Why would they do this? They have the power to deport him without cause, without reason. Why do this? I mean, this guy is an "easy target". He's disruptive. He organized protests where violence was committed, lots of damage was done. They got arrested (and not for protesting, for breaking and entering). He's frankly criminally liable, but that would be difficult to get to stick, but it's definitely not nothing.

And, if the government can't bring itself to be reasonable about this, then they can just keep their fine mouths shut. They have the right to say nothing at all and just deport him!

SO WHY DO THIS? Is it so difficult to even pretend to uphold the law?

And yes, I feel like this person cannot reasonably claim to be pro-Palestina, he wants Israel eradicated. He does not have a reasonable position. Frankly, Mr. Kahil is vile. I find it very hard to support this particular individual.

But the government's attitude in this (and other) cases ...

Of course, it is somewhat dishonest for AP to cite a memo by Rubio as the statement of law. It is not. The judge's decision uses entirely different factors. As cited by the judge:

1) Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence”

This means: nothing in the government's argument mattered to the judge (a tragically common occurrence in Trump's administration cases). EXCEPT for one thing: that they brought the case at all. The judge even mentions that she was happy the administration brought a case at all, since they didn't need to. The law does not require it to deport Mr Kahil.

2) All counterarguments centered around free speech could not be used in the decision since this wasn't about free speech. The government is not preventing Mr. Kahil from saying whatever he wants about them (in fact they allowed an interview with him, which was very widely published)

I find it somewhat dishonest that a memo of the department of state is used as if it was the judge's reasoning when obviously it was not.

U.S. cites its power to deport people for beliefs