Federalist Radio Hour – "You're Wrong" with Mollie Hemingway and David Harsanyi, Ep. 140: Deportation

Release Date: March 12, 2025
Main Hosts: Mollie Hemingway, David Harsanyi

Episode Overview

This episode of "You're Wrong" dives deep into the controversial topic of deportation in the context of recent campus protests, free speech concerns, and broader immigration policy. Mollie Hemingway (Editor-in-Chief, The Federalist) and David Harsanyi (Senior Writer, Washington Examiner) discuss the deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student, whose actions and affiliations have spotlighted lingering questions around the limits of free speech, the rights of non-citizens, campus unrest, and America’s approach to citizenship and assimilation.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context of Campus Protests and Deportation

• Setup: Khalil’s deportation draws national attention as he is linked to recent, often disruptive, anti-Israel protests at elite universities like Columbia and Harvard.
• Backdrop: The hosts note that such activism escalated post-October 7th, but in many places, anti-Israel sentiment predated Israel's response to Hamas attacks.
  • Mollie: "In places like Harvard and probably Columbia...the protests began before Israel even responded to it. They were basically rationalizing and justifying the resistance of Hamas." [02:45]
• Republican Response: Noted as notably delayed; such protest movements had not drawn comparable reaction before they targeted Israel.
  • David: "A lot of left wing student movements, including ones that have support of this same group, did not result in a great deal of attention from high Republican leaders..." [03:11]

2. Free Speech vs. Immigration and Legal Status

• Core Legal Question: Should non-citizens with green cards be protected from deportation for speech, particularly speech perceived as supporting terrorist groups?

  • Mollie: Strong defense of free speech as a natural right—but draws a hard line at the privileges of citizenship:

    • "You don't have a constitutional right to be in the United States...If you are an insurrectionist and you are stoking bigotry and you are supporting a group that is on the DOJ terrorist list, we would be insane to give you citizenship." [06:14]
    • Cites her parents' experience as defectors who had to renounce communism and pledge not to undermine the Constitution.
    • Notes Khalil's direct involvement in targeting Jewish students, vandalism, and anti-American demonstrations.

  • David: Expresses similar sentiment:

    • "Freedom of speech is a natural right. I also don't think that means that foreigners...have the same right to be free from government action in response to speech that American citizens do." [09:06]

  • Counterpoints:

    • Reference to other commentators (Ilya Somin, Ann Coulter) arguing deportation over speech is wrong/free speech violation.
    • David: "It surprised me how many people, like Ann Coulter, were saying how this was a violation of free speech rights. I just don't see it that way." [10:09]

  • Distinction Emphasized: The difference between punishing pure speech and excluding those who affiliate with or support designated terrorist organizations.

3. Procedural Fairness and Legal Representation

• Due Process:
  • David: Notes Khalil is receiving due process—has legal representation:
  • "Everything is proceeding according to how you would expect it to when they are deporting someone...[He] has a veritable who's who of top shelf left wing attorneys ready to defend him every step of the way." [22:20]
  • Compares this to the lack of high-profile legal support for January 6th defendants, criticizing the conservative legal community for abandonment.

4. Campus Policy, Institutional Incentives, and Administration Response

• Columbia University under Fire:

  • University criticized for lax response, loss of grants, and failing to protect targeted students.
  • David: "Columbia has lost some obscene number of grants worth a lot of money as part of their support of these protests. And now their student leader has been deported. Maybe their strategy wasn't so great." [15:34]
  • Mollie: Sees financial losses as a necessary wake-up call for institutions.

• Masking Laws:

  • Discussion arises around Trump's invocation of anti-mask laws as a deterrent against protestor anonymity/intimidation, placing this within historical precedent (e.g., KKK Acts of the 19th century).

5. Broader Immigration Policy Debates

• Who Should Be Allowed In?

  • Mollie: Advocates for vetting immigrants on the basis of alignment with American values, not simply economic need.
    • "Why are we letting them in? If I can never say you can't be here for the things that you're doing, then why are we letting you in?" [19:20]
    • "Democrats believe the only American ideal is immigration...they're willing to just hand this sacred right...to people who hate this country." [28:59]
  • David: Emphasizes assimilation to constitutional values as vital.

• Public Support Shifting:

  • Mollie: Notes recent polling showing Trump gaining ground on immigration issues, arguing that clear differences in border enforcement have immediate, measurable effects (e.g., changes in border crossing rates around elections).

6. Media Hypocrisy and Free Speech Double Standards

• Alleging Partisan Use of Free Speech Rhetoric:
  • Mollie: "Democrats...care about free, express political free expression. I mean, that's a joke, right? They've spent years trying to censor political speech." [26:55]
  • Both hosts charge Democrats with only defending speech selectively, depending on political alignment.

7. Supreme Court & Judicial Culture: Amy Coney Barrett, Institutional Traditions, and Conservative Frustrations

• Recent Controversy:

  • Decision involving Barrett and Roberts that sided against a Trump administration appeal to stay an activist lower court ruling draws anger from the right.
  • Mollie: Pushes against overreaction, notes Barrett's solid record on key cases.
  • David: Explains the Supreme Court’s tradition of junior justices organizing “welcome” parties for new members; criticizes unwarranted attacks on Barrett for performing this role.

• Larger Debate on Judicial Restraint:

  • David: Argues that the conservative base is frustrated with Barrett’s reluctance to take bold steps (e.g., reluctance to overturn Employment Division v. Smith), interpreting her as overly cautious.
  • Discussion on John Roberts as the "swing vote" chief justice and his tendency toward institutionalism versus constitutional activism.

8. Shakeup in Legacy Media

• Ruth Marcus Resignation:
  • Washington Post columnist resigns after criticism of owner Jeff Bezos's pro-market stance is not published; debate over the appropriateness of running such pieces.
    • Mollie: "I'm a big fan of free markets and personal freedoms...it could have sparked a debate."
    • David: "I am unable to be impressed by anything related to Ruth Marcus...she lost me forever when she said that she would have killed any of her children if they had down syndrome." [65:32]
• Broader Media Exodus: Chuck Todd, Joy Reid, Paul Krugman, Jim Acosta, and others are noted as having left or been sidelined—hosts see little evidence of genuine improvement or reform at major outlets.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On campus activism and targeting Jewish students:
  • Mollie Hemingway (06:14): "If you are an insurrectionist and you are stoking bigotry and you are supporting a group that is on the DOJ terrorist list, we would be insane to give you citizenship. It’s like inviting a fifth column to live in the United States."
• On the distinction between the rights of citizens and green card holders:
  • David Harsanyi (09:06): “I believe that freedom of speech is a natural right. I also don't think that means that foreigners…have the same right to be free from government action in response to speech that American citizens do."
• On left-wing legal support versus conservative apathy for J6 defendants:
  • Mollie Hemingway (23:03): "When J6 protesters were rounded up where the bleep was the conservative legal community. And I think it's going to come back and haunt them that they were so not there..."
• On university incentives:
  • David Harsanyi (15:34): "Columbia has lost some obscene number of grants…maybe their strategy wasn’t so great."
• On the cultural significance of immigration:
  • David Harsanyi (33:17): "They should care far more about cultural identity and the strength of the country going forward based on shared understanding of shared values."
• On evaluating Justices (Amy Coney Barrett in particular):
  • Mollie Hemingway (56:10): "I'm not saying she's perfect. Reading about this last case and others, sometimes I'm suspect of...I don't understand what she's going for, though."
• On legacy journalism exits:
  • Mollie Hemingway (69:34): "I don't think any of these people who left were particularly talented. Joy Reid, for instance, I think is an insane person...But you're right, I have not seen an upgrade in the newer people they're hiring."

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Campus Protest Background / Khalil’s Deportation: 01:46–06:14
• Free Speech vs. Deportation for Non-Citizens: 06:14–15:34
• Procedural Fairness and Legal Representation: 22:20–26:55
• Columbia’s Institutional Failures and Financial Repercussions: 15:34–19:20
• Broader Immigration Policy / Polling Shifts: 19:20–22:19, 28:59–34:03
• Supreme Court, Judicial Restraint & Traditions: 38:35–56:10
• Media Shakeup and Ruth Marcus Resignation: 64:21–70:00
• Culture Segment (Gene Hackman movies; closing banter): 71:27–74:45

Tone and Style

The conversation is direct, sharp, and laced with the hosts’ characteristic skepticism toward progressive and liberal institutions—both in education and media. The tone is conversational yet assertive, with both Mollie and David weaving personal anecdotes, mockery of political opponents, and sharp legal analysis throughout.

In Short

This episode serves as both a primer on the complexity of balancing free speech with national security and immigration vetting, and as a case study in how elite universities' actions can have unexpected and far-reaching effects. It also interrogates the consistency of legal defense across the political spectrum and reflects on growing public skepticism toward legacy institutions—legal, educational, and media alike.