This person continues to be able to speak freely.

He also took part in the protests of Columbia University and by the looks of it wants to continue his political agenda in a foreign country. If this happened at scale then then foreigners could come (perhaps even be imported to the US, if this were a known-to-be-usable loophole) and steer the politics of a country in some other direction. It looks like the government is trying to avoid that and, if I were a citizen, it's what I would expect it to do.

That's a really bizarre take. You think it's acceptable to deny entry to someone based on your assessment of their political opinions? Given the very directly related context that Columbia students with visas and greencards are being detained and facing deportation explicitly for their political opinions, you can't conclude this is anything other anti-speech policy. There is absolutely no threat to life or property stemming from their speech. Meanwhile, expressly pro-genocide political figures with documented history of violent crimes like Ben-Gvir are freely admitted and allowed to rile up mobs.

I don't know the specific reason for denial for this particular person. I just generically don't understand why why would you want students like this in the country. The citizens, sure, vote, assemble, etc. to express your view.

> I just generically don't understand why why would you want students like this in the country.

You don't need to understand. Your understanding is irrelevant. That's why we put it in the Constitution!

This person was sent back from the border, so it sounds like a technicality, as they probably didn't have the info at point of departure to not let him on the plane. He's also a foreigner and an activist, so I assume that's why the assumed visa was cancelled.

You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.

This will be my last comment as you've proven yourself incapable of loading words into your brain.

> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.

This should read:

> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US federal government wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because their provided justification for achieving what they want would violate the Constitution. Sounds like how Constitutions work.

I think the legal method of denying entry for the person was that his student visa was cancelled. If you don't have a visa, should you or anyone be still allowed entry if they want to "assemble"?

Revoking a visa due to politically speech is a violation of the first amendment. It's leverage executive authority explicitly to promote the administrations current preferred foreign policy. He committed no crime and made no threats to any government or person. Pure thought crime. His particular thought, that Israel is very badly mistreating Palestinians and that they should stop immediately, is one shared by many millions of Americans including myself.

If government is permitted to set any policy of any kind specifically to police the speech of any person of any status, then they can do it to everyone for everything. And it's the same for their denial of due process to other people they have deported.

And furthermore, Khalil had a green card and is married to a US citizen. Not a student visa.