lobopride said:

---

The fact that a terrorist sympathizer has 19 attorneys says a lot about our current state of affairs.

---

Dirtbag lawyers. They are depicted quite well in Homeland. Same traitorous scum.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Was there some precedent that setup this silly idea that non-citizens can demand anything other than basic human rights? Why all the access to the legal obstacles and hurdles it generates? What have they done to rate it?

---

I can partially clarify and it goes back to the manner in which the Constitution was drafted. Due process is a right afforded to "persons" in the US. Those rights were not restricted to only citizens. He is being detained, a liberty issue.

That is not the same as saying he has the full panoply of rights an Am Cit does. His first amendment, including free speech and freedom of association can be restricted for instance, without being charged with a crime. But there are fundamental rights by virtue of just being on American soil.

---

Thanks! That does clarify it. HTownAg98's quote shows where it comes from, and your explanation does make clear that might concern that for some reason had "all the rights" of a citizen is not the case. That is not what is going on here. Agree in the concept of fundamental rights, especially if not at large as pointed out in follow-up posts.

HTownAg98 said:

---

titan said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Don't give a rat's patootie at this time. He is not a citizen. He WAS a guest until he became an animal. Get him out of here.

---

Non-citizens, even those with green cards, get some constitutional rights whether you like it or not. The fact that you don't give a flying **** about his due process rights tells me you're only in favor of it when it's people you like.

---

Sure, but his green card can be revoked, then those rights disapeer

---

Was there some precedent that setup this silly idea that non-citizens can demand anything other than basic human rights? Why all the access to the legal obstacles and hurdles it generates? What have they done to rate it?

---

Quote:

---

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

---

Show the class where it says citizen there.

---

Why would the 5th apply? He isn't being charged with a crime, he is being deported by the agency(ies) that granted him temporary position to be here subject to certain conditions that he violated.

BTW - I know SCOTUS has taken the position to apply these sorts of rights and protections to non-citizens, but I am not sure the Founding Fathers intended it to protect a supporter of terrorist who is harassing actual citizens, destroying actual US property, and depriving law abiding citizens of their life, liberty or property.

Other BTW - You tend to state your opinions as fact. There is a reason this is being pushed through the courts and appeals and likely up to SCOTUS. And that is because there are opposing opinions on whether his deportation can proceed without millions of taxpayer dollars and time sorting through his due process "rights" as not just a non-citizen, but one who has incited terrorism.

Quote:

---

Thanks! That does clarify it. HTownAg98's quote shows where it comes from, and your explanation does make clear that might concern that for some reason had "all the rights" of a citizen is not the case. That is not what is going on here. Agree in the concept of fundamental rights, especially if not at large as pointed out in follow-up posts.

---

Not to put too fine a point on this but as far as free speech is concerned that is relevant to this case and the differences between AM Cits and "persons." Brandenburg v. Ohio.

That has an immediacy test. Does the speech call for imminent violence? No? No violation of law for inciting of violence. Am Cits get that protection as a crime is the issue. People here by permission? Not so much. Don't even need a criminal charge to have that not in play.

Happy to help, BTW. I greatly enjoy your posts and our interaction here.

Quote:

---

Why would the 5th apply? He isn't being charged with a crime, he is being deported by the agency(ies) that granted him temporary position to be here subject to certain conditions that he violated.

---

The 5th applies to "persons' not restricted to American Citizens only.

Add in he is in detention, which is considered a coercive environment. He cannot be compelled to answer questions from law enforcement once he invokes his right to an attorney. That goes for civil and potentially criminal activities. Why everyone coming in contact with law enforcement would be better off not speaking with them.

After all when the feds are involved, they are not looking for info as much as they looking for false statements, for which federal charges can be filed.

So yes, Khalil does have 5th amendment rights and he can let his attorneys do the talking, not him. Or not and inadvertently incriminate himself in crimes. His choice because he is on American soil. A courtesy not many other nations provide to their own citizens, much less a visitor.

I think we need to seriously consider amending the 5th to only apply to US citizens.

We have been way to nice to nom citizen "persons" in our country whether temporarily or permanently. As you mention, few other countries provide such protections for non-citizens.

The consequences of our interpretation of the 5th to apply to all persons who just happen to step foot here has been repeatedly used against the actual citizens of the US. Our citizens should always be placed above others in this regard.

Any non citizen should be subject to deportation for any reason just as we can deny entry of any non us citizen for any reason.

As always, appreciate your insight and the other legal beagles who may not agree but have an open mind to listen to contrarian positions / arguments.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

titan said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Don't give a rat's patootie at this time. He is not a citizen. He WAS a guest until he became an animal. Get him out of here.

---

Non-citizens, even those with green cards, get some constitutional rights whether you like it or not. The fact that you don't give a flying **** about his due process rights tells me you're only in favor of it when it's people you like.

---

Sure, but his green card can be revoked, then those rights disapeer

---

Was there some precedent that setup this silly idea that non-citizens can demand anything other than basic human rights? Why all the access to the legal obstacles and hurdles it generates? What have they done to rate it?

---

Quote:

---

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

---

Show the class where it says citizen there.

---

Why would the 5th apply? He isn't being charged with a crime, he is being deported by the agency(ies) that granted him temporary position to be here subject to certain conditions that he violated.

BTW - I know SCOTUS has taken the position to apply these sorts of rights and protections to non-citizens, but I am not sure the Founding Fathers intended it to protect a supporter of terrorist who is harassing actual citizens, destroying actual US property, and depriving law abiding citizens of their life, liberty or property.

Other BTW - You tend to state your opinions as fact. There is a reason this is being pushed through the courts and appeals and likely up to SCOTUS. And that is because there are opposing opinions on whether his deportation can proceed without millions of taxpayer dollars and time sorting through his due process "rights" as not just a non-citizen, but one who has incited terrorism.

---

If he's committed crimes, he would have been charged with one, as a conviction would make his removal much easier. Rubio explicitly stated he's not been charged with any crime.

No one is fighting over his due process rights at the moment. He's going to get a deportation hearing just like anyone else. The current question is: which court has jurisdiction to hear his case? Once that issue is figured out, then we'll get into the meat of if he can be deported (I think he can, but there are some wrinkles with 1A issues at play).

Quote:

---

I think we need to seriously consider amending the 5th to only apply to US citizens.

---

No f***ing way!

Do you really not understand why we are Exceptional? Because of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Why have few other countries just taken our example and adopt for themselves? You know why. Leaders do not ever want the people to have the degree of control we do. (And as little as that is right now better than everywhere else!)

Quote:

---

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

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-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

---

LINK

I am a very great believer in American Exceptionalism. We were placed in that position, at that time. Our forefathers saw a different future and fought and died to get there.

This isn't a religious perspective only. It is at heart, a humanist objective. That term probably means different things to different people. To me, guidance. Free will and all.

Guidance.

All the blue stars for that post aggiehawg!

Perfectly said!

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think we need to seriously consider amending the 5th to only apply to US citizens.

We have been way to nice to nom citizen "persons" in our country whether temporarily or permanently. As you mention, few other countries provide such protections for non-citizens.

The consequences of our interpretation of the 5th to apply to all persons who just happen to step foot here has been repeatedly used against the actual citizens of the US. Our citizens should always be placed above others in this regard.

Any non citizen should be subject to deportation for any reason just as we can deny entry of any non us citizen for any reason.

As always, appreciate your insight and the other legal beagles who may not agree but have an open mind to listen to contrarian positions / arguments.

---

The reason the fifth amendment applies to persons is that our Founders (rightly) believed that we are born with certain inalienable rights that government should not take away. The principle goes all the way back to the Magna Carta. But, if the government is going to take away certain rights, there must be a process to ensure that it's done fairly.

ETA: Ms. Hawg explained this perfectly.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we need to seriously consider amending the 5th to only apply to US citizens.

---

No f***ing way!

Do you really not understand why we are Exceptional? Because of our Constitution and our Bill Rights.

Why have few other countries just taken our example and adopt for themselves? You know why. Leaders do not ever want the people to have the degree of control we do. (And as little as that is right now better than everywhere else!)

Quote:

---

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

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-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

---

LINK

I am a very great believer in American Exceptionalism. We were placed in that position, at that time. Our forefathers saw a different future and fought and died to get there.

This isn't a religious perspective only. It is at heart, a humanist objective. That term probably means different things to different people. To me, guidance. Free will and all.

Guidance.

---

I absolutely appreciate your response and agree with it. But American Exceptionalism doesn't mean American Perfection. We started off well, but we are not treating all 'men' equal when the rights of the law breakers are greater than the rights of those who follow the law.

I agree the Founding Fathers wanted equal rights, a justice system free of corruption, and respect of those inalienable rights. However, the drafters of the Declaration of Independence also recognized that any system is prone to corruption and degradation over time and calls for a course correction.

My perspective is that the US Constitution, as amended, could use some updates as it is clear the Legislative, Executive and Judicial have been corrupted and now deviate from what made American exceptional.

It is frustrating to watch DJT and those around them were not afforded due process, but there is a fight to offer such to a foreign intelligence agent here to support terrorism against the US and our allies.

Maybe restricting the 5th to only US Citizens is too restrictive. Maybe it's not. But it can be debated.

Quote:

---

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

---

This is an immigration issue, not a constitutional question. The dimocrats are trying to confuse the 2. He needs to be thrown the **** out ASAP. He's here solely to stir up trouble.

Oh, please do tell us what 1A "issues may be in play"

for a non-citizen terrorist who was literally passing out literature fomenting overthrowing western civilization.

I am waiting with bated breath.

This is not a first amendment case, it's an immigration case. The Department of State has the right to revoke his invitation to be here and they are. He can **** off.

LMCane said:

---

Oh, please do tell us what 1A "issues may be in play"

for a non-citizen terrorist who was literally passing out literature fomenting overthrowing western civilization.

I am waiting with bated breath.

---

You can shove it with the attitude, because I already said I think he'll be deported. But the argument his attorneys will make is that the two provisions he's charged with violating are unconstitutional speech restrictions. They will have an uphill battle proving that.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This is an immigration issue, not a constitutional question. The dimocrats are trying to confuse the 2. He needs to be thrown the **** out ASAP. He's here solely to stir up trouble.

---

I tend to agree, but there is a broader point about why our awesome "rights" are so abused. My particular point is why we give non-citizens better treatment than citizens. Makes no sense.

And I understand that under the Constitution and under our case histories and overall norms we believe all are equal under (caveat: OUR) laws, the last few years have shown that is simply not the case.

We need to recognize and address it, not hide behind the settled science of SCOTUS decisions.

The whole founding of this Country was the abuse of power by the British monarchy. We are at a point where we have simply traded the Brits for deranged libs, Soros funded spies / instigators / lawfarers, and a public who is too scared of making changes to save our Nation.

HTownAg98 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Oh, please do tell us what 1A "issues may be in play"

for a non-citizen terrorist who was literally passing out literature fomenting overthrowing western civilization.

I am waiting with bated breath.

---

You can shove it with the attitude, because I already said I think he'll be deported. But the argument his attorneys will make is that the two provisions he's charged with violating are unconstitutional speech restrictions. They will have an uphill battle proving that.

---

He's scum and I hope he's deported

Pack all the protestors up and ship them to Gaza Let them do their protesting over there, since they love the Palestinians so much. No other Muslim country wants the Palestinians. That speaks volumes right there.

My biggest question is whether his idiot wife, a 2nd generation American who has taken to sharing sad stories about her sadness with pictures of her ultrasound, will go join him in the caliphate of Syria.

All jokes aside, Mahmoud will do very well in Syria. The new Al Qaeda regime will treat him like a Rockstar for standing against Israel and the US. What I find funny is his wife complaining about "free speech," though. She'll find out how free she is pretty soon.

— Someone Important (@justimportant2) March 15, 2025

When they took over a Columbia building.

Definitely looks like a peaceful protest to me. /s

This is what Mahmoud Khalil’s group did at Columbia.

Now the Democrats are fighting to keep him from being deported. pic.twitter.com/Z0nynFOoyd

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) March 15, 2025

Quote:

---

For generations, America has stood apart from the rest of the world as a nation of immigrantsbut also a nation of values.

Unlike in Europe, where ethnic and religious minorities often remain socially and politically separate from the broader society, the American model of assimilation has long been based on a simple but powerful expectation: America welcomes newcomers, but they must respect and embrace fundamental principles that define America, such as the rule of law, individual liberty, and democratic governance.

---

Quote:

---

When an immigrant rejects those principles and supports groups that oppose American freedoms, it challenges the very foundation of the nation's values and legal framework. This is not a theoretical debate it is unfolding now in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University activist whom the government is seeking to deport due to his alleged support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Khalil's case is not just about immigration law it is a test of America's resolve to enforce obligations that come with permanent residency. The laws and policies are clear: immigrants must adhere to them, and the government, following due process and a legal determination, must enforce them. This is the foundation of what defines America.

From the moment a migrant arrives in the U.S., there is an implicit agreement: the country offers safety, opportunity, and freedoms unmatched in much of the world. In return, those who seek to stay must respect the laws and the basic values of a pluralistic democracy.

---

Quote:

---

America does not demand that immigrants abandon their heritage, religion, or cultural identity far from it. The country thrives because of its diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. But diversity without a shared civic foundation leads to fragmentation. The U.S. model has always depended on civic assimilation the idea that no matter where you come from, you accept the responsibilities of being part of this society.

---

Quote:

---

Critics argue that revoking Khalil's green card violates the freedom of speech. But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, nor does it cover material support for terrorism. Under 8 USC 1182, a non-citizen is inadmissible and removable if they "endorse or espouse terrorist activity" or belong to organizations that do.

---

Quote:

---

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, noted "The question is what that standard is. They're allowed to protest, allowed to use free speech. What they aren't allowed to do is to support terrorist organizations, to spread terrorist information, to threaten Jewish students and certainly not occupy buildings and destroy property."

---

LINK

A better explanation than the one I attempted yesterday.

ETA: Same link

Quote:

---

If the U.S. fails to enforce assimilation expectations, it risks repeating Europe's mistakes. In Europe, radicalized enclaves have formed because of weak enforcement of national values. Both France and the United Kingdom have learned the hard way that failing to confront extremist ideology among immigrants leads to long-term security risks.

---

What i worry about is that "terrorist" is clearly a term that can be twisted.

The democrats considered parents speaking out at school boards as terrorists.

Ultimately we as a society have to be able to recognize that at times you can't keep your arms tied behind your back when your opponent is as strong as it currently is. Really just label him as a spy or terrorist and be done with it. Spies that hide in the open don't get to be protected by any laws.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

For generations, America has stood apart from the rest of the world as a nation of immigrantsbut also a nation of values.

Unlike in Europe, where ethnic and religious minorities often remain socially and politically separate from the broader society, the American model of assimilation has long been based on a simple but powerful expectation: America welcomes newcomers, but they must respect and embrace fundamental principles that define America, such as the rule of law, individual liberty, and democratic governance.

---

Quote:

---

When an immigrant rejects those principles and supports groups that oppose American freedoms, it challenges the very foundation of the nation's values and legal framework. This is not a theoretical debate it is unfolding now in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University activist whom the government is seeking to deport due to his alleged support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Khalil's case is not just about immigration law it is a test of America's resolve to enforce obligations that come with permanent residency. The laws and policies are clear: immigrants must adhere to them, and the government, following due process and a legal determination, must enforce them. This is the foundation of what defines America.

From the moment a migrant arrives in the U.S., there is an implicit agreement: the country offers safety, opportunity, and freedoms unmatched in much of the world. In return, those who seek to stay must respect the laws and the basic values of a pluralistic democracy.

---

Quote:

---

America does not demand that immigrants abandon their heritage, religion, or cultural identity far from it. The country thrives because of its diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. But diversity without a shared civic foundation leads to fragmentation. The U.S. model has always depended on civic assimilation the idea that no matter where you come from, you accept the responsibilities of being part of this society.

---

Quote:

---

Critics argue that revoking Khalil's green card violates the freedom of speech. But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, nor does it cover material support for terrorism. Under 8 USC 1182, a non-citizen is inadmissible and removable if they "endorse or espouse terrorist activity" or belong to organizations that do.

---

Quote:

---

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, noted "The question is what that standard is. They're allowed to protest, allowed to use free speech. What they aren't allowed to do is to support terrorist organizations, to spread terrorist information, to threaten Jewish students and certainly not occupy buildings and destroy property."

---

LINK

A better explanation than the one I attempted yesterday.

ETA: Same link

Quote:

---

If the U.S. fails to enforce assimilation expectations, it risks repeating Europe's mistakes. In Europe, radicalized enclaves have formed because of weak enforcement of national values. Both France and the United Kingdom have learned the hard way that failing to confront extremist ideology among immigrants leads to long-term security risks.

---

---

School House Rock explained this a long time ago...

Andy McCarthy's take.

Quote:

---

In a nutshell, the defense goes like this. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident alien (LPR), a green-card holder. As a matter of law, that makes him a U.S. person whose rights approximate those of an American citizen. Ergo, he cannot lawfully be expelled from the United States for constitutionally protected conduct his association with other pro-Hamas student agitators and his speech on their behalf as a "mediator" in interactions with Columbia's administration. Now, there are a number of legal flaws in this defense (I've outlined them in this National Review essay). While the rights of LPRs are similar to those of American citizens, they are not identical. LPRs are still aliens. Federal immigration law has long provided that aliens can be deported over criminal conduct, terrorist support, and national security concerns something that cannot be done to U.S. citizens.

But I want to take issue with the basic premise that Khalil's conduct was nothing more than constitutionally protected speech and association for which no American would face legal consequences.

We seem to grasp that in organized crime cases. In all my years prosecuting them, I never heard a defense lawyer claim that, when the boss told the button to "whack that guy," he was simply exercising his free speech rights.

---

Quote:

---

Khalil is not subject to deportation because he is a Muslim or because he is deeply opposed to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. His political speech and association with like-minded students (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) are not the point even if he and his supporters would have you believe they're the only point.

---

Quote:

---

When he "mediated" on behalf of campus agitators who had set up an illegal encampment blocking other students from tending to their studies and normal campus life, and who had illegally occupied and vandalized university buildings he wasn't engaged in political speech. He was pressuring the university to make concessions to the agitators' pro-Hamas demands, with the understanding that if the administration did not capitulate, more and worse damage would be done on campus.

That's not political speech. It's extortion. American citizens who engaged in such behavior would not have a First Amendment defense. They'd likely face prosecution and, in fact, dozens of the agitators were arrested in connection with these activities, and may still face other legal consequences.

Khalil does not present a profound constitutional controversy. His case is about the authority of the government, which is responsible for the security of its citizens, to deport aliens even LPRs who endanger us. That authority is etched in the Constitution, as well as the immigration and criminal laws of the United States.

---

LINK

Thanks for finding that and sharing it Hawg. I understood where you were coming from and agree with the concept, the principle.

As I just mentioned in another post, the ideals of our Country require a strong moral fortitude, an unbiased concept of justice, and a sprinkling of plain ol common sense.

I hen you reach the point that the rights of a terrorist foreign intelligence operative requires 19 lawyers and multiple courts proceedings before we have him gtfo, then we have driven that American Exceptionalism into a ditch.

I pray, I am confident, we can get ourselves back on the road to American Prosperity and American Exceptionalism.

Remove Green Card, then deport. End of line

As I said, it's an immigration case. The leftists are trying to make it a constitutional case. It is not and it never has been. Deport his ass.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Thanks for finding that and sharing it Hawg. I understood where you were coming from and agree with the concept, the principle.

As I just mentioned in another post, the ideals of our Country require a strong moral fortitude, an unbiased concept of justice, and a sprinkling of plain ol common sense.

I hen you reach the point that the rights of a terrorist foreign intelligence operative requires 19 lawyers and multiple courts proceedings before we have him gtfo, then we have driven that American Exceptionalism into a ditch.

I pray, I am confident, we can get ourselves back on the road to American Prosperity and American Exceptionalism.

---

I am genuinely curious what rights you think this person has that a US citizen does not have. For what it's worth, he's not entitled to an attorney. That he has 19 willing to represent him is a different issue.

Schoolhouse Rock was a bit after my time but I watched them. We would all be better off if all of the Schoolhouse Rocks were part of official school curriculums. Using music is a great mnemonic device.

Yes. He is very connected to American subversives and the deep state. Thats why they're fighting for him and why he should be jettisoned post haste.

Quote:

---

I am genuinely curious what rights you think this person has that a US citizen does not have. For what it's worth, he's not entitled to an attorney. That he has 19 willing to represent him is a different issue.

---

Granted, not my bailiwick but I thought there are members of a defense bar for deportation procedures? There are not?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Yes. He is very connected to American subversives and the deep state. Thats why they're fighting for him and why he should be jettisoned post haste.

---

The only good thing is that this seems like a losing battle. They are playing their cards to defend a loyal supporter but it is obvious how bad the optics are.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

As I said, it's an immigration case. The leftists are trying to make it a constitutional case. It is not and it never has been. Deport his ass.

---

Oh he'll be deported, but it's going to take a few months, imho. The legal challenge histrionics will play out but are doomed.