Comment by ameister14 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ameister14 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Technically at the time of the arrest he was accused of criminal conduct, but not charged with criminal conduct. I believe he is still within the legally required timeline to be charged with criminal conduct, though he may be subject to deportation without such charges, we'll see.

Your second and third point is confused. The foundation for the government's belief they can deport Khalil is not the Alien Enemies Act (which is what I assume you mean, as there is no Alien and Seditions Act-the term "Alien and Seditions Acts" refers to four separate acts, one of which is the Alien Enemies Act), it's the Immigration and Nationality Act, the same basis Trump tried to use for Executive Order 13769. More specifically, I think they're using 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).

That said, the government is absolutely using the Alien Enemies Act to round up people and send them to El Salvador.

>If these people don't have rights to free speech and due process then nobody does.

So this is an interesting legal question because non-citizens definitely do not have complete free speech protections, but the border of where their speech is protected vs unprotected is not entirely clear. It's not true that if they don't, nobody does - it is absolutely clear that citizens of the United States do have rights to free speech and due process. That has been established many times.

I'm aware that Khalil's case involves the McCarthyesque Immigration and Nationality Act because he's a lawful permanent resident where non-citizens are being processed under things like the Alien Enemies Act. Let's not get lost in the weeds here.

> So this is an interesting legal question because non-citizens definitely do not have complete free speech protections

All persons on American soil are entitled to constitutional protections [1].

Consider the implications if they're not entitled to due process, for example. The government could detain a citizen and deport them without a hearing to a foreign country and then, when told to return them by a court, claim they have no jurisdiction over that foreign country. The administration is actually using the last argument.

You might say "they can't deport citizens". They are in effect arguing they can and there's no remedy for you if you're mistakenly deported, possibly indefinitely detained.

That's what due process is for: to establish if there is a lawful basis for the deportation.

[1]: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/

They already "accidentally" deported a citizen in Maryland and are arguing they can't get him back because he is in El Salvador where they have no jurisdiction. It is a test to see if they can get away with it.

He (Kilmar Abrego Garcia) is not a citizen, nor did he enter the US legally. He entered the US illegally as a teenager but was granted temporary protected status because of a credible fear of gang violence if he returned home[1]. A US citizen cannot legally be deported[2] unless they are first denaturalized (which is extremely rare and has not occurred under Trump).

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_...

Close: his child is a citizen. If he’s deported, physically removed from interacting with court, they’ll argue his child should lose citizenship.

First they would have to convince the Supreme Court that birthright citizenship isn't in the Constitution, which seems like a long shot even for this court.

>I'm aware that Khalil's case involves the McCarthyesque Immigration and Nationality Act because he's a lawful permanent resident where non-citizens are being processed under things like the Alien Enemies Act. Let's not get lost in the weeds here

That's not why. Both are non-citizens. The reason the different laws are being applied matters, because they are totally different legal fights, taking place for different social and political reasons.

>All persons on American soil are entitled to constitutional protections [1]

Some, but not to the same extent as citizens where speech is concerned. For example, foreign nationals are not allowed to spend money to directly support a candidate for elected office, though they may spend to influence an issue. Cf Bluman v. FEC with Citizens United.

It's a matter of degrees, and certainly is impacted by immigrant status and ties to the United States. From a free speech issue and where concerning the speech I have heard from him, I think it's clear that Khalil should not be subject to any kind of government restriction or punishment. That said, it seems likely that he may be deported for other reasons.

I don't disagree with you re due process at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com