It is entirely lawful to deport hate-monger Mahmoud Khalil.

Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University leader of anti-Israel protests facing deportation, issued a letter claiming he is “a political prisoner” and asserts that “my arrest was a direct result of exercising my right to free speech.”

This statement is incorrect.

Firstly, Khalil is not a political prisoner; he has the freedom to depart the United States whenever he wishes.

Secondly, as a non-citizen, he does not enjoy the same First Amendment protections that American citizens do.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, the 1969 Supreme Court case that determined that the First Amendment does not permit individuals to face criminal penalties for advocating or expressing support for terrorist activities, includes a critical condition: Brandenburg does not safeguard speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” that is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Did Khalil incite pro-Hamas demonstrators to illegally occupy and damage a building on the Columbia campus? Did he encourage demonstrators to threaten Jewish students with violence or prevent them from accessing Columbia classrooms?

The Trump administration claims that he did. However, even if he didn’t, this does not conclude the discussion.

The government is permitted to deport non-citizens for the same speech that they cannot criminally charge under Brandenburg. Why is this? Because the speech of non-citizens is not protected to the same extent as that of American citizens under the First Amendment. Consider the following:

In 2012, the Supreme Court in Bluman v. FEC upheld a law prohibiting non-permanent resident aliens from making contributions of money or goods in relation to Federal, State, or local elections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated in the initial district court ruling in Bluman v. FEC that the court had “indicated that aliens’ First Amendment rights might be less robust than those of citizens in certain discrete areas.”

Kavanaugh also referenced the Supreme Court’s 1952 ruling in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, noting that it established that “the First Amendment does not shield aliens from deportation due to their affiliation with the Communist Party.”

Furthermore, in Citizens United v. FEC, liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor expressed their view that “The Government regularly imposes special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily present constitutional issues.”

In 2005, Congress made it a ground for deportation for any alien who endorses or supports terrorist activities.

In 2004, Congress broadened the deportability provisions regarding genocide to include any alien who incites genocide, in order to “expand [its] application … to include a wider range of involvement.” There is no indication in the statute that deportable incitement must meet the Brandenburg standard.

In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee that “when an alien’s continued presence in this country violates immigration laws, the Government does not violate the Constitution by deporting him for the additional reason that it believes him to be affiliated with an organization supporting terrorist activities.” This case involved the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a State Department-designated terrorist organization.

Time and again, courts have confirmed that the administration’s choice to deport an agitator like Khalil is warranted.

Khalil is a visitor in our country. Visitors do not possess a First Amendment “right” to support or promote terrorist activities or incite genocide. What they do have is a “right” to catch the first flight out of the country.

George Fishman is the senior legal fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.