Talk:Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2025 (2) Important context on appellate decision in massieu v. reno

[edit]

[in "Legal Proceedings"]

CHANGE: Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, though that ruling was reversed by a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address.

TO: Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno. However, that ruling was reversed by an interim decision of a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address. The court of appeals considered a letter from the Secretary of State conveying "facially reasonable" and "bona fide" reasons for their determination of deportability, as presumptive and sufficient evidence for a non-citizen's deportability under this statute.

SOURCE: [1]

OVERVIEW: - Italicised Massieu v. Reno - Made clear that the decision by the appellate court was in interim one - Added context in reference to the board discretion the courts afforded to the government from the statute Khalil is facing deportation under

EDIT: Addressing FactOrOpinion's concerns

Judge Maryann Trump Barry found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, but her ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on jurisdictional grounds unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address. Following this, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that the Secretary of State’s determination of deportability under the statute is presumptively valid if it is "facially reasonable" and based on a bona fide foreign policy concern[2] [note: this citation is already used in the article (reference 54)]; however, as an Article I tribunal, this decision did not set binding precedent. Mr. Ruiz Massieu did not appeal this to an Article III court prior to his death [3]. Charliegmc1 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The court of appeals in the current article text is an Article III court; it's a different kind of court than the board of appeals whose ruling you linked to, which is an Article I court. The current text refers to a ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (this ruling, written by then Judge Alito) that "We do not reach the merits of the constitutional questions decided by the district court. Instead, we hold that the district lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's claims" and Trump Barry must dismiss the case. They further stated that the proper procedure was for the case to be heard by an immigration judge, whose ruling could then be reviewed by a U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals (that's the appeals board whose ruling you linked to), and only after that could the case be heard by an Article III court of appeals:

Deportability determinations are made initially by an immigration judge after a formal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. Section(s) 1252(b); 8 C.F.R. Section(s) 242.16(a). If the immigration judge decides that the alien should be deported from the United States, the alien may pursue an administrative appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 C.F.R. Section(s) 242.21. The Board's decision is administratively final unless the case is referred to the Attorney General for review. See 8 C.F.R. 3.1(d)(2), (h). Following final administrative action, the "sole and exclusive procedure" for obtaining judicial review of deportation orders is by direct review in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. §(s) 1105a(a). A court of appeals may review a final order of deportation made against an alien within the United States and "all matters on which the validity of the final order is contingent." ... ... Although the immigration judge is not authorized to consider the constitutionality of the statute, this [Article III] court can hear that challenge upon completion of the administrative proceedings [in the Article I immigration courts].

If his WP article is correct, Mario Ruiz Massieu committed suicide a few months after the Board's ruling, so there was no subsequent appeal of the Board's ruling to an Article III court of appeals. I'll think about whether all of these details are worth going into in this WP article, but even if they are, the text you've proposed doesn't work, as it isn't clear about the difference between Article I and Article III courts, nor does it include the fact that the Board of Appeals ruling could have been appealed back to the Circuit Court of Appeals. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my oversight, I'll make an edit to my request now. If you don't think the administrative precedent is relevant enough, or if people are likely to misinterpret it, I'll withdraw my request. Charliegmc1 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charliegmc1, just a heads up that in the future, if you want to edit your request after someone has already responded to you, it's probably best to make a new request (or at least reset the answered= parameter to "no" and add the new edit at the bottom, where it's easy to see). Once an edit request has been responded to, the respondent sets the answered= parameter to "yes" (meaning "answered"), and editors aren't likely to look at it further. Since I'd responded to you, I'd set the parameter to "yes," and I didn't initially realize that you'd introduced a new request in the same place. I've tried to address your second request, though the text I introduced doesn't completely match your request, as I needed to look up another reference for one part, and your NYT citation made no mention of the case, so it would be considered original research to say anything about appealing the BIA ruling to an Article III court. I left that part out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "In re Ruiz Massieu". vLex. Retrieved 16 March 2025. (2) A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary's determination
  2. ^ Fishman, George (March 12, 2025). "Is It Constitutional to Deport the Ringleader of Columbia University's Pro-Hamas Demonstrations?". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved March 12, 2025.
  3. ^ Golden, Tim (September 16, 1999). "Mexico's Ex-Drug Chief, Indicted, Is Found Dead in U.S." The New York Times. Retrieved September 9, 2012.

Reference to Nakba is not neutral

[edit]

Perhaps refer to "1948 Arab–Israeli War" instead? SiberianTruth (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Israel's Nakba Law doesn't apply to Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland, you’re right in the larger point, but unless I’m missing something due to lack of sleep, the NYT source doesn’t use the term, and CNN only uses it as an attributed term. Maybe a different phrasing might be a genuine improvement? FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN article doesn't attribute the term (ex. "during what blank ___ call(s) the Nakba "), it says "[description] in what became known as 'The Nakba'" . That seems more like a stylistic choice used to introduce readers to the term than an editorial choice to me. Besides, even if NYT doesn't use the term, it is describing it, so I don't think it matters. The Nakba isn't a framing of an event, but the name of an event as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Mason7512 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Palestinians were forcibly removed from cities like Tiberias in what became known as “The Nakba,” or catastrophe. can be linked to 1948 Arab–Israeli War or 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, both of which are more neutral terms than Nakba, which is highly contested. Or would you be in favour of using Israeli War of Independence just because a source does? FortunateSons (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His grandparents were from a village near Tiberias, a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee in Palestine before it became part of the state of Israel. They were forced to flee in 1948 during the wars preceding Israel’s establishment, Mr. Khalil has said, settling with other members of their large family in southern Damascus in Syria, in a Palestinian refugee enclave. this is what a neutral phrasing would look like, as used by the NYT. FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are arguing that the Khalil's grandparents move from Palestine to Syria was not a part of the events which the word 'Nakba' is used to describe, your core problem seems to be with the word Nakba being used in wiki voice at all. As seen in the Nakba article and its talk page discussions, the Nakba is referred to as an event (not a theory or framing) stated in wiki voice on Wikipedia. The article Nakba denial even utilizes wiki voice. Will all these things being so, I do not see how we can acknowledge that the Nakba was an event yet at the same time not allow the word's use when describing the event itself in other articles, even if it is "contested". Not using it when we are referring to it seems like a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV imo. Mason7512 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My core argument is that we should align with the use of the sources, including controversial terms such a Nakba (historically also within Palestinian society, btw). The events that are considered part of the Nakba obviously happened, but the term is obviously more contentious than a description, while providing less information to an informed reader. “forced to flee in 1948 during the wars preceding Israel’s establishment”, linking to any of the articles above, is clearly superior compared to “forced to leave in the 1948 Nakba”, if nothing else because the latter makes no distinction between expulsion and flight. FortunateSons (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to the perceived contentiousness of the word. I don't think that's our battle. It's widely used in English language sources as a label for the events. If its presence is contentiousness to some, so is its absence. There is presumably a sentence that prioritizes being informative over sensitivities to language. Something close to the CNN line "During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Palestinians were forcibly removed from cities like Tiberias in what became known as “The Nakba,” or catastrophe." with all the helpful links out to articles, helpful attribution, helpful alternative terms (e.g. Israeli War of Independence) seems like the approach with the most utility for readers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: [Person] left/fled/was forced to flee/was displaced/was expelled from [place] during the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, also known as the Israeli war of independence and the Nakba. FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be good is if a sentence could be constructed that found sufficient consensus at a centralized RfC or something that could become a standard statement deployed across Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would be quite useful. FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Nakba is not non-neutral. The CNN source also uses the term. Adding in extra language veers on WP:EUPHEMISMistic, and I don't see consensus here to change the language. Lewisguile (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is determinative, but as best I can tell, all of the reporting about Khalil's grandparents forcible displacement from Tiberias came from Khalil's own statements about it, and he refers to the Nakba, for example, here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Immigration Studies reference

[edit]

Curious why the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an acceptable source when it's a known far-right, anti-immigration outlet known for spreading rampant misinformation and/or outright lies, some of which borders on hate speech. Reference 125, an article by Brian Fishman, claims Khalil supports Hamas and terrorism and refers to "evidence", such as flyers and videos, none of which have been produced or confirmed. The CIS Wikipedia article itself proves the group is a poor source for any information and Fishman's article isn't scholarly in nature, it's the same anti-immigration polemic he's known for. Shana3980 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as a reference for the statement "In Matter of Ruiz-Massieu (1999), the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that the Secretary of State's determination of deportability under the statute is presumptively valid if it is "facially reasonable" and based on a bona fide foreign policy concern, but that, as an Article I tribunal, the board could not address the constitutional issue." That's not about Khalil at all, though it I certainly understand why we might not want to use that CIS article as a reference if it asserts negative things about him without evidence, and if the CIS is not generally reliable. So the question is: can we find a better source for the WP content quoted above? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion Yes, the article mentions the quote but the article, titled "Is it legal to deport the ringleader of Columbia University's pro-Hamas demonstration" is more polemic than anything else, with Fishman describing campus protests, and Khalil specifically, as celebrating mass murder and genocide in his introduction alone. I'm new to editing and don't even think I'm allowed to edit this article in particular yet but there's got to be an actual scholarly source for the Matter of Ruiz-Massieu quote. Shana3980 (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that you aren't allowed to edit the article. In fact, the notice at the top of the page says that since you're not extended confirmed, you shouldn't be commenting on the talk page either, other than to make edit requests. I went hunting, and I've found a citation for the first part, but I haven't yet found one that addresses the latter part. I'll search some more and see what I can do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion Oh, I don't see any notice on the top of the page. Thank you for letting me know and for looking into this. Shana3980 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notices aren't shown to Android users by default. They need to click the 'Read more' link to see them. I imagine the number of people who click that link is quite small (why would they?). So, not seeing the notices is pretty normal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland I'm using the Wikipedia app and don't even have a read more link at the top of the page. I clicked Edit for the first time and got a pop up explaining the BLP and Extended Confirm rules so maybe that's where the notice is for me? Shana3980 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland Sorry, just found Read More! Thank you Shana3980 (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Khalil (activist) article

[edit]

This article and Mahmoud Khalil (activist) were created around the same time (3/10, shortly after news of his arrest), and consensus at the time was to merge the two. I see that @Zuck28 just resurrected Mahmoud Khalil (activist). In light of that, I figured we might want to have a brief discussion about what content belongs where. The content in the Background section is probably the primary overlap. Should we move much of that section to the activist article, with a much briefer summary here plus a Main template highlighting the activist article? The background content about the Trump admin. probably still belongs here rather than there. What are others' thoughts? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that he is notable enough as an activist for a separate article; nothing has changed since the article was deleted.
If it's kept, I think his statements from detention should definitely be moved. This article should focus on legality and political impact rather than him as a person. satkara❈talk 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Satkara, I don't have strong feelings about it either way. He had a bit of media coverage before his arrest/detention, in the context of the 2024 Columbia protests, but I haven't checked them to see whether they're significant coverage of him, as contrasted with significant coverage of the protests. There are many more RSs that discuss his activism in the context of his arrest/detention. Based on what he's said so far, he will clearly continue his activism now that he's out on bail, though there's no way to know how much coverage that will receive in RSs (presumably more than it would have had he not be detained). The activist article is actually in much worse shape than it was when the merge occurred, and it hasn't been improved much since the redirect was removed. If you want to just change it back to the redirect, that's fine with me. Or we could put a proposed merge template on that article for a week or so first, and see if anyone feels strongly about keeping it and wants to work on it. I left a follow-up note on Zuck28's talk page, but no response despite doing other editing; I guess they're not inclined to voice an opinion either way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex topic that requires careful consideration and time. I have hesitated to engage in this discussion because I fear I may not offer the best opinion. However, I firmly believe he meets the notability criteria for a standalone article, so I have revived it.
But I leave the decision to other senior editors. As this is a sensitive topic and I am no expert in it and have very little interest in these kinds of debates. But this is a good idea to move the personal details about Mahmoud to the individual article, and this article should contain the legal proceedings and details only.
Thank you for thinking about me.
Zuck28 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your three best RSs for establishing his notability outside the context of his detention? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Satkara that Khalil himself is no more notable than he was before the merging of the articles. And, Zuck28 if you are not interested in these kinds of debates, my best advice would be not to resurrect articles after consensus was reached to merge them. Lova Falk (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2025

[edit]

Change “Khalil first immigration court hearing was scheduled for March 27.” to “Khalil’s first immigration court hearing was scheduled for March 27.” LantaFanta (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SI09 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]