Columbia University is currently at the center of a heated national debate over immigration and free speech, following the detention of graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian activist, was arrested on March 8 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, who acted on a State Department order to revoke his green card. This action is part of a broader initiative tied to the Trump administration's response to pro-Palestinian protests that erupted on college campuses amid escalated tensions in Gaza. Critics argue that these measures threaten constitutional protections for political expression in the U.S. Khalil played a significant role in last year's protests at Columbia University, where students expressed their opposition to Israeli military actions. His presence at the protests has been cited by officials as justification for his arrest, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, "We're going to keep doing it," referring to the ongoing deportation efforts against activists. Khalil's lawyers argue that the lack of criminal charges against him and the nature of his political activities should protect him from deportation under the First Amendment. They contend that the government's actions are politically motivated and violate Khalil's rights. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has filed a lawsuit in response to the federal government's actions, citing constitutional protections for free speech and expression. The suit claims that the Trump administration's focus on Khalil's involvement in protests exemplifies a chilling effect on political activism among international students and scholars. As the situation develops, advocates and legal experts emphasize the need for clarity regarding the rights of non-U.S. citizens participating in political discourse. Khalil's arrest has already ignited protests at Columbia University and beyond, with many students and faculty expressing solidarity and concern over the implications for academic freedom and expression. Legal experts note that while non-citizens do possess First Amendment rights, the ability to effectively challenge visa revocation on political grounds is limited. Khalil's plight highlights the intersection of immigration policy and political dissent in a deeply polarized environment, raising crucial questions about the future of activism and free speech in American higher education. As Khalil remains detained, the broader implications of this case continue to unfold, drawing attention to the precarious balance between national security rhetoric and individual rights. Advocates warn that isolating and deporting activists based on their political views could set a dangerous precedent for community engagement in civic discourse and dissent.