The ongoing detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful U.S. permanent resident and former Columbia University Student and the hunting by ICE of Columbia student, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old U.S. student and permanent resident, who has lived in the U.S. since she was 7, has ignited critical debate around a question many green card holders and immigrants are now asking: Am I truly protected by the U.S. Constitution, especially the right to free speech?
Khalil, who is married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested on March 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents for his involvement in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Despite not being charged with a crime he remains detained in a facility in Louisiana. The government initially leaned on a rarely used Cold War-era provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, citing potential foreign policy consequences, and later accused him of immigration fraud.
His case isn’t just a legal test — it’s a constitutional one.
At the heart of this issue lies the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which promises that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, or petition. For many, this language has served as a beacon of liberty, signaling that anyone on U.S. soil — citizen or not — has the right to express themselves without government retaliation.
But Khalil’s detention challenges that assumption.
Legal scholars overwhelmingly agree that the Constitution protects “the people,” not just citizens. That category has traditionally included green card holders, temporary workers, students, and even undocumented immigrants. So yes, green card holders like Khalil are protected under the U.S. Constitution. They can attend protests, speak out, publish articles, and practice religion just like any American citizen.
But there’s a painful catch.
Unlike citizens, permanent residents can still be deported, even without a criminal conviction. Under immigration law, if the U.S. government finds what it deems “reasonable grounds” to believe someone is engaged in or may engage in terrorism or activities that could harm U.S. foreign policy, it can initiate removal proceedings. No conviction necessary, just suspicion.
In Khalil’s case, the allegation — strongly denied by his wife and legal team — is that he distributed “pro-Hamas” flyers. No actual criminal charges have been filed but his detention suggests the government is using his immigration status to punish what it perceives as “dangerous political expression.”
Chung was one of several students arrested this year in connection with a protest at Barnard College. The high school valedictorian who moved to the United States with her family from South Korea at age 7, has not been detained by ICE. She remains in the country, but her lawyers would not comment on her whereabouts.
Agents historically prefer to pick up immigrants in jail or prisons. Other types of arrests are more difficult, often requiring hours of research, surveillance and other investigative resources.
This raises a sobering reality: green card holders technically have First Amendment protections, but those protections can be more fragile than for citizens. They may speak freely, but that speech — especially when it intersects with foreign policy or is critical of the U.S. government — can carry immigration consequences.
It’s not the first time America has wrestled with this contradiction. From deportations of anarchists in the early 1900s to anti-Communist purges of immigrants in the 1950s, and the denial of visas to political dissidents, the U.S. government has repeatedly used immigration law as a tool to silence controversial political speech.
Khalil’s case echoes this troubling history. It sets a dangerous precedent where lawful permanent residents could be stripped of their status, not because they broke the law, but because their speech was deemed “inconvenient” or “unpopular.”
It’s important to remember that the First Amendment was never intended to be popular. It was designed to protect unpopular views, dissent, and debate –– even when that debate makes those in power uncomfortable.
So, are green card holders protected by the Constitution? Absolutely.
But the durability of that protection –– especially the right to free speech –– is only as strong as the country’s willingness to uphold it for everyone, regardless of immigration status.
Khalil’s detention and the move to arrest Chung, is not just an immigration issue –– it’s a free speech issue, a human rights issue, and a wake-up call.
Because when the government starts making exceptions to the First Amendment, we’re all one step closer to losing the freedoms we claim to cherish.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Felicia J. Persaud is the publisher of NewsAmericasNow.com, a daily news outlet focused on positive news about Black immigrant communities from the Caribbean and Latin America.
Anyone who is legal in the US is supposed to be protected by the constitution, however, green card holders can always be deported if the conduct is not in keeping with the laws of the country. You choose to make a country your home, thefore, you should be supportive of that country and its laws. True it is a free country and we have come to appreciate certain freedoms, but this new administration has different ideas about what it considers supportive to the US and what considers detrimental to the US. Certainly, I would not be distributing flyers or joining in a demonstration that’s not speaking good about the country that I choose to live. What is the sense in doing that? How smart is that? And why should I be surprised when the country retaliates and punishes me?