News
Can the Trump administration legally deport Palestinian rights advocate Mahmoud Khalil? 3 things to know about green card holders’ rights
Gabriel J. Chin, University of California, Davis
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the government will deport lawful permanent residents who support Hamas and came to the U.S. as students with an intent “to rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities,” referencing the Palestinian rights protests at universities in 2024.
“And if you end up having a green card – not citizenship, but a green card – as a result of that visa while you’re here and those activities, we’re going to kick you out. It’s as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio said on March 12, 2025.
That policy has now ensnared Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia University and a leader in the Palestinian rights protest movement at the school. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born in Syria, faces deportation after he was arrested on March 8, 2025, in New York City. The that the secretary of state had determined Khalil’s presence or activities in the country posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Mahmoud Khalil,
Khalil entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2022. In 2024, he received a green card and became a lawful permanent resident – meaning he has the legal right to work and stay in the U.S. There are an estimated 12.8 million lawful permanent residents in the country.
Khalil’s lawyers say that his arrest and pending deportation are unconstitutional.
In many respects, the rights of lawful permanent residents and citizens are similar. Yet citizens and lawful permanent residents do not enjoy equal status under the law.
The Supreme Court and other courts recognize that lawful permanent residents have First Amendment rights to free speech.
Yet the Supreme Court upheld deporting lawful permanent residents in the 1950s based on their political activity, in particular membership in the Communist Party.
So, while lawful permanent residents may not be criminally prosecuted for their political speech or activity, what they say or write may well affect their ability to remain in the U.S., if the government determines that they are a security risk.
I’m a scholar of immigration law. Here are three major differences between the rights of citizens and lawful permanent residents.
1. Limited political rights
Lawful permanent residents are people born in other countries who can legally work and live in the U.S. for as long as they like. They may enlist in the U.S. armed forces, apply to become U.S. citizens, and are legally protected against discrimination by private employers.
States also generally cannot discriminate against lawful permanent residents – though states may require certain groups of people, such as teachers or police, to have U.S. citizenship.
Between 1820 and 1920, noncitizens routinely participated in different aspects of government, including voting, holding office and jury service in many states and territories.
These days, states and the federal government generally allow only citizens to serve on juries, hold political positions and vote. With a few exceptions, such as voting in some local elections, permanent residents are not able to do any of these things.
2. Limited public benefits
The distinction between noncitizens and citizens extends to other areas of life, such as public benefits.
The Supreme Court has frequently stated, “In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
In practice, this means that the federal government – and to a much lesser extent, states – do not offer public benefits, such as Medicaid and other kinds of government support, to lawful permanent residents and other noncitizens on the same basis as citizens.
For example, lawful permanent residents must generally wait five years before becoming eligible for certain programs intended to support low-income people, such as Supplemental Security Income and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
3. Reversal of immigration status
Finally, unlike citizens, lawful permanent residents can lose their legal immigration status.
Congress has enacted many grounds for deporting a noncitizen, or stopping them from entering the country.
Some courts have found that the U.S. government can deport a lawful permanent resident because of national security or terrorism concerns, even if the person has not committed a crime.
The Trump administration argues that they can deport lawful permanent residents like Khalil under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that a lawful permanent resident can be deported if the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe that this person “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
The Trump administration had initiated deportation proceedings against Khalil on this ground.
U.S. law also provides that any non-citizen can be deported if the secretary of state and the attorney general jointly determine that the person is associated with terrorism, or poses a threat to the U.S. In addition, the law says an immigrant can be deported if they “endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuades others” to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.
Still, lawful permanent residents are entitled to certain basic rights, such as retaining a lawyer to represent them in administrative hearings and court before they are deported.
By contrast, the U.S. government cannot deport a U.S. citizen for any reason. However, sometimes U.S. citizens are deported by mistake.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has found that while it is constitutional to execute a military member for desertion in wartime, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deprive them of citizenship.
Legal grounds for deporting noncitizens
There have been few recent court cases testing the scope of deporting lawful permanent residents on national security grounds based on pure speech.
In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that if a person is deportable, they are deportable – even if there is some other reason that motivated the government’s deportation proceedings, such as a suspicion that the non-citizen is involved with crime or terrorism.
The Supreme Court also then held that the government could deport non-citizens for technical visa violations, even if the case was based on the government’s belief that the non-citizens were associated with a terrorist group.
There is also some precedent arguing that deportation based on “adverse foreign policy consequences” is too broad and nonspecific to be constitutional.
Indeed, Marianne Trump Barry, the sister of the president, held this opinion when she was a federal judge in the mid-1990s. But Samuel Alito, then an appeals court judge, overturned Barry’s ruling on procedural grounds in 1996.
For its part, the Supreme Court has occasionally held that very broad and indeterminate deportation grounds are “void for vagueness,” meaning so sweeping and imprecise that they are unconstitutional.
Khalil’s lawyers appeared with U.S. government lawyers before a federal judge in New York on March 12. Their goal: to get Khalil moved from internment in Louisiana back to internment in New York. But that may well be just the beginning of a long haul for the Palestinian student. Courts have proved reluctant to second-guess security grounds rationales in immigration cases. For these reasons, cases like Khalil’s may go on for years.
Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Criminal Law, Immigration, and Race and Law, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
family fun
Jurassic Quest Brings Life-Size Dinosaurs to Phoenix in February 2026
Jurassic Quest is roaring back into Phoenix in February 2026 with towering life-size dinosaurs, interactive exhibits, and hands-on activities for kids and families at the Arizona State Fairgrounds.
Last Updated on February 7, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Phoenix, AZ — Jurassic Quest, billed as North America’s largest traveling dinosaur experience, is set to return to Arizona with a limited engagement at the Arizona State Fairgrounds from February 6–8, 2026.
The family-friendly attraction features life-size animatronic dinosaurs, immersive walk-through exhibits, and hands-on activities designed to blend entertainment with education. Guests will encounter towering recreations of iconic species such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Spinosaurus, along with interactive fossil digs, dinosaur rides, inflatables, and meet-and-greet opportunities with baby dinosaurs.
Jurassic Quest has become a popular touring event across the United States, particularly among families with young children. The experience combines museum-style displays with high-energy attractions, allowing visitors to explore at their own pace. Most attendees spend one to two hours navigating the exhibit.
The event will take place at the Arizona State Fairgrounds, located at 1826 W. McDowell Road in Phoenix, with multiple daily sessions scheduled throughout the weekend.
Tickets and additional event details are available through the official Jurassic Quest website.
- Jurassic Quest Phoenix 2026 – Official Event Page
- Arizona State Fairgrounds – Venue Information
- More Entertainment News from STM Daily News
- Family & Kid-Friendly Events on STM Daily News
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STM Daily News
Chinamaxxing: The Viral Trend Turning Geopolitics Into Aesthetic Fantasy
A viral social media trend called “Chinamaxxing” is turning geopolitics into aesthetic comparison—revealing more about generational frustration than China itself.
At first glance, the videos seem harmless enough.
Clean subways gliding into spotless stations. Neon skylines glowing at night. Clips of high-speed trains, cashless stores, orderly crowds. Overlaid text reads something like, “Meanwhile in China…” or “They figured it out.”
This is “Chinamaxxing,” a loosely defined but increasingly visible social media trend where mostly young users frame China as a model of efficiency, stability, and modernity—often in contrast to life in the West.
What makes the trend notable isn’t just its subject, but its tone. Chinamaxxing is rarely explicit political advocacy. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a mood. Aesthetic admiration blended with subtle critique, delivered through short, visually compelling clips that invite comparison without context.
And that’s precisely why it has sparked debate.
What Is “Chinamaxxing,” Really?
Despite the provocative name, Chinamaxxing isn’t a coordinated movement or ideology. It’s better understood as an algorithm-driven pattern—a recurring style of content that rewards certain visuals and emotional cues.
Most Chinamaxxing content emphasizes:
- Infrastructure and urban design
- Technology embedded in daily life
- Perceived order and efficiency
- Implicit contrast with Western dysfunction
What it typically omits:
- Political repression and censorship
- State surveillance
- Limits on speech and dissent
- The lived diversity of Chinese experiences
The result is a highly curated portrayal—less about China as a nation, and more about what viewers want to believe is possible somewhere else.
Why It’s Gaining Traction Now
The rise of Chinamaxxing says as much about the West as it does about China.
For many young users, particularly Gen Z, the backdrop is familiar: rising housing costs, student debt, healthcare anxiety, political polarization, and a growing sense that institutions no longer function as promised.
In that environment, visually persuasive content showing order and functionality carries emotional weight. It offers relief from chaos—real or perceived.
Social platforms amplify this effect. Short-form video rewards clarity, contrast, and immediacy. A clean subway platform communicates more in five seconds than a policy analysis ever could. Nuance does not trend well. Aesthetics do.
The Social and Political Criticism
Critics argue Chinamaxxing crosses a line from curiosity into distortion.
By focusing exclusively on infrastructure and surface-level efficiency, the trend risks:
- Normalizing authoritarian governance through lifestyle framing
- Reducing political systems to consumer experiences
- Ignoring the tradeoffs that make such systems possible
Supporters counter that Western media has long flattened China into a single negative narrative, and that admiration for specific aspects of another society is not the same as endorsing its government.
Both perspectives, however, miss something important.
What the Trend Actually Reveals
Chinamaxxing isn’t primarily about China. It’s about disillusionment.
It reflects a generation that:
- Feels let down by existing systems
- Engages politics emotionally rather than institutionally
- Uses visual culture to express dissatisfaction indirectly
In this context, China becomes a projection surface—not because it is perfect, but because it appears functional.
That distinction matters.
Why This Matters
Chinamaxxing highlights how political understanding is evolving in the digital age. Governance is increasingly consumed not through debate or civic participation, but through comparison clips, memes, and aesthetics.
The risk isn’t admiration. It’s oversimplification.
When complex societies are reduced to visuals alone, public discourse loses depth. But when those visuals resonate, they also signal real unmet needs: stability, competence, and trust in institutions.
Ignoring that signal would be a mistake.
The STM Daily News Perspective
Chinamaxxing is not an endorsement, a conspiracy, or a joke. It is a cultural artifact—one that reflects generational anxiety, algorithmic storytelling, and the widening gap between expectations and reality.
The question it raises isn’t whether China is better.
It’s why so many people feel their own systems are no longer working.
Related Reading
- BBC News: China Coverage and Global Context
- The Atlantic: Technology, Media, and Internet Culture Analysis
- Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes and Political Perception
- The New York Times: China and International Affairs
- Brookings Institution: China Policy and Global Governance
More on This Topic from STM Daily News
Stay tuned to STM Daily News for more stories exploring internet culture, social media trends, and how digital platforms shape public perception. We’ll be publishing in-depth pieces that break down the societal impact of viral phenomena like Chinamaxxing, the psychology behind online political trends, and the evolving language of Gen Z culture.
Want alerts? Be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Economy
US Consumer Confidence Fell Sharply in January: What the Latest Conference Board Data Signals
In January 2026, U.S. consumer confidence plummeted to its lowest level since 2014, as the Consumer Confidence Index fell by 9.7 points to 84.5. Concerns about inflation, employment, and economic stability led to decreased optimism across all demographics and a cautious approach to major purchases, signaling potential recession ahead.
US consumers started 2026 on a noticeably more cautious note. New data from The Conference Board shows its Consumer Confidence Index® fell sharply in January, wiping out a brief December rebound and pushing overall sentiment to its weakest level in more than a decade.
Confidence drops to the lowest level since 2014
The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® fell 9.7 points in January to 84.5 (1985=100), down from an upwardly revised 94.2 in December. The organization noted that December’s figure was revised up by 5.1 points, meaning what initially looked like a decline last month was actually a small uptick—before January’s slide reasserted the broader downward trend.
The cutoff for the preliminary January results was January 16, 2026.
Both “right now” and “what’s next” got worse
The decline wasn’t isolated to one part of the survey. Both consumers’ views of current conditions and their expectations for the months ahead weakened.
- Present Situation Index: down 9.9 points to 113.7
- Expectations Index: down 9.5 points to 65.1
That Expectations reading matters because it’s well below 80, a level The Conference Board says “usually signals a recession ahead.”
Dana M. Peterson, Chief Economist at The Conference Board, summed it up bluntly: confidence “collapsed” in January, with all five components deteriorating. The overall Index hit its lowest level since May 2014.
What consumers are worried about (and what’s showing up in write-ins)
The Conference Board said consumers’ write-in responses continued to skew pessimistic. The biggest themes weren’t hard to guess:
- Prices and inflation
- Oil and gas prices
- Food and grocery prices
Mentions of tariffs and trade, politics, and the labor market also rose in January. References to health/insuranceand war edged higher.
In other words: consumers aren’t just feeling uneasy—they’re pointing to specific pressure points that affect day-to-day costs and long-term stability.
Labor market perceptions softened
Consumers’ views of employment conditions weakened, with fewer respondents saying jobs are plentiful and more saying jobs are hard to get.
- 23.9% said jobs were “plentiful,” down from 27.5% in December
- 20.8% said jobs were “hard to get,” up from 19.1%
That shift matters because consumer confidence often follows the labor market. When people feel less secure about job availability, they tend to pull back on big purchases and discretionary spending.
Expectations for business conditions and jobs turned more negative
Looking six months out, pessimism increased:
- 15.6% expected business conditions to improve (down from 18.7%)
- 22.9% expected business conditions to worsen (up from 21.3%)
On jobs:
- 13.9% expected more jobs to be available (down from 17.4%)
- 28.5% anticipated fewer jobs (up from 26.0%)
Income expectations cooled too:
- 15.7% expected incomes to increase (down from 18.8%)
- 12.6% expected incomes to decline (down slightly from 13.0%)
So while fewer people expected their income to fall, the bigger story is that optimism about income growth faded.
Who’s feeling it most: age, income, and politics
On a six-month moving average basis, confidence dipped across:
- All age groups (though under 35 remained more confident than older consumers)
- All generations (with Gen Z still the most optimistic)
- All income brackets (with those earning under $15K the least optimistic)
- All political affiliations (with the sharpest decline among Independents)
This broad-based decline suggests the shift isn’t confined to one demographic pocket—it’s spreading.
Big-ticket buying plans: more “maybe,” less “yes”
The survey also pointed to increased caution around major purchases.
Consumers saying “yes” to buying big-ticket items declined in January, while “maybe” responses rose and “no” edged higher.
- Auto buying plans were flat overall, though expectations for new cars continued to falter and plans to buy used cars climbed.
- Homebuying expectations continued to retreat.
- Plans to purchase appliances, furniture, and TVs decreased.
- Electronics purchase intentions dipped in most categories—except smartphones, which continued trending upward on a six-month moving average basis.
Services spending softened—but restaurants and travel stayed interesting
Planned spending on services over the next six months weakened in January, with fewer consumers saying “yes” and more shifting into “maybe.”
Still, a few categories stood out:
- Restaurants, bars, and take-out remained the top planned services spending category and continued to rise.
- Consumers also intended to spend more on hotels/motels for personal travel, airfare/trains, and motor vehicle services.
The Conference Board noted this was surprising given the plunge in vacation plans—especially for domestic travel—also recorded in the survey.
What to watch next
January’s report paints a clear picture: consumers are feeling squeezed by costs, less confident about the labor market, and more hesitant about major purchases. The Expectations Index dropping deeper below the “recession signal” threshold will likely keep economists, businesses, and policymakers watching the next few releases closely.
The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index® at 10 a.m. ET on the last Tuesday of every month.
Source: The Conference Board, January 2026 Consumer Confidence Survey® (PRNewswire release, Jan. 27, 2026).
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
