Immigration Officials Arrest Second Individual Involved in Pro-Palestinian Protests at Columbia University

March 15, 2025 TruthUSA

Authorities have reported that they detained a Palestinian student for remaining in the country beyond the expiration of her student visa.

On March 14, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the arrest of a second participant involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University by federal immigration officials.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) apprehended Leqaa Kordia, originally from the West Bank, for violating her expired student visa regulations, according to DHS public statements.

The agency indicated that Kordia’s visa was revoked in 2022 due to insufficient attendance. Officials claimed she was involved in protests against Israel that occurred in 2024 at Columbia University in New York City.

Attempts to contact Kordia were unsuccessful, and it remains unclear if she has obtained legal representation.

Earlier in the month, ICE officers detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian national with a green card, for his role in leading the protests. Authorities described the demonstrations as being “aligned with Hamas,” the terrorist organization responsible for attacks on Israel in October 2023.

This past Friday, DHS also revealed that another Columbia University student, Ranjani Srinivasan, departed from the United States on March 11.

Srinivasan, an Indian national, was on a student visa when it was revoked by the State Department earlier in March due to claims that she participated in pro-Hamas activities.

“Having a visa to study and live in the United States is a privilege. Advocating for terrorism and violence should result in the loss of that privilege, and you should not be allowed to remain in this country. I am pleased to see one of the Columbia University supporters of terrorism… choosing to self-deport,” stated Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a statement.

Following Khalil’s arrest, Trump indicated that further arrests were imminent.

“We intend to identify, capture, and deport these sympathizers of terrorism from our nation—never allowing their return,” Trump recently stated on his social media platform Truth Social. “If you endorse terrorism, including the massacre of innocent individuals, your presence conflicts with our national and foreign policy, and you are not welcome here.”

Authorities have referenced the Immigration and Nationality Act, which specifies that “An alien whose presence or actions in the U.S. the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially severe adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is subject to deportation.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on the social media platform X that they will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters within the U.S. to facilitate their deportation.

Khalil’s legal team argued in a filing on Thursday that Rubio’s decision was “solely based on Mr. Khalil’s lawful, constitutionally-protected beliefs, statements, and associations.”

The law stipulates that officials cannot deport an immigrant solely for their “past, present, or anticipated beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the U.S.,” unless the Secretary of State “personally certifies that admitting the alien would endanger a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”

Khalil’s lawyers assert that Rubio has not provided certification to Congress regarding this determination, which is mandated by a separate statute.

They are petitioning a federal judge in New York to declare that the government has been targeting noncitizens for removal based on speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and to mandate Khalil’s immediate release.

Federal attorneys have requested the New York court to dismiss the case, noting that Khalil was initially moved to New Jersey and then to Louisiana.

“This Court lacks jurisdiction and is not the appropriate venue for this habeas action, hence it should dismiss this case without prejudice or promptly transfer the petition,” they stated in a filing. “If the Court considers transferring the petition, the corresponding venue would be the Western District of Louisiana.”

Source link