John Adams gets a lot of love from American historians. Maybe too much love, as his administration in 1798 enacted the notorious “Alien and Sedition Acts,” which was the first (but not last) Federal law that criminalized political dissent. The law was quickly repealed by Thomas Jefferson (a much better President), but it set an early marker in American history: people in power will seek to suppress hostile voices.
Today’s America is much different. We have a President who is vocally opposed by the legacy media, whether he’s proposing good ideas (eliminating wasteful Federal spending) or bad ideas (waging gratuitous trade wars with U.S. allies). Nobody is threatening these media voices with criminal prosecution; indeed, being anti-Trump is the default position of nearly every DC metro institution.
Instead, the targets are a more vulnerable population: students and others who are non-citizens and represent unpopular causes.
Before we get too far, let me lay down some obvious markers: first, most American colleges and universities have a very poor record on free speech, having succumbed years ago to a “woke” agenda which is the antithesis of the First Amendment; second, the anti-American opinions and antics of the protestors in question do not inspire sympathy and raise the obvious question of why such people choose to live in the USA.
Having said that, the decision by the Trump administration to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident and ringleader in the Columbia University protests last spring, is a bad decision. Those protests, while exposing the incompetency of the University leadership, did not pose a threat to “U.S. national security.” Nor did they compromise our foreign policy. They were, at worst, performative and irritating — but not criminal.
The revocation of a permanent residency based solely on a political opinion conflicts with the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech.”
It is important for independent voices to stand the ground here for the First Amendment, even in this instance of “unpopular” speech. (And, yes, there is an irony in letting critics of our nation enjoy its unique constitutional protections).
Committing crimes is a basis for deportation. But expressing opinions should not be.
