The U.S. immigration system is built on a delicate balance between national security concerns and constitutional protections. One of the more controversial provisions of immigration law is INA) § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), which allows for the deportation of noncitizens whose presence or activities may have adverse foreign policy consequences. The case of Mahmoud Khalil has brought renewed attention to this provision and its potential implications for free speech and due process rights.
Constitutional Concerns and INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i)
This section of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the removal of a noncitizen “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” Alleging this ground is only the first step and does not automatically result in deportation. The government must initiate formal removal proceedings in immigration court, where individuals are afforded certain due process protections. These include being notified of the charges through a Notice to Appear (NTA) and the opportunity to challenge the allegations with legal representation, if available.
To support removal under this foreign policy ground, the Secretary of State must submit a letter outlining “facially reasonable and bona fide reasons” for the determination. The government then bears the burden of proving the allegations are supported by “clear and convincing” evidence.
The Patriot Act and Revisions to the INA
The INA was significantly impacted by post-9/11 legislative changes—most notably the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Enacted shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act expanded the government’s authority in immigration enforcement by amending several national security-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability. The Act reinforced and broadened the foreign policy and terrorism-related grounds found in the INA, giving the executive branch greater discretion in assessing threats to national security.
Through these revisions, including changes to INA § 212 (a)(3)(C)and INA § 237, the government gained new tools to remove individuals not only for direct terrorist activity but also for associations or conduct believed to potentially threaten U.S. foreign policy interests. The provision used in the Khalil case is one such mechanism, rooted in this broader post-9/11 legislative landscape. As a result, cases brought under this authority often draw scrutiny for their tension with constitutional rights, especially when the government invokes vague or classified justifications.
Special Free Speech and First Amendment Protections
In recognition of the risks to civil liberties, Congress included a safeguard to protect First Amendment rights when using the foreign policy removal provision. INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) incorporates similar language from § 212 (a)(3)(C), which bars the government from deporting someone “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.” To overcome this protection, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the individual’s presence would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
This high threshold ensures that the government must demonstrate a specific and significant threat, not merely the possibility of adverse foreign relations. It also requires that congressional leadership be notified promptly when this provision is invoked.
Legal Precedents and Constitutionality Concerns
In 1996, a federal court ruled that INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) was unconstitutional, finding the statute “void for vagueness” and inconsistent with due process protections. The court noted that individuals cannot reasonably predict what conduct might be deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy, stating, “There is no conceivable way that an alien could know, ex-ante, how to conform his or her activities to the requirements of the law.” Although this decision was later overturned on procedural grounds, the constitutional concerns it raised have never been fully resolved.
The Rights of Lawful Permanent Residents
Lawful permanent residents, like Mahmoud Khalil, enjoy constitutional protections, including the right to free speech. In Bridges v. Wixon | 326 U.S. 135 (1945) |, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that noncitizens residing in the country are protected under the Constitution. More broadly, the Court has recognized that many constitutional rights apply to all persons within U.S. territory, not just citizens—including the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Conclusion
Nearly a week after Khalil’s arrest and the issuance of his NTA, he has not been charged with any crime or with supporting a foreign terrorist organization. As a lawful permanent resident, he retains First Amendment protections, and his protest activities are presumed lawful unless the government can meet the high burden of showing that his presence would actually compromise a compelling foreign policy interest under INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i). That burden is even more critical given the provision’s origins in the post-9/11 Patriot Act era, where concerns over national security and civil liberties often collide.
The Khalil case underscores the importance of judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards in immigration enforcement. It raises essential questions about the limits of government power, especially when speech and political expression are involved. If you have concerns about your immigration status or believe your rights may be at risk, contact our office for guidance and support.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.