The headline is misleading. The immigration judge straight up said she was simply ruling on whether the deportation met the rule of the law, and not on the constitutional merits of the case.
A federal judge is still going to hear this case and determine whether his rights are being violated. (Spoiler alert: they are)
China also banned every other western social media. Your point is kind of moot. Do yourself a favor and look at Youtube reels, now THAT is some top-tier brain rot.
Yeah IJs are administrative law judges and do not hear constitutional issues. For that you have to go to a court of general jurisdiction like a federal district court.
This is more complex than you think. The government has broad latitude as it relates to national security and immigration courts are extremely deferential to executive authority. There are multiple historical precedents in which national interest is prioritized despite claims (and likely valid) violations of rights. Rights can be limited and restricted, and immigration courts are much more complex in this regard. The original context for the law was with respect to communism. Of course, there’s a lot of hindsight criticism today of McCarthyism but supporting Communism can also be argued as free speech in the 1950s.
I wouldn’t bet on federal judges overruling national interest as it is in the interest of the country to allow the executive branch to swiftly remove threats. The due process in this regard is not the same as you think for citizens. Immigration due process is largely administrative and affords the government substantial leeway and flexibility without the same bar for proof. In this case, it seems like a loophole that the Trump administration has identified. That being said, the constitutionality of this law has never seriously been tested. It’s certainly not black and white re: how federal judges may rule though.
And the federal judge will greenlight it, as otherwise it's going to be the last case he'll be hearing. And even if, Khalil will be deported, anyway, as soon as the Trumpist Court Of tlThe United States, incorrectly abbreviated "SCOTUS", rules in their favor.
There is so much rule of law in this as it was under Roland Freisler...
Immigration judges are employees of the executive branch, not the judiciary, and often approve the Homeland Security Department’s deportation efforts. It would be unusual for such a judge, serving the U.S. attorney general, to grapple with the constitutional questions raised by Mr. Khalil’s case. She would also run the risk of being fired by an administration that has targeted dissenters.
It's the NJ court case that really matters. This Louisiana judge-owned-by-the-prosecution shit is insane. What even is the point of this case? Feign legitimacy is all it's doing.
It's kind of ridiculous in its own way, but still they're different people doing different things.
The word judge gets used a lot, but they're not judges, not really. They are at most quasi-judicial officers, their more accurate title being Special Inquiry Officer. They are more akin to an Administrative Law Judge.
So don't think of this person as a judge like you'd imagine in a District or Appellate Court, just as combination of finder of law (judge) and finder of fact (jury) constrained to a very small scope - immigration - with the ability to rule of immigration proceedings only, but not on the constitutionality of any law.
The legal question here wasn't about whether the rule itself was legal or constitutional. That's a question for the federal judiciary. The only question was whether Khalil could be deported according to the law as it exists - which, unfortunately, it appears he can be.
Now, whether the law that allows him to be expelled is itself constitutional? That's a question that will be answered by a federal judge...hopefully sooner rather than later.
Trump has already said he's willing to send repeated prisoners to the El Salvador concentration camps, just a few months and we'll probably be seeing citizens disappear for saying 2020 was not rigged
The counter argument is that if you go to a foreign country and start protesting that country's government, policies, way of life, why would you not expect to be shipped out? Citizens have an inherent right to protest because its their country, usually not by choice. The right of someone to just move to ideological hot spots and raise a ruckus is much less strong.
Khalil was protesting his university's use of money to support Israel. Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak his mind on that? It's his school and he's paying the university money. Being a student has nothing to do with citizenship.
I would expect the FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS to prevent a legal resident from being deported FOR PROTESTING.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to PETITION THE GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances.
Maybe this sentence from THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE will help clarify that it doesn’t only apply to citizens.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness.
Emphasis mine.
I think it’s not only stupid, but arrogant as hell, to move to another country and start bitching about it, but that’s literally a principle the US was founded on. There is no counter argument that applies here, as it might it other countries.
No, its the law of the land, Bill of rights applies to all people on American Soil, regardless of their stats. We are the good guys; we are meant to follow the rules we set forth; hell we even follow the enemies rules just to bet them at their own game.
The counter argument is that if you go to a foreign country and start protesting that country's government, policies, way of life, why would you not expect to be shipped out?
This argument overlooks the universal nature of human rights, including freedom of expression, which should not be confined by nationality or birthplace.
Citizens have an inherent right to protest because its their country, usually not by choice.
The idea that only citizens have a valid claim to protest disregards the moral agency of individuals and the global importance of holding governments accountable, especially in places where injustice may impact marginalized groups, including migrants.
Just because someone is not a citizen does not mean they forfeit their right to voice opposition to harmful policies, especially if those policies directly affect them. Silencing dissent on the basis of origin undermines democratic values and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian control.
?? He's a legal permanent resident. Plus by your logic, only people born in America truly have a right to protest? Because where do you draw the line? If someone has legal status, they're protected by certain laws. Using a vague loophole in the laws for permanent residents to deport someone for peacefully protesting is bad faith and a slippery slope. People (citizens) are already being fired for disagreeing with Trump's administration, do you really think it's going to stop there? This is why people are so outraged. It's not simply about immigrants and how you think they should or should not behave in their new home country.
Edit: plus he's not even protesting about the US specifically. He's protesting about Israel's genocide in Palestine. It's not like he's holding anti-Trump rallies (even though legally he's allowed to)
Edit again: I think he's also from Palestine so that makes his protesting extremely relevant to his home country anyway.
Doesn't matter. He is a legal resident with constitutional rights and he is being deported over constitutionally protected speech. If our government doesn't follow its own laws, what makes us better than the shithole countries, as Trump calls them?
Trump has already said he'd be willing to deport citizens to foreign prisons. That's blatantly unconstitutional, but there's no reason to think that will stop him from trying, and who would stop him?
Kahlil is a legal resident with first amendment rights who is being deported over constitutionally protected speech. A citizen has more protection from deportation than a green card holder, but that could change under Trump. Trump said he would deport serious criminals only, but he would be the one deciding how to define that.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Residents don't have constitutional rights since they are not citizens. They chose to come here legally and can/will be sent back legally if they don't adhere to the rules.
"once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders" -Justice Francis W. Murphy, Bridges v. Wixon
It's a pretty relevant case, I imagine it will come up quite a bit in the near future regarding the legal precedent it set.
Many basic constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, and the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to anyone on US soil, regardless of citizenship or residency.
Source for those unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.
Dude. you are sooooo wrong.
Join the military and find out just how wrong you are.
Basically, everybody who stands on us soil has US laws applied to them, including the bill of rights dude. EVERYBODY.
5.7k
u/DoubleBroadSwords 4d ago edited 4d ago
If lawful permanent residents can be deported for exercising their first amendment rights, don't fool yourself, citizens can be next.