Atlantic story about ‘Maryland father’ wrongly deported is ‘FAKE NEWS’



Yesterday, the Atlantic published an article titled "An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison.” The story claims that the Trump administration accidentally deported an innocent father living in Maryland with protected legal status, but now that he’s in an El Salvadorian “megaprison,” there’s nothing the courts can do about it. According to the article, the Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing that it made a mistake.

“It’s absolutely fake news,” says Liz Wheeler. “This shouldn’t surprise us in the least given that this headline was generated by the Atlantic ... the same organization whose editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg is a notorious anti-Trump liar.”

This story, she says, “is the exact same playbook that the left uses every time the Trump administration does anything related to immigration.”

In Trump’s first term, “every time there was a border security bill that came before Congress, anytime there was a criminal illegal alien who committed a crime, anytime there was even the whisper of a deportation that would happen, we would suddenly get inundated with pictures of little children wrapped in tinfoil,” Liz recalls, noting that many of these images were taken during the Obama administration.

This Atlantic story is just another media lie intended to thwart the president from carrying out his mandate.

What’s the truth about this Maryland father then? “He’s an MS-13 gang member.”

MS-13, Liz reminds, lives by the following motto: “Kill, rape, control.”

“MS-13 gang members are known to cut out the living, beating hearts of live victims just for the fun of it, just to prove that they are more brutal and inhumane and demonic than anybody else,” she says.

This “Maryland father” — Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who “came from El Salvador [illegally] in 2011” — was “a ranking member of this gang.”

During his immigration court proceedings back in 2019, ICE deemed him to be “a danger to the public” and “a flight risk.”

“He was given final deportation orders, and yet those orders were never carried out” because the Biden administration operated under a “maximum acceptance” policy and so Garcia “was never kicked out of our nation,” says Liz.

To hear more about Garcia and the heinous media plot to paint him as a victim, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

It’s not a ‘power-grab’ — it’s a rescue mission for higher ed



Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people's suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

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.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers' unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic's long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

Judge blocks Trump admin from ending protected status for Venezuelans: 'Smacks of racism'



United States District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals living in the U.S.

Under the Biden administration, TPS eligibility was drastically expanded to foreign nationals from several countries, including Afghanistan, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and Ukraine.

'We need to follow the rule of law and not some advice from an activist judge who makes a foolish ruling.'

Through two separate designations in 2021 and 2023, the Biden administration granted TPS to roughly 600,000 Venezuelan nationals in the U.S., allowing them to apply for work authorizations and avoid deportation. Those designations were set to expire on April 7 and September 10, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On his way out of office, Biden extended TPS expiration dates for nearly 1 million foreign nationals, including Venezuelans.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem moved to undo those last-minute extensions, reversing protections for the 350,000 Venezuelans whose status is scheduled to expire in April. She also announced a reversal for another 250,000 Venezuelans whose TPS will end in September.

The move sparked a legal challenge brought by the National TPS Alliance. On Monday, Chen blocked Trump's DHS from stripping the protections, claiming it "smacks of racism."

The Barack Obama-appointed judge wrote, "The Secretary made sweeping negative generalizations about Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries."

"Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism," Chen stated.

"The Secretary's rationale is entirely lacking in evidentiary support," Chen claimed. "There is no evidence that Venezuelan TPS holders are members of the [Tren de Aragua] gang, have connections to the gang, and/or commit crimes. Venezuelan TPS holders have lower rates of criminality than the general population. Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes."

Chen argued that the removal of TPS would "inflict irreparable harm" to the Venezuelan nationals, the U.S. economy, and community stability. He has postponed the Trump administration's attempt to revoke TPS until he rules on the merits of the case.

Border czar Tom Homan responded to Chen's ruling.

"It's another activist judge making a stupid ruling," he told Fox News.

Homan emphasized that TPS was intended to be used for a limited period of time to protect foreign nationals from conditions in their home countries, including armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary temporary conditions.

"TPS isn't meant to be decades long," Homan continued. "TPS needs to be temporary in nature. We need to follow the rule of law and not some advice from an activist judge who makes a foolish ruling."

Homan contended that Chen's decision was based on his "opinion" and not the rule of law. He noted that the administration will appeal the ruling.

Chen is the latest district judge to attempt to block Trump's agenda. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an emergency pause on the administration's deportation flights.

The DHS did not respond to a request for comment from CBS News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Washington Post Writer Shares Deep Compassion For Deported Shirtless Gang Members

Whenever Democrats wonder to themselves why their party is so unpopular with voters, they should immediately read the hysterical piece written this week by chief Washington Post nag Monica Hesse. Hesse, the Post’s “gender” columnist, wrote Thursday on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s recent visit to the “CECOT” confinement center in El Salvador. The whole […]

Obama judges say suspected terrorists must be allowed to fight Alien Enemies Act deportations



An Obama judge doubled down Monday on his ruling preventing President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who critics claim is not just overstepping his bounds but "usurping the power of the president" — stated in his 37-page opinion that suspected members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist organization have a right to individualized hearings before they may be deported.

Later Monday, another Obama judge — this time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — heard the government's arguments for lifting Boasberg's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett echoed her fellow traveler, claiming that the suspected terrorists dwelling in the country illegally who had been targeted for deportation were not given the due process supposedly owed them and that "Nazis got better treatment."

Background

Weeks after the State Department designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist group, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, proclaiming that all Venezuelan citizens "14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

'The judge's order was patently unlawful.'

A pair of leftist activist groups immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of several illegal aliens in an effort to prevent Trump from using the law, which was passed by the generation that drafted the Constitution.

Boasberg granted the leftist groups their temporary restraining order, thereby preventing the Trump administration from sending more suspected terrorists packing — besides, of course, the hundreds of illegal aliens the administration loaded into planes destined for El Salvador and Honduras hours earlier.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, stated, "The judge's order was patently unlawful. Beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself."

Miller later told CNN that Trump's authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States with the aid of the Alien Enemies Act "is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way."

"There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review," added Miller.

Trump noted on Truth Social, "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

Tren de Aragua's judicial safety net

Boasberg suggested that the language of the Alien Enemies Act — particularly the terms "nation," "government," "invasion," and "predatory incursion" — was open for his interpretation and insinuated that a court could potentially be "empowered to decide if the characteristics of Tren de Aragua qualify it as a 'nation' or 'government,' or if its conducts constitutes a 'perpetrated, attempted, or threatened' 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion.'"

'Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings.'

Despite his apparent interest in tailoring the definitions of key terms to suit leftist activists and illegal aliens, Boasberg indicated that such a provocative course of action was likely unnecessary as the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of succeeding on a more discrete claim that justifies retaining the TROs."

The Obama judge claimed that even if Trump's invocation of the act is valid, suspected enemies in the country illegally are still to be afforded the chance to contest their deportation or voluntarily self-deport.

"Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all," wrote Boasberg. "The awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, 'alien enemies.' And the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long maintained that federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such."

The judge stressed that the illegal aliens targeted by the act "must be given the opportunity, if they so choose, to contest that they are 'Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States."

Different Obama judge, same story

The Trump administration has appealed Boasberg's hearing and argued its case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday. Based on their reception by an Obama-appointed judge on the panel, the Alien Enemies Act may not ultimately be a reliable arrow in the administration's quiver when it comes to dispatching with illegally imported terrorists.

Judge Patricia Millett complained that the hundreds of criminal noncitizens whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed were flown to El Salvador and Honduras on March 15 were not given notice or provided an opportunity to contest their ouster, reported ABC News.

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They [sic] people weren't given notice," said Millett. "They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA."

'We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy.'

According to Millett, "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act," referencing previously identified enemy aliens' ability to challenge their removal from the country during World War II.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign reportedly suggested Millett was wrong about her Nazi comparison, noting that some of the suspected terrorists were able to file habeas petitions.

Whereas Boasberg repeatedly cast doubt on the validity of the law, Millett was at least willing to acknowledge the law was constitutional.

Millett's responses were tempered by another judge on the panel, Trump-appointee Justin Walker, who appeared wise to the plaintiffs' game. Walker reportedly questioned why the activist groups decided to bring their case in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the deportees were being detained.

Of limits and ousters

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill (Texas), among those frustrated with judicial overreach and Democrat-appointed judges' apparent efforts to thwart the will of the democratically elected president, has filed a resolution to impeach Boasberg — a largely symbolic gesture granted it will reportedly require 14 Senate Democrats to convict.

Gill, who deemed Boasberg's latest ruling a "judicial insurrection," told Fox Business, "I hope that the Supreme Court steps in and expedites this appeals process, but absent that, I think Congress needs to jump in here. We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy or to usurp the president's authority."

A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports found that voters favor impeaching Boasberg by a 2-to-1 margin — something Trump has expressed support for — and that voters majoritively support Trump's deportation of Venezuelan terrorists.

Critics of judicial overreach might ultimately have better luck reining in activist judges with legislation.

On Monday, California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) introduced a bill titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would prohibit U.S. district courts from issuing any order providing for injunctive relief "except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan indicated that his committee will also hold hearings on efforts by Democrat-appointed judges to undermine the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge Overreaches Amid Latest Lawfare Against Trump

Judge James Boasberg hastily took command and control over the latest iteration of lawfare. His orders and reactions are laden with error.

Trump must defy rogue judges or risk a failed presidency



If a federal judge told President Trump to deliver a specifically curated speech and then pull down his pants on live television, should he comply? If he refused, would that trigger a “constitutional crisis”? If you pay attention to the left, the answer might very well be “yes”!

The only “constitutional crisis” we face is the erroneous idea that the judiciary is atop the food chain rather than on equal footing with the other two branches of government. If Trump hopes to succeed this time around, he had better remind the judiciary of its impotence to enforce unconstitutional edicts.

Granting courts ultimate veto power over public policy creates a judicial supremacy the Founders never intended.

Federal judges have repeatedly attempted to restrict Trump’s presidential authority with overreaching demands. They have ordered the administration to fund private foreign aid organizations, reinstate specific personnel, and publish designated information on government websites. In one case, a judge even directed the secretary of defense to retract a statement on the Pentagon’s policy regarding transgender troops. And over the weekend, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg attempted to block the deportation of violent gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

What’s next? Will they order Trump to stop threatening Hamas or remove the bust of Andrew Jackson from the Oval Office?

Judges have forgotten who they are: unelected shields against government overreach, not legislative swords that can impose policies. Perhaps Trump needs to examine that bust of “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office and recall his (likely apocryphal) response to Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

What judges are not

Imagine if the president imposed the same restrictions on the judiciary that federal judges are placing on Trump. What if he dictated how judges managed their websites, controlled which clerks they could hire, or ordered them to rule a certain way? The overreach would be obvious.

Unlike judges, Congress has the authority to regulate every aspect of judicial proceedings, hiring, budget, and conduct. Judges, however, cannot impose similar policies on the other branches — a fact that frustrates judicial supremacists. This limitation exists for a reason: Federal judges are unelected. If they were meant to wield supreme — or even equal — power over public policy, they would be subject to re-election, as many state judges are.

If judicial power has clear limits, then what is its actual role, distinct from the executive and legislative branches?

In a letter to William Torrance dated June 11, 1815, Thomas Jefferson explained who decides constitutional questions.

Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given [judges] that power [authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law] more than to the executive or legislative branches. Questions of property, of character, and of crime being ascribed to the judges, through a definite course of legal proceeding, laws involving such questions belong of course to them; and as they decide on them ultimately and without appeal, they of course decide, for themselves, the constitutional validity of the law.

Bankruptcy cases and criminal charges illustrate the proper scope of judicial authority. Judges can uphold or overturn criminal convictions and resolve disputes over property or bankruptcy. However, when conflicts arise over laws or the Constitution involving the other branches, the judiciary was never meant to have the final say.

Granting courts ultimate veto power over public policy creates a judicial supremacy the Founders never intended. Each branch has a duty to interpret and apply the law within its own constitutional authority. Jefferson reiterated this principle in the same letter.

On laws again prescribing executive action, and to be administered by that branch ultimately and without appeal, the executive must decide for themselves also, whether, under the constitution, they are valid or not. So also as to laws governing the proceedings of the legislature, that body must judge for itself the constitutionality of the law, and equally without appeal or control from its coordinate branches. And, in general, that branch which is to act ultimately, and without appeal, on any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the law, uncontrolled by the opinions of the other coordinate authorities.

Treating the courts as the final authority on public policy grants them more power than even James Madison’s rejected Council of Revision proposal at the Constitutional Convention. Under Madison’s “Virginia Plan,” Congress would have been a dominant, unicameral body with the ability to veto state laws. To keep it in check, he suggested that the president and Supreme Court jointly review laws before enactment, giving the judiciary a role in the legislative veto. Even in that system, however, the judiciary would not have acted alone — it would have shared power with an elected executive.

The system the Framers ultimately adopted works differently. Two legislative chambers check each other, and the president holds veto power. Are we now supposed to believe that the Supreme Court — or even a single district judge — has more authority than the elected House, Senate, president, and state governments combined? Should an unelected judge wield a stronger veto than the one the Framers deliberately withheld from an entire elected Congress?

No such judicial veto exists.

Resolving disputes among branches

What happens when branches of government disagree and exercise their powers in conflicting ways? Is that a constitutional crisis? Jefferson, again, provides wisdom here.

It may be said that contradictory decisions may arise in such case, and produce inconvenience. This is possible, and is a necessary failing in all human proceedings. Yet the prudence of the public functionaries, and authority of public opinion will generally produce accommodation.

Ultimately, the public will decide who is right. Our system isn’t perfect, but it is far better than allowing unelected judges to impose on the people what hundreds of elected legislators could not.

Shocking ICE raid: Why Mahmoud Khalil’s detention is sparking outrage



President Trump announced this week that an ICE raid led to the arrest of anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil, claiming that it was in the best interest of national security, as he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

Khalil is under investigation by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and the State Department as a national security threat.

"Following my previously signed executive orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. "This is the first arrest of many to come."


"We will find, apprehend and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again," Trump continued, adding, "If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests and you are not welcome here."

Now, the far-left crowd is rallying behind Khalil.

“How is this possible?” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” asks. “How are people siding with this guy? It just shows how out of kilter we are as a nation.”

“‘We should be able to stay here and try to destroy Western civilization,’” Gray mocks. “We’ve got the obligation to let him do it.”

“Although, if you try through violent means, you too will be arrested. Maybe not deported, but you’ll be behind bars where you belong,” he continues. “But we’re supposed to carve out a special exception for this guy ‘cause he’s a foreigner.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

America welcomes guests — but not those who want to destroy it



America is the most generous country on Earth. We open our doors, offer opportunities, and welcome those who seek a better life. But make no mistake — this country is a home, not a doormat. If you, as a guest, start trashing the place, don’t be surprised when we show you the door.

Mahmoud Khalil is exactly that — a guest. He’s a green-card holder who led violent, anti-Semitic protests at Columbia University. Labeling what he did as mere “protests” softens the outright hate against the Jewish people and Western civilization that he espoused during his weeks-long standoff.

Green-card holders are not entitled to the same protections as citizens.

The left is accusing President Trump’s decision to revoke Khalil’s green-card status as a violation of his rights while dismissing the critical fact that Khalil is not a citizen — and as such, actions have consequences.

Residents are not citizens

A green card is not a birthright; it is a privilege. It’s a golden ticket invitation to live and work in the United States. But as in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, that ticket comes with terms and conditions. If you break the rules, you’re out. It’s not a passport. It’s not citizenship. It’s more like a revocable lease.

Imagine you’re handed the keys to a grand estate. The owners invite you to sit at their table, pour you a glass of wine, and say, “Stay as long as you like. Just honor the house rules.” And yet, rather than showing gratitude, you start smashing windows, tearing down walls, and whispering to others, “This place is awful. It must be destroyed.”

How long before the owner snatches those keys from your hand? And who in their right mind would object? If you threatened to burn down the guest wing, you would be thrown out, and the owner would be right to do so.

Deportations are lawful

Today, we are watching green-card holders — guests in our home — sow chaos, spew hatred, and threaten the foundations of the very country that took them in.

The left is wringing its hands, insisting that these guests have a “right” to do all of those things — which is simply not true. Green-card holders are legal permanent residents, not citizens. In fact, back in 1893, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could deport noncitizens at will. National sovereignty means we have the power to determine who comes into our house. If someone isn’t a respectful guest, the Supreme Court ruled we can kick them out.

Let’s be clear: Deporting Mahmoud Khalil is not a violation of his rights. He doesn’t have the same protections as U.S. citizens. We have opened our doors, allowing millions to chase their dreams in America. But that welcome comes with an expectation: Don’t destroy what you were invited into. You don’t come into my house and start swinging a hammer at the foundation. You don’t set fire to the roof. And you surely don’t get to claim victimhood when you’re shown the exit.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

DEPORT him NOW: Unveiling Mahmoud Khalil's disturbing history



On March 8, ICE arrested Palestinian activist and recent Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil after the Trump administration revoked his green card for allegedly engaging in activities that supported Hamas, a designated terrorist group. Khalil was a leader in Columbia’s pro-Palestinian protests last spring.

He was destined for deportation, but yesterday, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman issued an order blocking his deportation. Khalil is currently detained in a Louisiana ICE facility awaiting his fate, which could take months to sort out.

The incident has sparked widespread controversy. Of course, the left is outraged. That’s a given. But so are facets of the right, including Candace Owens and Glenn Greenwald, who are speaking out against Khalil’s deportation on the premise that he hasn’t engaged in violence and that his free speech is being violated.

Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” breaks it all down and explains why Khalil’s deportation is absolutely necessary.

If we want to stop “the crisis of mass immigration that is harming our country,” that means “not just securing our border but protecting our culture from those who hate America,” she says.

On “October 7, 2023, when Hamas brutally raided, invaded, raped, murdered, brutalized Israelis and Jews …there were protests that cropped up not just in the Middle East but here in America in favor of what Hamas did.”

One of those protests occurred at Columbia University, where protesters, defying university rules, “occupied buildings” for days until NYC police finally had to evict them.

Khalil was “reportedly the chief negotiator between the protesters and the campus administrators.”

He even “articulated to the media the demands that these students had for the administration … before they would agree to end their occupation of the building,” says Liz.

She then plays a video clip of Khalil telling CNN that the students would continue to defy university rules by occupying the Hamilton building until the university agreed to the BDS movement — the boycott, divest, and sanction Israel movement.

“Are you guys going to listen to the university and leave the encampment here?” a reporter asked.

“Of course not. The university is the one who should listen to us. … Our demands are clear. Our demands are regarding the divestment from the Israeli occupation, the companies that are profiting and contributing to the genocide of our people,” Khalil stated, before telling the reporter that they would “go as far as [they needed] to pressure the university.”

“That's a dangerous thing to say … because it insinuates that he'd be willing to escalate to the point of violence,” says Liz, “and we know that he would be willing to escalate to the point of violence because of the group that he's involved in.”

The group Liz refers to is called Columbia United Apartheid Divest.

“This group calls for the total eradication of the West,” Liz explains, calling the organization “as extreme as it gets.”

CUAD’s X account features the following statement: “In the face of violence from the oppressor equipped with the most lethal military force on the planet, where you’ve exhausted all peaceful means of resolution, violence is the only path forward.”

Further, in a since-deleted Instagram post, the organization stated the following: “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the global South. Our intifada is an internationalist one. We are fighting for nothing less than the liberation of all people. As the fascism ingrained in the American consciousness becomes ever more explicit and irrefutable, we seek community and instruction from militants in the global South who have been on the front lines in the fight against tyranny and domination, which undergird the imperialist world order.”

Mahmoud, therefore, is “not just being a protester against the so-called war in Gaza; he is now anti-West, which means that he is anti-American,” she continues.

If his membership and activism in CUAD is “not a direct tie to terrorism ... then what is?” she asks.

To hear more of Liz’s argument, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.