4 ms·

US Government seeks deportation of Mahmoud Khalil (again)

39 points by WastedCucumber 1y ago

WastedCucumber 1y ago
This time, ordered by a judge.
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  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.
  - pimlottc 1y ago
    “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.
  - WastedCucumber 1y ago
    Thanks for the info! I didn't realize any of that.
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      No problem, it’s deceptively court-like with much less of the rigor and independence; Khalil and his team are right to call it a kangaroo court for such procedural reasons alone, whether or not he should be deportable under the law. At least he likely can appeal most or all of the case to the true federal courts - which is actually not always true; there are many situations where immigration law forbids judicial review or some or all of the immigration court’s findings, even when those findings may well be wrong. I was slightly wrong about one unimportant detail: the immigration court system is under the DOJ and so the official with full control is the Attorney General (either herself or through her delegates/subordinates), not directly the President. But of course the President can fire the Attorney General and her politically appointed subordinates at will, so the effect is mostly the same.
bhouston 1y ago
All because he stood up for the Palestinians during a genocide. The world isn’t fair.
- neuronexmachina 1y ago
  It's crazy that he's a permanent resident and hasn't even been accused of a crime.
- tester5555 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - singleshot_ 1y ago
    > even a seed of doubt That’s a pretty interesting burden of proof for a nineteen minute old account.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    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.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

WastedCucumber 1y ago

This time, ordered by a judge.

jkaplowitz 1y ago
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.
- pimlottc 1y ago
  “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.
- WastedCucumber 1y ago
  Thanks for the info! I didn't realize any of that.
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    No problem, it’s deceptively court-like with much less of the rigor and independence; Khalil and his team are right to call it a kangaroo court for such procedural reasons alone, whether or not he should be deportable under the law. At least he likely can appeal most or all of the case to the true federal courts - which is actually not always true; there are many situations where immigration law forbids judicial review or some or all of the immigration court’s findings, even when those findings may well be wrong. I was slightly wrong about one unimportant detail: the immigration court system is under the DOJ and so the official with full control is the Attorney General (either herself or through her delegates/subordinates), not directly the President. But of course the President can fire the Attorney General and her politically appointed subordinates at will, so the effect is mostly the same.

bhouston 1y ago

All because he stood up for the Palestinians during a genocide. The world isn’t fair.

neuronexmachina 1y ago
It's crazy that he's a permanent resident and hasn't even been accused of a crime.
tester5555 1y ago
[flagged]
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  > even a seed of doubt That’s a pretty interesting burden of proof for a nineteen minute old account.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  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.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]