A red herring: Even the government hasn’t accused him of illegal speech, nor have they charged him with any criminal or (non-immigration) civil violation at all. If his speech was of that constitutionally unprotected kind, they very likely would have done so.
The government has made two accusations against Khalil, both related to immigration law only.
The one which motivated today’s ruling is the less legally interesting one, about misrepresentation in his permanent residence application. There are a bunch of questions over who intended what, what was or wasn’t material or willful, what would or wouldn’t have affected the decision to grant permanent residence, and who manages to meet what required burden of proof. It’s probably selective prosecution of that immigration law claim because of his protected speech, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has already upheld that in the immigration law context even though it’s usually unconstitutional otherwise.
The immigration law claim they started with against him is a very vague and broad one which basically lets the Secretary of State freely decide in his discretion that a noncitizen’s speech is sufficiently bad for foreign policy, even if it’s otherwise legal, and then render the person deportable. President Trump’s late sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a former US federal judge, previously ruled this provision unconstitutional, and her ruling was only overturned on procedural grounds that have nothing to do with the merits.
We will see what happens in Khalil’s case. He might get deported if he can’t overcome the misrepresentation claims, or he might get to stay if he manages both to overcome that and to get the scary broad foreign policy ground of deportability ruled as unconstitutional in his case (or in general). It will probably be one of those two outcomes.
Upholding the foreign policy ground of deportability as constitutional would give a frightening amount of unreviewable control to one political appointee. Permanent residents deserve more certainty than that about how to keep their status secure.
But none of that has to do with the kind of illegal speech that normally falls outside First Amendment protections in criminal court, since even the government hasn’t claimed that Khalil did that.
This response is unbelievably disingenuous and very likely a bot account / hasbara effort. This type of gaslighting: claiming every pro Palestine effort is a pro Hamas effort, claiming every pro Palestine protest is designed simply to harass Jewish people, painting every 20 year old who sees 20,000 dead children and is horrified, as a terrorist supporter - these lines are tired. They don’t work anymore. Your propaganda falls on deaf ears. We won’t stand for this anymore. Zionism is not Judaism. To do these atrocities in the name of Judaism and then hide behind it is the true antisemitic act.
This time and last time both ordered by an immigration judge, who is a non-tenured employee of the executive branch able to be fired at will by the President and who is not allowed to consider constitutional defenses. Very different from the real judges to whom the constitutional questions in Khalil’s case are reserved.
Even statutorily rather than constitutionally, there are defenses which if proved would prevent these misrepresentations from making him deportable, and he does have appeal rights both within the executive branch immigration court system and beyond.
“Immigration judges” that are not part of the judicial branch are one of the weirder quirks of US government. They probably shouldn’t have been allowed to use the title “judge” at all, but here we are.
All because he stood up for the Palestinians during a genocide. The world isn’t fair.
It's crazy that he's a permanent resident and hasn't even been accused of a crime.
[flagged]
> even a seed of doubt
That’s a pretty interesting burden of proof for a nineteen minute old account.
A red herring: Even the government hasn’t accused him of illegal speech, nor have they charged him with any criminal or (non-immigration) civil violation at all. If his speech was of that constitutionally unprotected kind, they very likely would have done so.
The government has made two accusations against Khalil, both related to immigration law only.
The one which motivated today’s ruling is the less legally interesting one, about misrepresentation in his permanent residence application. There are a bunch of questions over who intended what, what was or wasn’t material or willful, what would or wouldn’t have affected the decision to grant permanent residence, and who manages to meet what required burden of proof. It’s probably selective prosecution of that immigration law claim because of his protected speech, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has already upheld that in the immigration law context even though it’s usually unconstitutional otherwise.
The immigration law claim they started with against him is a very vague and broad one which basically lets the Secretary of State freely decide in his discretion that a noncitizen’s speech is sufficiently bad for foreign policy, even if it’s otherwise legal, and then render the person deportable. President Trump’s late sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a former US federal judge, previously ruled this provision unconstitutional, and her ruling was only overturned on procedural grounds that have nothing to do with the merits.
We will see what happens in Khalil’s case. He might get deported if he can’t overcome the misrepresentation claims, or he might get to stay if he manages both to overcome that and to get the scary broad foreign policy ground of deportability ruled as unconstitutional in his case (or in general). It will probably be one of those two outcomes.
Upholding the foreign policy ground of deportability as constitutional would give a frightening amount of unreviewable control to one political appointee. Permanent residents deserve more certainty than that about how to keep their status secure.
But none of that has to do with the kind of illegal speech that normally falls outside First Amendment protections in criminal court, since even the government hasn’t claimed that Khalil did that.
This response is unbelievably disingenuous and very likely a bot account / hasbara effort. This type of gaslighting: claiming every pro Palestine effort is a pro Hamas effort, claiming every pro Palestine protest is designed simply to harass Jewish people, painting every 20 year old who sees 20,000 dead children and is horrified, as a terrorist supporter - these lines are tired. They don’t work anymore. Your propaganda falls on deaf ears. We won’t stand for this anymore. Zionism is not Judaism. To do these atrocities in the name of Judaism and then hide behind it is the true antisemitic act.
[flagged]
Making a new account may protect your reputation from us, but your family and friends know and hate that you're making excuses for fascism.
member of a terrorist organization? gtfo with this bullshit with your minutes old account.
This time, ordered by a judge.
This time and last time both ordered by an immigration judge, who is a non-tenured employee of the executive branch able to be fired at will by the President and who is not allowed to consider constitutional defenses. Very different from the real judges to whom the constitutional questions in Khalil’s case are reserved.
Even statutorily rather than constitutionally, there are defenses which if proved would prevent these misrepresentations from making him deportable, and he does have appeal rights both within the executive branch immigration court system and beyond.
This case is definitely not over.
“Immigration judges” that are not part of the judicial branch are one of the weirder quirks of US government. They probably shouldn’t have been allowed to use the title “judge” at all, but here we are.