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.
The Knowledge
Brightline West Nears Final Environmental Clearance Milestone
Brightline West’s final environmental assessment is 99% complete, clearing a major hurdle for the high-speed rail line connecting Southern California and Las Vegas.
Last Updated on March 1, 2026 by Daily News Staff
The long-awaited high-speed rail connection between Southern California and Las Vegas just hit a major milestone.
According to recent reports, the final environmental assessment for Brightline West is now 99% complete — signaling that one of the most critical regulatory hurdles for the project is nearly finished.
For a project that has been discussed for over a decade, this is significant progress.
What “99% Complete” Really Means
Before major infrastructure projects like high-speed rail can move into full construction, they must go through extensive federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
For Brightline West, this includes:
- Environmental impact evaluations
- Wildlife and habitat assessments
- Air quality studies
- Noise and vibration analysis
- Cultural and tribal consultations
- Traffic and community impact reviews
Reaching 99% completion means the overwhelming majority of those studies, revisions, and agency approvals are essentially done. In practical terms, the project is nearly clear of its final federal environmental review requirements.
That’s a huge step toward full-scale construction.
The Route: Southern California to Las Vegas
Brightline West will run approximately 218 miles largely within the median of Interstate 15, connecting:
- Las Vegas
- Apple Valley
- Hesperia
- Rancho Cucamonga (with connections to Metrolink toward Los Angeles)
Trains are designed to reach speeds up to 200 mph, cutting travel time between Southern California and Las Vegas to roughly 2 hours.
Instead of battling I-15 weekend traffic, travelers could board a train in Rancho Cucamonga and arrive on the Las Vegas Strip in about the time it currently takes just to get through the Cajon Pass on a busy Friday.
Construction Status
The project officially broke ground in 2024, and early work has included:
- Geotechnical testing
- Land surveying
- Utility relocation
- Pre-construction corridor preparation
While heavy civil construction has not yet fully ramped up across the entire route, completing environmental clearance removes one of the last major barriers before large-scale building accelerates.
Timeline Update
The original goal was to open before the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. That timeline has shifted.
Current projections place passenger service around late 2029, depending on construction pace and financing milestones.
Why This Milestone Matters
High-speed rail projects in the United States often stall due to environmental review delays, funding gaps, or regulatory challenges.
Getting to 99% completion on final environmental assessment means:
- Federal review is nearly wrapped
- Legal vulnerability is reduced
- Major construction can proceed with more certainty
- Investor confidence improves
For Southern California and Nevada, it represents real forward momentum.
The Bigger Picture
Brightline West is privately developed, separate from California’s state high-speed rail system. If completed as planned, it would become one of the first true high-speed rail lines operating in the western United States.
The I-15 corridor between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is one of the most heavily traveled leisure routes in the country. A successful rail alternative could significantly reshape travel patterns between the two regions.
Final Take
The headline may sound small — “99% complete” — but in infrastructure terms, it’s a major breakthrough.
With environmental review nearly finished, Brightline West is closer than ever to turning renderings into reality.
Now the question shifts from if the train gets built… to how fast construction can move from here.
Further Reading & Outside Coverage
- Brightline West Official Project Website
- Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
- Las Vegas Review-Journal – Brightline West Coverage
- Los Angeles Times – Transportation & Infrastructure
- Progressive Railroading – Industry Updates
- Trains Magazine – Rail Industry News
- U.S. Department of Transportation
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Last Updated on February 28, 2026 by Daily News Staff
For decades, the idea of aliens visiting Earth has lived in a cultural no-man’s-land: too fascinating to ignore, too stigmatized to study seriously, and too easy to dismiss with a joke. But that posture has shifted in a measurable way over the past several years.
Physicist Kevin Knuth (University at Albany, SUNY) argued in a 2018 essay for The Conversation that the question of whether some UFO reports could represent something truly unknown is worthy of serious scientific study — not because we have proof of extraterrestrials, but because a small portion of cases appear to resist easy explanation and involve trained observers, multiple sensors, or unusual performance claims.
Article: https://theconversation.com/are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-study-98843
That argument gained new oxygen in late 2017, when The New York Times reported that the U.S. Department of Defense had funded a program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The reporting described roughly $22 million spent to examine military reports of unusual aerial incidents. Former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo became a central public figure in the story, saying he left his role amid frustration over secrecy and limited support for deeper investigation.
Around the same time, the Pentagon confirmed and released several now-famous military videos showing encounters recorded on forward-looking infrared (FLIR) systems from Navy aircraft — clips that reignited public debate and pushed the topic out of late-night-TV territory and into mainstream news.
What we’ve learned since (2018–2026)
The biggest “update” since your original post isn’t a single smoking gun. It’s the fact that the U.S. government and scientific institutions have increasingly treated the issue as a data and airspace-safety problem—and, potentially, a national security one.
A few key developments:
- The language changed: “UFO” has increasingly been replaced by UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena), a term meant to reduce stigma and widen the scope beyond “flying saucers.”
- Regular reporting became normalized: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has issued public-facing UAP reporting in recent years, and the Department of Defense has continued formal tracking through dedicated offices.
- NASA stepped in: NASA convened an independent UAP study team, releasing a final report in 2023 that emphasized something simple but important: if you want answers, you need better data, consistent reporting standards, and transparent methods. (NASA’s stance was not “aliens confirmed,” but “this is a legitimate area for structured inquiry.”)
The Carl Sagan test still applies
Carl Sagan’s line remains the guardrail here:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
In other words: eyewitness testimony alone — even sincere testimony — isn’t enough. A personal story, a viral clip, or even a dramatic encounter doesn’t automatically equal proof of extraterrestrial visitation. If the claim is “non-human intelligence is visiting Earth,” the evidence has to be strong enough to survive serious scrutiny: repeatable analysis, multi-sensor confirmation, chain-of-custody, and independent review.
So where does that leave us?
If you strip away the hype, the most reasonable position in 2026 looks something like this:
- Something is being observed in a small percentage of cases that isn’t immediately identifiable.
- That does not automatically mean “aliens.”
- But it does mean the topic is no longer intellectually off-limits the way it once was.
After leaving AATIP-related work, Elizondo became associated with To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, a group founded by musician Tom DeLonge that aimed to blend public interest, aerospace ideas, and advocacy for further investigation. Whether you view that effort as serious research, public outreach, or a media-adjacent project, it reflects the broader reality: the conversation has moved from fringe forums into public institutions.
The next step shouldn’t be louder claims. It should be better instrumentation, better reporting, and better science—because if there’s a prosaic explanation, rigorous study will reveal it. And if there’s something genuinely novel in the data, that’s exactly what science is for.
More STM Daily News science coverage: https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Children can be systematic problem-solvers at younger ages than psychologists had thought – new research
Child psychologists: Celeste Kidd’s research challenges long-standing ideas from Jean Piaget about children’s problem-solving abilities. Her findings show that children as young as four can independently utilize algorithmic strategies to solve complex tasks, contradicting the belief that systematic logical thinking develops only after age seven. This insight highlights the importance of nurturing algorithmic thinking in early education.
Celeste Kidd, University of California, Berkeley
I’m in a coffee shop when a young child dumps out his mother’s bag in search of fruit snacks. The contents spill onto the table, bench and floor. It’s a chaotic – but functional – solution to the problem.
Children have a penchant for unconventional thinking that, at first glance, can look disordered. This kind of apparently chaotic behavior served as the inspiration for developmental psychologist Jean Piaget’s best-known theory: that children construct their knowledge through experience and must pass through four sequential stages, the first two of which lack the ability to use structured logic.
Piaget remains the GOAT of developmental psychology. He fundamentally and forever changed the world’s view of children by showing that kids do not enter the world with the same conceptual building blocks as adults, but must construct them through experience. No one before or since has amassed such a catalog of quirky child behaviors that researchers even today can replicate within individual children.
While Piaget was certainly correct in observing that children engage in a host of unusual behaviors, my lab recently uncovered evidence that upends some long-standing assumptions about the limits of children’s logical capabilities that originated with his work. Our new paper in the journal Nature Human Behaviour describes how young children are capable of finding systematic solutions to complex problems without any instruction. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qb4TPj1pxzQ?wmode=transparent&start=0 Jean Piaget describes how children of different ages tackle a sorting task, with varying success.
Putting things in order
Throughout the 1960s, Piaget observed that young children rely on clunky trial-and-error methods rather than systematic strategies when attempting to order objects according to some continuous quantitative dimension, like length. For instance, a 4-year-old child asked to organize sticks from shortest to longest will move them around randomly and usually not achieve the desired final order.
Psychologists have interpreted young children’s inefficient behavior in this kind of ordering task – what we call a seriation task – as an indicator that kids can’t use systematic strategies in problem-solving until at least age 7.
Somewhat counterintuitively, my colleagues and I found that increasing the difficulty and cognitive demands of the seriation task actually prompted young children to discover and use algorithmic solutions to solve it.
Piaget’s classic study asked children to put some visible items like wooden sticks in order by height. Huiwen Alex Yang, a psychology Ph.D. candidate who works on computational models of learning in my lab, cranked up the difficulty for our version of the task. With advice from our collaborator Bill Thompson, Yang designed a computer game that required children to use feedback clues to infer the height order of items hidden behind a wall, .
The game asked children to order bunnylike creatures from shortest to tallest by clicking on their sneakers to swap their places. The creatures only changed places if they were in the wrong order; otherwise they stayed put. Because they could only see the bunnies’ shoes and not their heights, children had to rely on logical inference rather than direct observation to solve the task. Yang tested 123 children between the ages of 4 and 10. https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlsbcE6nOxk?wmode=transparent&start=0 Researcher Huiwen Alex Yang tests 8-year-old Miro on the bunny sorting task. The bunnies are hidden behind a wall with only their sneakers visible. Miro’s selections exemplify use of selection sort, a classic efficient sorting algorithm from computer science. Kidd Lab at UC Berkeley.
Figuring out a strategy
We found that children independently discovered and applied at least two well-known sorting algorithms. These strategies – called selection sort and shaker sort – are typically studied in computer science.
More than half the children we tested demonstrated evidence of structured algorithmic thinking, and at ages as young as 4 years old. While older kids were more likely to use algorithmic strategies, our finding contrasts with Piaget’s belief that children were incapable of this kind of systematic strategizing before 7 years of age. He thought kids needed to reach what he called the concrete operational stage of development first.
Our results suggest that children are actually capable of spontaneous logical strategy discovery much earlier when circumstances require it. In our task, a trial-and-error strategy could not work because the objects to be ordered were not directly observable; children could not rely on perceptual feedback.
Explaining our results requires a more nuanced interpretation of Piaget’s original data. While children may still favor apparently less logical solutions to problems during the first two Piagetian stages, it’s not because they are incapable of doing otherwise if the situation requires it.
A systematic approach to life
Algorithmic thinking is crucial not only in high-level math classes, but also in everyday life. Imagine that you need to bake two dozen cookies, but your go-to recipe yields only one. You could go through all the steps of making the recipe twice, washing the bowl in between, but you’d never do that because you know that would be inefficient. Instead, you’d double the ingredients and perform each step only once. Algorithmic thinking allows you to identify a systematic way of approaching the need for twice as many cookies that improves the efficiency of your baking.
Algorithmic thinking is an important capacity that’s useful to children as they learn to move and operate in the world – and we now know they have access to these abilities far earlier than psychologists had believed.
That children can engage with algorithmic thinking before formal instruction has important implications for STEM – science, technology, engineering and math –education. Caregivers and educators now need to reconsider when and how they give children the opportunity to tackle more abstract problems and concepts. Knowing that children’s minds are ready for structured problems as early as preschool means we can nurture these abilities earlier in support of stronger math and computational skills.
And have some patience next time you encounter children interacting with the world in ways that are perhaps not super convenient. As you pick up your belongings from a café floor, remember that it’s all part of how children construct their knowledge. Those seemingly chaotic kids are on their way to more obviously logical behavior soon.
Celeste Kidd, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
