Chicago City Council members strongly criticized former President Donald Trump’s administration for detaining and attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist. Khalil, a legal U.S. resident married to an American citizen, helped organize pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. He was arrested in New York on March 8, with his lawyer claiming his green card had been revoked by the Trump administration.
At a Council hearing, the Health and Human Relations Committee debated a resolution supporting Khalil and condemning his arrest. However, the resolution was delayed after being sent to the Rules Committee.
Alderman Ray Lopez (15th) opposed the resolution, arguing that his colleagues were selective in their outrage. He pointed out that anger over such issues often ignores the events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel. He stressed the difference between supporting Palestinian rights and supporting terrorism. Lopez also noted that visas and green cards are privileges, not rights, and that free speech has limits when it endangers lives.
On the other side, Alderman Maria Hadden (49th) strongly supported the resolution, calling it a “no-brainer.” She accused the Trump administration of violating constitutional rights and warned that such arrests threaten all Americans. She argued that many people are being detained unfairly and that the government’s actions are dangerous.
Committee Chair Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez (33rd) also criticized Lopez’s stance. She argued that Khalil’s case highlights government overreach and the suppression of political dissent. She warned that this could set a dangerous precedent for targeting individuals based on their views.
Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th), who introduced the resolution, was also frustrated with Lopez, especially after he left the meeting. Sigcho-Lopez emphasized that freedom of speech is a fundamental American right and that due process must be protected.
The debate reflects deeper divisions in the Council over U.S. policies on Palestine, immigration, and free speech. The resolution’s future remains uncertain as it moves through the Rules Committee.
