analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

As such, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is correct when he posted on X that “the Trump Administration rejects the cult of suicide by hostile migration.” In other words, the First Amendment is not a suicide pact between a nation and foreigners who wish it harm, regardless of their immigration status.

Karl Popper, the renowned liberal author of The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), introduced a philosophical concept he called the “paradox of intolerance,” which deals with the limits of tolerance in a liberal society.

Even Popper, who was staunchly anti-authoritarian and skeptical of any ideology that suppressed dissent, understood that if a society were unlimitedly tolerant, the intolerant would eventually destroy it from within.

The paradox is that when a tolerant society permits all viewpoints — even intolerant ones — to be freely expressed and acted upon, it risks empowering those who reject tolerance to dismantle it. If intolerant groups gain enough influence, they can suppress the rights of others and destroy the very freedoms that enabled their rise.

The question then must be asked, “Who decides what ideas are ‘intolerant?’”

Circling back to Carl Schmitt, the answer is “whoever is in power.”

This may make free speech absolutists uncomfortable, but the debate over what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable speech has been in flux since the founding of the United States.

Thomas G. West, a politics professor at Hillsdale College, identified four main types of “harmful” speech as understood during the Founders’ era: personal libel, libel against the government, speech that harms public health or undermines the moral fabric of society, and speech connected to or encouraging other harmful actions.

Yes, even some of the Founders believed that criticism of the government was not protected under the First Amendment, as evidenced by the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), which made it a crime for American citizens to “print, utter, or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government.

Though the Alien Act and the Sedition Acts are no longer in effect, the Alien Enemies Act remains, which is what the Trump administration is using as justification for deporting Venezuelan Tren de Aragua Gang members based on national security grounds.

Of course, there are “classical liberals” on the right who worry about wielding power in pursuit of their desired political ends. Often, someone will state in an appeal to neutrality some form of, “But imagine if the roles were reversed?”

To this, it’s important to point out that while some progressives in America today raise concerns about Algerian citizen Mahmoud Khalil’s right to free speech under the First Amendment, Democrats like John Kerry warned that the First Amendment, as it applied to American citizens, posed a significant obstacle to eliminating what progressives deemed “disinformation.”

Democrats hoped that after defeating Trump in the 2024 election, they could push through the legal changes necessary to combat “disinformation” and “misinformation,” thereby shaping political discourse in their favor, just as governments across Europe have done with their attempts at eradicating “hate speech.”

Progressives have no issue wielding political power in pursuit of their goals, and do not view the First Amendment as sacrosanct, as anyone who has lived through the era of politically correct woke cancel culture can attest.

The illusion of absolute free speech has always depended on the quiet exercise of sovereign judgment. Dating back to our nation’s founding, there has always been a battle between those in power and those outside of power to control what forms of speech are “acceptable” and what forms are deemed “intolerant” or “hateful.”

In the case of Mahmoud Khalil and other student activists who face deportation, the question has little to do with “free speech” but whether America will decide to defend its society and culture from foreign ideological subversion.


Adam Johnston is a contributor to The Federalist whose work has been featured in The Blaze, WrongSpeak Publishing, and Man’s World Magazine. He is also the creator of conquesttheory.com, where he regularly writes about politics, history, philosophy, and technology.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deportation; foreign; foreignenemies; freespeech; hamas; mahmoudkhalil; protest

1 posted on 04/17/2025 6:48:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How do we frame this in a second amendment issue? A foreign illegal member of a terrorist gang makes a “ghost gun” shoots up an GOP headquarters, murders a white kid, and is arrested and deported. What then, democrats?


2 posted on 04/17/2025 6:52:43 PM PDT by Organic Panic (Democrats. Memories as short as Joe Biden's eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Libertarians, who are notorious free speech absolutists,

Yeah…those pesky defenders of the absolutist 2nd Amendment are also detestable, right Adam.

Sorry mate. The Constitution isn’t a buffet, where you can pick and discard your favorite and unfavorite Amendments.

Unless you’re a leftist. Which you appear to be.

3 posted on 04/17/2025 6:58:28 PM PDT by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s² )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Trump DOJ Checkmates Judge Xinis in Alleged MS-13
Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Deportation Case / 4/13/2025

Because Judge Xinis’ ruling did not clarify what “facilitate” meant, as SCOTUS required her to do,
Trump declared, vis a vis immigration, it means “to be respectful of Article II authority.”

Eleventh Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


4 posted on 04/17/2025 7:01:35 PM PDT by Liz (This then is how we should pray...."Our Father, who art in heaven......" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Speech, speech, speech, speech, speech.

He is not being deported because of his speech. He is being detained because he went well beyond speech, to organizing tent enclaves, trespassing on university grounds, and harassing and threatening Jewish students. Stop calling these activities “speech”. Had he confined his actions strictly to speaking or printing up and passing out brochures with his vile spew, even Conservatives would support him exercising his rights.


5 posted on 04/17/2025 7:37:46 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (The Democrat breadlines will be gluten-free. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Well hold on there, the accusation against Khalil doesn’t match up with the headline.


6 posted on 04/17/2025 7:38:57 PM PDT by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I can certainly vouch for that statement. My wife is a permanent resident from China. According to all the paperwork we have, she can be deported back to China for breaking the law. Non citizens are considered guests of the United States and can be deported if they break the law.


7 posted on 04/17/2025 8:28:57 PM PDT by wjcsux (On 3/14/1883 Karl Marx gave humanity his best gift, he died. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not only should muzzie boy be kicked out he should have his ass kicked on the way out.


8 posted on 04/17/2025 8:41:32 PM PDT by Bullish (I've never seen such morons... Have you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
How hard is it to define “intolerable” ?

If it violates the Constitution or our laws, boot the dirtbag.

9 posted on 04/17/2025 9:17:35 PM PDT by NativeSon ( *> <*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned by the Supreme Court 225 years ago.


10 posted on 04/17/2025 10:18:41 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bkmk


11 posted on 04/18/2025 3:03:14 AM PDT by sauropod (Make sure Satan has to climb over a lot of Scripture to get to you. John MacArthur Ne supra crepidam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thank you for post. I especially appreciate the last sentence of this article:

“In the case of Mahmoud Khalil and other student activists who face deportation, the question has little to do with “free speech” but whether America will decide to defend its society and culture from foreign ideological subversion.”


12 posted on 04/18/2025 3:23:04 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com (Please pray for God 's intervention to stop Putin's invasion of Ukraine 🇺🇸)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson