Law’s Interpretation in Deportation Case Challenged

Defense lawyers presented opening arguments Tuesday in a closely watched immigration case, contending that if two Palestinians are deported for allegedly supporting a terrorist group in the Mideast, any immigrant could be ejected from the United States for backing social change at home.

“Be it South Africans who raise money for the (African National Congress), Iraqis who raise money for the Kurds . . . or Israelis or other non-U.S. citizens who raise money for the government of Israel, they would be deportable from the United States under the government’s interpretation” of the provision, said Marc Van Der Hout, one of the lawyers.

Van Der Hout represents Khader Musa Hamide, 38, a 21-year U.S. resident. Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, 36, also a longtime resident alien, are accused of giving material support to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization that the U.S. government considers to be a terrorist group.

Federal officials are prosecuting the two men under a 2-year-old immigration statute that holds that a non-citizen can be deported for giving “material support” to terrorist groups.

Civil libertarians and immigration lawyers from around the nation have seized upon the case as a First Amendment cause celebre , contending that lawmakers never intended to give such a “broad interpretation” to the provision. They say the government is using the law to silence immigrants who speak out in favor of causes that it opposes.

They noted that the law was used against Hamide and Shehadeh only after a federal court struck down a McCarthy-era anti-subversion law that had been used against the two men and six other immigrants in 1987.

The government is still seeking to deport the six others, including five other Palestinians and Hamide’s Kenyan wife, on technical violations of immigration law.

Hamide’s and Shehadeh’s lawyers do not deny that both men raised money for and spoke in favor of Palestinians’ efforts to create their own state in the Middle East. The attorneys also acknowledge that the defendants supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), chiefly by raising money.

But Hamide and Shehadeh deny that they are members of the PFLP or that they support or have aided terrorism. Neither has been charged with any criminal act.

The first witness in the case Tuesday was Ariel Merari, 52, an Israeli terrorism specialist who advises the Israeli government and others on how to combat terrorists.

The prosecution sought to have Merari certified as an expert on international terrorism so he might testify as to the nature of the PFLP. Defense lawyers tried to discredit Merari as an agent of the Israeli government with a vested interest in the case.

Immigration Judge Bruce J. Einhorn told the defense lawyers that those challenges were more appropriate at a later stage in the proceedings.

In their opening arguments, Van Der Hout and David Cole, Shehadeh’s lawyer, portrayed their clients’ support of the PLO and the PFLP as support only for the groups’ cultural, health and social programs--and not for their military activities.

“If you are a Palestinian . . . and you want to support your people back home, as a practical matter you have to send your money through the PLO and its constituent organizations,” Cole told Einhorn. “There is simply no reasonable alternative.”

Michael P. Linden, a U.S. Justice Department immigration lawyer who is acting as prosecutor against Hamide and Shehadeh, declined to give an opening argument until later in the case. But in a rebuttal, he scoffed at Van Der Hout’s and Coles’ arguments.

“The statute does not show any exception for art shows and bake sales,” Lindemann said.

He told Einhorn that the same arguments made about the PFLP could have been made about Nazi Germany’s non-genocidal activities.

“Nazi Germany built the autobahn,” he said, referring to Germany’s high-speed freeway.

Tuesday’s hearing began the first phase of the deportation hearing, which will determine if the PFLP is indeed a terrorist organization.

The second phase, which is not scheduled to begin until December, will determine if Hamide and Shehadeh gave “material support” to the group.