Staff Reports
The headline is simple: an immigration judge says the United States can deport Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, on national‑security and foreign‑policy grounds. That is the central, fresh development — and it matters because the government relied on a rare Secretary of State certification and decades‑old foreign convictions to make its case. The judge did toss out the government’s claim that Sarsour lied on his green card paperwork, leaving room for appeal and more legal theater.
Judge Salinardi finds removability on national‑security grounds
Chicago Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi concluded this week that the government proved Sarsour is removable under the foreign‑policy / national‑security provision. The ruling rests in part on a certification sent by Secretary of State Marco Rubio — a tool the State Department rarely uses but one that carries heavy weight in immigration court. While the judge rejected the separate allegation that Sarsour lied on immigration forms, he accepted the core national‑security argument and ordered removability.
Why the government’s strategy worked — and what comes next
The government pointed to Sarsour’s past convictions in Israeli proceedings and other evidence to argue he poses a foreign‑policy risk. Sarsour’s lawyers say those confessions were coerced and have promised to appeal, raising claims he would face torture or persecution if returned and that his arrest was retaliation for political speech. Expect an appeal notice soon, emergency motions, and a fight over the deportation destination — and yes, a possible run back through federal court on constitutional grounds. Judge Salinardi is retiring and Immigration Judge Craig Defoe will oversee the next steps — so the case will keep moving even as the lawyers file briefs.
Free speech claims and public safety — not the same thing
Sarsour and his counsel warn that this is a free‑speech problem: supporting Palestinian rights could get you booted. That sounds dramatic — and it makes a great fundraising page — but courts can and do distinguish advocacy from actions or ties that threaten national security. The judge rejected the lying charge, showing some balance, but also accepted that a Secretary of State determination and past convictions can tip the scale toward removal. If Americans want open‑ended safe harbor for foreign convictions or for leaders of foreign‑linked organizations, they should say so plainly — don’t dress it up as a free‑speech crisis every time the government uses its tools.
This decision won’t be the last word. Appeals, emergency filings, and constitutional claims are likely to follow. Still, the ruling is a reminder that immigration law exists to protect national security and that rare instruments — like a State Department certification from Secretary Marco Rubio — can be decisive. For supporters of law and order, that is a feature, not a bug. For activists who prefer to weaponize every arrest into a civil‑liberties rally, expect more headlines and less legal comfort.
