Andrew McCarthy: Does the Constitution really protect Columbia Agitator Mahmoud Khalil from deportation?

In fact, I was a prosecutor of mafia and terrorism before I started playing one on television. In this sense, with Trump’s administration achieved its worthy goal of ejecting alien terrorists from our country, we must think about the first amendment – specifically, the rights of free speech and free association.

So with the risk of further socializing, before we talk about it Mahmoud KhalilI want to talk to you about that Hagen.

The movies will immediately remember Hagen (shown Robert Duvall) as the Corleone family in iconic films about the godfather of the early 1970s (adapted from Mario Puzo’s novel). In perhaps the most dangerous vignette, Hagen would tell you that the “mediator”, who advocated on behalf of Don Corleone with Jack Woltz, a well -known Hollywood producer.

Trump is a vow of anti-Israeli activist Mahmoud Khalil was “the first arrest of many to come”

Remember: Hagen is trying to convince Woltz that if he does not give the desired role in the long -awaited movie Don’s godfather, they have happened badly. And quite certainly, after Hagen encouraged the “intermediary”, the producer soon woke up to find the cut off the head of his esteemed racing horse under the blood of soaked Satin leaves. After understanding so correctly, Woltz gives a godfather to a part.

We could euphemistically say that Hagen was there to “discern” with Woltz – to “do him an offer he can’t refuse.” In the law, however, we have a different word for this: extortion. It is a crime, such as reaction. In the courtroom, Tom Hagen would not have had a defense if he had just talked to Woltz, to just enjoy his right to express free expression on behalf of Corleones, with whom he freely united.

We know this intuitively, which is the basic principle of the Criminal Code. AND First amendment It prevents the Government from criminalizing speech itself – it is not a crime to utter words. It prevents the government from criminalizing only a gathering of two or more people – a mere association is not a crime.

Yet if a person is credibly accused of crimes like extortionThere is no legal prohibition of speech use as evidence of these crimes. And if a person is credibly accused of conspiracy, there is no legal prohibition against presenting the connection of the conspiracy with each other as evidence that they are joint participants in the criminal agreement.

Keep that in mind. We have already heard Twaddle about the first amendment of Apologet for Khalil, a former student of Columbia University born in Syria. He claims that Palestinian heritage and Trump’s administration seek to deport him because of his role in the campus’ ups guided by his support from Hamas – which has been formally appointed a terrorist organization under US law for almost 30 years.

In short, the defense goes like this. Halil is a lawful permanent resident Alien (LPR), a green card holder. As a real, this makes him an American person whose rights bring to that American citizen. Ergo, he cannot legally expel from the United States for constitutionally protected behavior-the association with other agitators of Pro-Ham students and his speech on their behalf as a “intermediary” in interactions with Columbia administration. There are now a number of legal defects in this defense (I stated them in this essay for a national review). Although the real LPR are similar to those of American citizens, they are not identical. LPRS are still aliens. The Federal Law on Immigration is long provided that aliens can deport themselves because of criminal behavior, terrorist support and care of national security – something that cannot be done to American citizens.

But I want to deal with a basic assumption that Khalil’s The behavior was nothing but a constitutional protected speech and an association that no American will face with legal consequences.

We seem to understand this in cases of organized crime. In all his years who have persecuted them, I have never heard that the defense lawyer claims that when the boss told the button to “hit that guy,” he simply used his rights to freedom of speech.

However, when I began to do cases of terrorism after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, I discovered that jihadists would basically bring out that argument – they would shyly feel about respect for religious freedom and political beliefs of our society to darken them.

Don’t be fooled.

Khalil is not subject to deportation because he is a Muslim or because he is deeply opposed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. His political speech and connection with like-minded people (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) are not a point and if he and his supporters believe that they were the only point.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

When he “mediated” on behalf of the Campus Agitator – who set up an illegal camp that blocked the other students to study and have a normal campus life and who illegally occupied and vandalized university buildings – was not involved in political speech. He pressed on the university to give up the concessions for the requirements of the Pro-Ham agitator, with the understanding that if the administration is not capitulated, more and worse damage will be done on the campus.

It’s not a political speech. It is extortion. American citizens who dealt with such behavior would not have a defense of the first amendment. They would probably face criminal prosecution – and, in fact, dozens of agitators have been arrested in connection with these activities and can still face other legal consequences.

Click here to get the Fox News app

Khalil does not represent a deep constitutional controversy. His case speaks of the authority of the Government, which is responsible for the safety of its citizens, deport aliens – even LPR – who endanger us. It is authority engraved in the Constitution, as well as immigration and criminal laws of the United States.

Many years ago, I learned in cases involving jihadists and their supporters who hope, after their lawyers begin to break about the glory of our Constitution (the same constitution that would have destroyed the heart rate), we will all check our common sense at the door. Let’s not do that.

Click here to read more than Andrew McCarthy