The Daly Weekly (3/14)

Mahmoud Khalil, Chuck Schumer, the 51st state, and more!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw at me.

Let’s get right to it…

---

Sir John, apparently a pro Hamas activist with a green card named Mahmoud Khalil organized anti-Israel protests at Columbia University and the Trump Administration has ICE holding him in Louisiana awaiting deportation. Supposedly a judge has blocked this. Some people say he has not been convicted of a crime and he has free speech rights. Other people say that he is not an American citizen and that anti-American and pro terrorist people holding green cards should be deported. I sense that a German NAZI with the same feelings about Jews would somehow NOT be getting the same support from the same people; Imagine that! What are your thoughts on this? —“A Green Card Holder Is Having The Blues (who are proudly supporting him)” regards from the Emperor

This is a complicated topic, Emperor, because I still don’t think we have a clear picture of all the key components in this story. Regardless, it’s important to separate Khalil’s grotesque positions (and they are grotesque) from what’s legal and what’s not. If Khalil were here on a student visa, the State Department would have much more latitude to deport him. But he’s a green-card holder, which is different. There doesn’t seem to be a legal basis for deporting a green-card holder for espousing egregious views. It’s possible Khalil participated in illegal acts at Columbia (including breaking and entering, and vandalism), though that doesn’t seem clear either. Nor does the Trump administration’s seemingly retroactive explanation that Khalil is a “national security risk.”

FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), a highly respected civil liberties group, released this statement regarding the legal situation a couple of days ago:

The government hasn't stated the legal basis for its actions, and it has put out statements suggesting Mr. Khalil is being targeted because of his constitutionally protected speech.

This is America. The administration must not use immigration enforcement to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the government or deny due process to anyone facing arrest and detention.

The government must also be transparent about the basis for its actions to avoid chilling protected speech.

To be clear, demonstrations on Columbia’s campus since Oct. 7, 2023, have included both constitutionally protected speech and unlawful conduct. But the government has not clarified the factual or legal basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest.

The lack of clarity is chilling protected expression, as other permanent residents cannot know whether their lawful speech could be deemed to “align” with a terrorist organization and jeopardize their immigration status.

Lots of questions still need to be answered, and there’s probably already been some developments I’m not aware of (mainly because I don’t care as much about this story as many in the right-wing media-sphere), but I’ll probably have a firmer opinion once there’s more clarity on the matter.

Question John for you: Do you believe the US Congress has a plan to move to a balanced budget? And do you believe we can do it without tax increases either on the front side (Tariffs) or back side through increased income taxes? — Tim H.

Hi Tim. No, I don’t believe Congress has any plan for a balanced budget (at least not a serious one). Once upon a time, there were fiscally conservative individuals in Congress who I believe (not just through their rhetoric but legislative actions) were genuinely interested in that. They were mostly on the Republican side, but virtually all of them have either been purged from office (over insufficient loyalty to Donald Trump) or have since rebranded as big-government populists. As I’ve said before, the DOGE stuff (most of which is gimmicky and/or won’t even come to fruition) amounts to trimming a hair off an elephant, while Congress (both parties) continues to push through legislation that will only drive up deficits. Entitlement reform is the only way of even changing the trajectory of the problem, and both parties refuse to pursue that.

To the second part of your question: I long believed that cutting spending was the primary solution to restoring fiscal sanity in our federal government, but gross negligence for many years has allowed the problem to grow well beyond the tipping point. Now I think big spending cuts would unfortunately have to be coupled with some form of higher taxes — not through tariffs, though, because the trade-war stuff screws up too many other things with our economy and beyond (and the revenue would be grossly insufficient anyway). I’ve linked to this here before, but economist Jessica Riedl has a fully scored plan to address the debt crisis. More people should read it.

As of the time I’m writing this, Trump’s Real Clear Politics average now has him underwater in approval, less than 2 months after being sworn in. Are you surprised? — Alex D.

No. The number one issue for voters back in November was the economy, with the major gripe being the cost of goods after years of inflation. Now, those same voters are watching Trump’s economically illiterate trade-war buffoonery tank the stock market (and people’s retirement plans), introduce all kinds of economic uncertainty, and drive up prices even higher.

Thus, the public backlash makes perfect sense.

John, Chuck Shumer is the highest ranking Jewish politician in Congress. And a State Senator in New York. Why isn’t he over at Columbia, or at least publicly, adamantly advocating on behalf of Jewish students, and condemning antisemitism. These are his people. I think it’s appalling, and an insult to all Jewish Americans. NYC also has the highest Jewish population in the country. — Rob O.

I kind of doubt “all Jewish Americans” feel insulted by Schumer, Rob, but as I’ve said before, I do think the Democratic Party as whole has been far too weak, quiet, and cowardly on this issue. Bernie and I talked this week about the Dems being too beholden to progressive activists, and this is just another example of that.

I thought until just recently that the “51st state” stuff with Canada was just weird, counterproductive trolling by Trump. But he and his spokespeople are now out there talking seriously about it every day as if it’s an actual U.S. policy position. Care to venture a guess on what the real story on this is? — Ben G.

Here’s what I’m totally confident in saying, Ben: Last November, not a single American voted for Donald Trump to make Canada our 51st state, or to take over Greenland or the Panama Canal. All this nonsense does is embarrass our country and piss off our allies.

My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that Trump admires — even envies — Putin’s strong-man vision of trying to expand Russia’s borders, and that this other stuff is Trump’s “Hey, look at me!” attempt to bolster some strong-man-bully cred of his own. Of course, he’s going about it in a much different way (within the bounds of international law), but it’s still very stupid and self-defeating.

Thoughts on Tim Walz running for president in 2028? He’s not ruling it out. — Mark F.

I don’t think there’s any appetite for Walz, at this point, even among the Democratic base. I’d be very surprised if he ran. If he did, he’d go nowhere in the the primary.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.