For generations, America has stood apart from the rest of the world as a nation of immigrants—but also a nation of values.
Unlike in Europe, where ethnic and religious minorities often remain socially and politically separate from the broader society, the American model of assimilation has long been based on a simple but powerful expectation: America welcomes newcomers, but they must respect and embrace fundamental principles that define America, such as the rule of law, individual liberty, and democratic governance.
When an immigrant rejects those principles and supports groups that oppose American freedoms, it challenges the very foundation of the nation’s values and legal framework. This is not a theoretical debate — it is unfolding now in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University activist whom the government is seeking to deport due to his alleged support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
Khalil’s case is not just about immigration law — it is a test of America’s resolve to enforce obligations that come with permanent residency. The laws and policies are clear: immigrants must adhere to them, and the government, following due process and a legal determination, must enforce them. This is the foundation of what defines America.
From the moment a migrant arrives in the U.S., there is an implicit agreement: the country offers safety, opportunity, and freedoms unmatched in much of the world. In return, those who seek to stay must respect the laws and the basic values of a pluralistic democracy.
America does not demand that immigrants abandon their heritage, religion, or cultural identity — far from it. The country thrives because of its diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. But diversity without a shared civic foundation leads to fragmentation. The U.S. model has always depended on civic assimilation — the idea that no matter where you come from, you accept the responsibilities of being part of this society.
Critics argue that revoking Khalil’s green card violates the freedom of speech. But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, nor does it cover material support for terrorism. Under 8 USC 1182, a non-citizen is inadmissible and removable if they “endorse or espouse terrorist activity” or belong to organizations that do.
Khalil’s affiliation with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that openly celebrated the Hamas-led massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, is not merely political protest. Columbia University Apartheid Divest has gone beyond advocacy and explicitly endorsed “armed resistance” — a direct violation of U.S. immigration law. Khalil himself admitted that he avoided media appearances to protect his visa status — a sign that he understood the legal risks of his actions.
This is not a debate over political dissent — it is about whether America must tolerate individuals who actively support organizations dedicated to terrorism and the destruction of democratic societies.
Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, noted “The question is what that standard is. They’re allowed to protest, allowed to use free speech. What they aren’t allowed to do is to support terrorist organizations, to spread terrorist information, to threaten Jewish students and certainly not occupy buildings and destroy property.”
If the U.S. fails to enforce assimilation expectations, it risks repeating Europe’s mistakes. In Europe, radicalized enclaves have formed because of weak enforcement of national values. Both France and the United Kingdom have learned the hard way that failing to confront extremist ideology among immigrants leads to long-term security risks.
In 2020, France expelled 231 foreign extremists after the beheading of teacher Samuel Paty by a radicalized immigrant. In 2022, France deported Moroccan imam Hassan Iquioussen for preaching anti-Semitic, anti-women, and extremist rhetoric. France’s Interior Minister has made it clear: residency is not a right—it is conditional on respecting national laws and values.
In 2013, the U.K. deported Abu Qatada, a radical cleric with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, after a years-long legal battle. Anjem Choudary, who inspired jihadist attacks in the U.K., was convicted for supporting ISIS — proving that even citizenship does not protect those who violate national security laws.
The legal foundation for Khalil’s deportation already exists if he is found culpable. There is no need for new policies or sweeping executive orders. U.S. law already requires immigrants to reject terrorism and uphold democratic values. If Khalil has actively supported Hamas, then his deportation is not only justified but necessary. Failure to act would undermine the integrity of U.S. immigration law and national security.
The Khalil case is a defining moment for U.S. immigration policy. America must uphold its tradition of welcoming immigrants who embrace its values while safeguarding its foundational freedoms from those who seek to undermine them. Preserving civic assimilation is essential to preventing the formation of radical enclaves, a challenge that Europe has struggled to manage.
There is nothing extreme about enforcing existing laws. America is built on the rule of law, not selective enforcement. Assimilation is not about erasing one’s identity — it is about respecting the shared values that make the country function. If America fails to uphold this standard, it risks becoming a nation where the law is optional and its foundational principles are negotiable.
Respect for the law is not a partisan issue — it is the cornerstone of American democracy. The government must ensure due process and impose consequences when violations occur. That is not intolerance; that is justice. If the U.S. abandons these principles, it will not be a more inclusive nation — just a weaker one.
Ron MacCammon, Ed.D, is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces colonel and former political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, where he oversaw the State Department’s largest humanitarian demining program. He has written extensively on security, governance, and international affairs.
