ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says

[Rumpole]

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), which provides (in subsections (B)(i)(VII) and B(iii))

Any alien who … endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization … is inadmissible….

May Aliens Be Deported Based on Their Speech?

Thursday's Fact Sheet related to Wednesday's Executive Order, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, says (among other things): Immediate action will…

reason.com

Eugene Volokh’s piece highlights a thorny constitutional question: Can noncitizens be deported purely for their speech? The answer, like most things in immigration law, is a mess of statutory authority, conflicting precedents, and untested constitutional limits.

The Law as Written

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) and § 1227(a)(4)(B), noncitizens who endorse or espouse terrorism can be denied entry or deported. “Terrorist activity” here is broadly defined--it’s not just planting bombs but even advocating for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Congress has always had wide latitude in keeping people out, as confirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel, but what about kicking them out once they’re already here?

The First Amendment Problem

Noncitizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights--Bridges v. Wixon made that clear. You can’t deport someone for saying things that a citizen could legally say. But then there’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, which upheld the deportation of Communist Party members, though it leaned on Dennis v. United States, back when we were jailing people for talking about communism.

More recent cases split. The Ninth Circuit in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno said First Amendment protections apply in deportation cases, while Price v. INS went the other way, deferring to Congress on immigration matters.

Selective Prosecution and Politics

The big red flag here is viewpoint discrimination. The executive order targets “Hamas sympathizers,” but not, say, someone cheering on Israeli bombings. The Supreme Court loathes viewpoint-based restrictions--Rosenberger v. Rector being a prime example. And while Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. says deportation proceedings can’t be challenged on selective prosecution grounds, it didn’t answer whether the government can initiate deportations purely for speech.

Where This Is Headed

Trump’s plan, if implemented, would almost certainly be challenged. The courts have never fully settled whether lawful residents can be deported just for speech, but in today’s First Amendment-friendly climate, the government’s odds don’t look great. If this goes to SCOTUS, it might finally force a ruling on whether noncitizens get the same speech protections as citizens when the government wields its deportation hammer.

Short version: It’s murky, it’s legally dubious, and if this crackdown actually happens, it’s bound to end up in the courts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

He was never charged with terrorism, or for any crime prior to this deportation, and is a legal, green card, resident, with all the due process rights that citizens have...

He needs to be charged and convicted in a court of law for a crime or felony, before he can be deported, under the LAW.

Why do you support Lawlessness?

But we've seen in recent years you don't need to be actually charged with a crime to be found guilty of that crime...

 

[Lisa558]

Why do you want to outlaw speech that is critical of people you support?

Speech by foreigners who come to this country and rally in support of HAMAS Islamic terrorists, thereby making antidemitism even worse at Columbia, is not free speech.

WHY do you want to allow foreigners to come here and harrass the Jewish people?

 

[struth]

It's all about 'due process', if DHS passes the due process muster, fine, but we can't violate due process, getting habeas corpus right, etc., it is the cornerstone of a democracy.

Has he filed a habeas petition? No.

Will he not get a deportation hearing? This is a civil matter not a criminal, so there is limited due process and it’s an art 2 court

He literally just got picked up

 

[otto105]

But we've seen in recent years you don't need to be actually charged with a crime to be found guilty of that crime...

How so?

Please post the Shitler! victimhood that you’re carrying.

 

[struth]

This administration has offered no such evidence. They’re just using it as a political propaganda.

They for have to show any evidence to you. But the articles I have read made clear their position.

 

[Rumpole]

We’ll see…that may be Kabuki theatre…Remember, he’s not a citizen of this country, merely a green card holder. According to law State Dept can revoke that, and send him back.

Well, shall we take a deeper dive? You game?

See, it's a thorny constitutional question: Can noncitizens be deported purely for their speech? The answer, like most things in immigration law, is a mess of statutory authority, conflicting precedents, and untested constitutional limits.

The Law as Written

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) and § 1227(a)(4)(B), noncitizens who endorse or espouse terrorism can be denied entry or deported. “Terrorist activity” here is broadly defined--it’s not just planting bombs but even advocating for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Congress has always had wide latitude in keeping people out, as confirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel, but what about kicking them out once they’re already here?

The First Amendment Problem

Noncitizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights--Bridges v. Wixon made that clear. You can’t deport someone for saying things that a citizen could legally say. But then there’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, which upheld the deportation of Communist Party members, though it leaned on Dennis v. United States, back when we were jailing people for talking about communism.

More recent cases split. The Ninth Circuit in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno said First Amendment protections apply in deportation cases, while Price v. INS went the other way, deferring to Congress on immigration matters.

Selective Prosecution and Politics

The big red flag here is viewpoint discrimination. The executive order targets “Hamas sympathizers,” but not, say, someone cheering on Israeli bombings. The Supreme Court loathes viewpoint-based restrictions--Rosenberger v. Rector being a prime example. And while Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. says deportation proceedings can’t be challenged on selective prosecution grounds, it didn’t answer whether the government can initiate deportations purely for speech.

Where This Is Headed

Trump’s plan, if implemented, would almost certainly be challenged. The courts have never fully settled whether lawful residents can be deported just for speech, but in today’s First Amendment-friendly climate, the government’s odds don’t look great. If this goes to SCOTUS, it might finally force a ruling on whether noncitizens get the same speech protections as citizens when the government wields its deportation hammer.

Short version: It’s murky, it’s legally dubious, and if this crackdown actually happens, it’s bound to end up in the courts.

 

[otto105]

They for have to show any evidence to you. But the articles I have read made clear their position.

Is not this regime aiming to be the most transparent ever?

 

[Lisa558]

Is “Death to Jews” protected by the first amendment or can your tiny ******* brain comprehend this as inciting violence you ******* retarded ****

The sad thing is is that if conservatives were marching around calling out “Death to Blacks” on a college campus where black students were already being bullied and assaulted, I guarantee you that the liberal you responded to would not be defending it as “free speech.”

Up until now, Jews were the only minority where rampant bigotry could be acted upon - and the libs tolerate it, if not outright approve of it.

That stops with Trump.

 

[irosie91]

Prosecuting someone for instigating is not easy, given our broad first amendment protections.

Courts have a pretty narrow definition.

true---but it might be successful in this situation

 

[Marener]

Speech by foreigners who come to this country and rally in support of HAMAS Islamic terrorists, thereby making antidemitism even worse at Columbia, is not free speech.

WHY do you want to allow foreigners to come here and harrass the Jewish people?

I think that people in this country are allowed to criticize the actions of the Israeli government without being labeled as supporting Hamas.

Just like people are allowed to criticize Trump, something you previously wanted to make illegal.

 

[Marener]

true---but it might be successful in this situation

Maybe. Depends on the exact language used and the context.

We haven’t seen any of that. Just people lobbing accusations.

 

[otto105]

Well, shall we take a deeper dive? You game?

See, it's a thorny constitutional question: Can noncitizens be deported purely for their speech? The answer, like most things in immigration law, is a mess of statutory authority, conflicting precedents, and untested constitutional limits.

The Law as Written

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) and § 1227(a)(4)(B), noncitizens who endorse or espouse terrorism can be denied entry or deported. “Terrorist activity” here is broadly defined--it’s not just planting bombs but even advocating for groups deemed terrorist organizations. Congress has always had wide latitude in keeping people out, as confirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel, but what about kicking them out once they’re already here?

The First Amendment Problem

Noncitizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights--Bridges v. Wixon made that clear. You can’t deport someone for saying things that a citizen could legally say. But then there’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, which upheld the deportation of Communist Party members, though it leaned on Dennis v. United States, back when we were jailing people for talking about communism.

More recent cases split. The Ninth Circuit in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno said First Amendment protections apply in deportation cases, while Price v. INS went the other way, deferring to Congress on immigration matters.

Selective Prosecution and Politics

The big red flag here is viewpoint discrimination. The executive order targets “Hamas sympathizers,” but not, say, someone cheering on Israeli bombings. The Supreme Court loathes viewpoint-based restrictions--Rosenberger v. Rector being a prime example. And while Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. says deportation proceedings can’t be challenged on selective prosecution grounds, it didn’t answer whether the government can initiate deportations purely for speech.

Where This Is Headed

Trump’s plan, if implemented, would almost certainly be challenged. The courts have never fully settled whether lawful residents can be deported just for speech, but in today’s First Amendment-friendly climate, the government’s odds don’t look great. If this goes to SCOTUS, it might finally force a ruling on whether noncitizens get the same speech protections as citizens when the government wields its deportation hammer.

Short version: It’s murky, it’s legally dubious, and if this crackdown actually happens, it’s bound to end up in the courts.

I thought maga was 1000% free speech…as stated by our co-president leon and his xwatter policy.

 

[otto105]

Is “Death to Jews” protected by the first amendment or can your tiny ******* brain comprehend this as inciting violence you ******* retarded ****

Prove that he asserted that.

 

[struth]

Is not this regime aiming to be the most transparent ever?

Not sure if that’s their goal or not, but they can show it at the hearing. They haven’t hidden their position on this case though, pretty clear

 

[otto105]

The sad thing is is that if conservatives were marching around calling out “Death to Blacks” on a college campus where black students were already being bullied and assaulted, I guarantee you that the liberal you responded to would not be defending it as “free speech.”

Up until now, Jews were the only minority where rampant bigotry could be acted upon - and the libs tolerate it, if not outright approve of it.

That stops with Trump.

Would screaming “the Jews will not replace us” count?

 

[otto105]

Not sure if that’s their goal or not, but they can show it at the hearing. They haven’t hidden their position on this case though, pretty clear

Their position is just to deport without any reason.

Have you seen anything else from this regime.

 

[struth]

I thought maga was 1000% free speech…as stated by our co-president leon and his xwatter policy.

Did anyone say he couldn’t get in his X account and post his pro Hamas views? He can…from Gaza when he gets home

 

[struth]

Their position is just to deport without any reason.

Have you seen anything else from this regime.

Well, I suggest you get off msdnc, the admin has made clear their position that his support for a terrorist organization and organizing attacks is a threat to our foreign policy position.

 

[otto105]

Did anyone say he couldn’t get in his X account and post his pro Hamas views? He can…from Gaza when he gets home

Only national socialists use xwatter now.