On April 14, 2025, Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian national and lawful U.S. permanent resident, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during a scheduled citizenship interview at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Colchester, Vermont.
The Vermont Senate responded by passing Senate Resolution 13 (SR-13), which strongly objected to the “manner and circumstances” of Mahdawi’s arrest, characterizing it as “immoral, inhumane, and illegal.” However, a close examination of the available facts reveals discrepancies between the language of the resolution and the documented events.
The Arrest
According to multiple reports, including coverage by the Vermont Daily Chronicle and The Guardian, Mahdawi arrived at his scheduled naturalization interview expecting to complete the final step toward U.S. citizenship. Instead, he was met by plainclothes ICE agents who placed him under arrest. The agents reportedly wore masks, a practice common among federal law enforcement officers operating in regions where public hostility toward immigration enforcement is high, such as Vermont.
There are no reports indicating that Mahdawi was physically mistreated, verbally abused, or otherwise handled roughly during his arrest. He was subsequently transported to a detention facility pending immigration proceedings. Senator Rebecca White (D – Windsor District), who was present at the scene and recorded and photographed the arrest, later introduced SR-13 objecting to the action. However, despite witnessing the arrest firsthand, White has made no allegations of physical abuse, mistreatment, or procedural misconduct by ICE agents, instead directing her objections at what she described as the political motivations behind the arrest.
Official ICE protocols, outlined in the ICE HSI Arrest Procedures Handbook, permit the use of plainclothes officers and discretion in operational tactics to minimize risks to officers, the public, and the subject of arrest. The use of masks is also permitted where agents’ personal security might be compromised.
Legal Context
Mahdawi’s arrest did not occur in a legal vacuum. According to a New York Times report, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C) — that allows the removal of non-citizens whose presence is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
This statute, enacted in 1990, has been used approximately 15 times, primarily in cases involving individuals accused of serious foreign policy violations. Its application does not require a criminal conviction; the Secretary’s determination, if based on credible information, is sufficient to initiate removal proceedings.
Critics of Mahdawi’s arrest have cited the rarity of the statute’s use. However, laws designed for exceptional circumstances are, by nature, infrequently invoked but no less valid when applied.
Due Process
Following his arrest, Mahdawi received a hearing before U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford. On April 29, Judge Crawford ordered his release pending further proceedings, finding that ICE had not demonstrated that Mahdawi posed a flight risk or an immediate threat to the community.
Judge Crawford’s ruling did not dismiss the underlying removal case or declare Mahdawi’s arrest unlawful. Rather, it addressed the narrower question of whether continued detention without bond was appropriate. Mahdawi remains in removal proceedings, where he is entitled to present his case and appeal any adverse findings, in full accordance with constitutional due process.
While removal proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature, non-citizens facing deportation are still entitled to due process under the U.S. Constitution. In Mahdawi’s case, this includes notice of the charges, access to legal counsel, a hearing before an immigration judge, and the right to appeal any adverse decision through administrative and judicial channels. However, because his removal is based on foreign policy grounds—where the courts traditionally grant broad deference to the executive branch—his ability to challenge the case is limited to factual and procedural arguments rather than questioning U.S. foreign policy itself.
Statements and Involvement
Mahdawi’s involvement in campus activism has drawn significant attention. As a co-leader of Columbia University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Mahdawi participated in protests that have been described by university officials and media outlets as disruptive and, at times, intimidating to Jewish students.
Among the documented chants at these events were “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a slogan widely interpreted as calling for the elimination of Israel. According to court documents, Mahdawi allegedly made inflammatory statements expressing hostility toward Jewish individuals, although no criminal charges were filed related to these comments.
It is within this context — not in isolation — that the Secretary of State’s determination was made.
U.S. Government’s Position on the Slogan
In April 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 883 by a wide bipartisan margin of 377 to 44. The resolution formally condemned the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as antisemitic and a call for the elimination of the State of Israel. Vermont’s lone House member, Representative Becca Balint (D-VT), voted against the resolution, joining a minority mostly composed of progressive Democrats.
The resolution is relevant to Mahdawi’s removal case, as it reflects the official position of the United States Congress that the slogan constitutes eliminationist rhetoric harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests — precisely the type of consideration that INA § 237(a)(4)(C) was designed to address.
Senate Resolution 13 and the Arrest
SR-13, adopted by a majority of the Vermont Senate, condemned the arrest as “immoral, inhumane, and illegal.” However, the available facts reveal:
- The arrest was conducted lawfully under ICE operational procedures.
- No violence or brutality was reported.
- Mahdawi’s legal rights have been respected and due process is ongoing.
The language of SR-13 reflects political and emotional objections rather than evidence of mistreatment or abuse.
As the facts stand, Mahdawi remains free pending removal proceedings and continues to receive full due process under U.S. immigration law. His arrest — though controversial in political circles — appears to have followed established legal and procedural norms.
With the facts and official record now clear, some may find themselves asking a logical question: On what factual basis, beyond political sentiment, was SR-13 ultimately supported?
If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #DueProcess #VermontPolitics #ImmigrationLaw
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply