If this is true, and I'm genuinely asking, why don't you have it?
People in Matt's subscriber mob seem to think of Americans as feisty "wild at heart" freedom-lovers.
But because their masters on Wall Street and in Washington profit from the horrendous present system, they don't allow these feisty folks to have what they, according to you, "demand".
I am listening. And what I hear is wealthy bastards telling you all to eat shit. And then the scraping of spoons on metal plates.
Most Americans are NOT "Brave Freedom-lovers." That's the story they tell themselves - I did it as well, for many decades. Americans are the MOST propagandized populace on the planet. They make Russia's Press look like, well... look what we think of Russia? How much of Americans' Russia/China/Iran fear is real and how much is War-For-Profit Propaganda? Americans are also trained to think we are "Independent thinkers," when most just follow the Blue/Red Team Duopoly and what the Teams tell them to think. Americans also seem to think Billionaires give a shit about them and their lives. It's a Peasant-mindset that believes THEIR Oligarch Superior is the "Good One, who cares about American Lives"
Oddly, I was one of the few people who benefited from Obamacare. I was self-employed, making a low enough income to get a pretty good subsidy; Prior to that, if I did manage to get private insurance, it increased by about 30% a year, and there was a real problem with pre-existing conditions. But regular middle-class folks got screwed under Obamacare, like my sister.
Look- I hold no love what so ever for the healthcare industry- but I don’t think celebrating the public execution of an executive by a rich kid is the right course of action. Morally or logistically. Once we start embracing vigilante justice it’s all down hill from there.
I'm not celebrating the public execution of anyone. I'm also not pretending that the American healthcare system isn't a complete travesty to make the 1% richer while legions of Americans get sick and die every year.
Do you honestly think CEO Murderer McGreedface would've been shot if we had universal healthcare in America?
Well- Japan has universal healthcare-and politically motivated assassinations still occur there. The people who engage (or want engage) in this type of violence will move on to their next bone to pick in attempts to justify it.
But I'm sure that will still be met with howls of righteous indignation by the same people who've never uttered a peep about the hundreds of thousands of children allowed in by Biden who've gone missing.
Remember the Time magazine cover of Trump and the "family separation" child crying? Reporters took the time to review the child and mother's situation. The child and mother were not separated, she was standing next to her mother. The mother filed an asylum claim to stay in the USA. The reporters who tracked down her husband back home in Honduras asked him about asylum and what they faced in Honduras. He said "nothing, she just went to the USA for better job opportunities". So asylum was a lie. She had other children that had been left behind in Honduras. "She took one child with her because it's easier to get in to the US with a child, but the others stayed here with me". Talk about family separation!
Sandra Maria Sanchez. The true facts of that incident should be etched into every American's mind, but they are not not. She had three other children, and her husband had a great job as a captain at a Honduran port.
When I was double-checking my facts just now, I encountered this in a NY Times article:
"John Moore’s dramatic image of a 2-year-old Honduran asylum seeker crying as her mother was searched and detained near the U.S.-Mexico border has been named the photo of the year in the 2019 World Press Photo contest."
129 year settled case law that deportation doesn't require due process. Aliens are allowed due process for criminal proceedings but can be deported through summary processes for anything Congress establishes. Summary meaning fully adjudicated by Exec branch and not subject to judicial review. 2/3 of deportees go out this way.
However, imprisonment at hard labor is a criminal punishment, and imposing criminal punishment without a jury trial to establish a defendant's guilt violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
So if they go to gitmo or the El Salvador prisons it’s all good you’re saying?
If they are deported it's all good, because due process is a right prior to deprivation of "life, liberty or property", but the Supreme Court decided that both deportation and detention to accomplish same are not deprivation of liberty because you'll be at liberty back in your home country. You keep your liberty, just not the opportunity to enter or be in the USA.
However, they can't be sentenced to hard labor without a jury trial because that would be denial of due process prior to a deprivation of liberty.
I want to let everybody who doesn't know what El Salvador is like, to get some idea what it's like:
A white American traveling by themselves in El Salvador, would be seen as a ginormous bag of cash sitting behind the wheel, or whatever. The white American might actually escape, if he takes advantage of the deadly scrum that'll develop between local factions, who, like hunters to a kill, will shoot each other over who's kill it is.
Is Walt coming out as "Free Speech - except for..." Does Walt think the Uhuru Movement in Florida, the group that was charged with being Russian dupes - do They have Free Speech rights? Is it cuz they're American Citizens and Walt doesn't believe non-citizens should have Free Speech?
Matt has been consistent on Free Speech, although he dances around the Special Sparkle Country. But, Walt is coming out as "Free Speech, but ONLY for..."
Is Walt SO afraid that too many people will find out about the GENOCIDE that his Zionazi buddies are committing, with American Taxpayer money?
Sounds like Walt is MORE concerned with PROTECTING ZIONAZIS than he cares about Free Speech. He keeps talking about being "consistent." You are pretty fncking consistent about DEFENDING the Zionazi policies of Trump and Emperor Elon.
At just about every turn, Walt, you've already been consistent.. consistently ANTI Free Speech for anyone criticizing the Special Sparkle Princess Country. How am I wrong?
Khalil didn't destroy any property or injure anyone.
He used words that upset the perfect fantasy of the PRO WAR, Anti-America First Zionists. Which means, to Walt, that he should be held without bail or bond, indefinitely, until he's deported.
This is one of those "bot" things, isn't it? See! How can us civil Americans properly address a serious social problem, when we don't even know if it's originating within the society, or originating out of some AI operating out of the Dominican Republic?
You made the mistake of catching me here. Please, seek professional psychiatric help. I don't need to see or know any more about you. You would, without a doubt, benefit greatly from professional help.
I am not belitting your plight, your cause, or those you care about. That is important to all. I'm addressing your method, and frankly, it's fucking crazy! Stop it!
I believe there is some Climate Change - caused by man, mostly industries. But, is it on the scale where the Public needs to abandon their gas stoves & lawnmowers, BUT Oligarchs & Famous people can still fly allover in Private Jets? NO. A Crisis where the Public has to start eating bugs (no cow-farts meat for the Peasants!) but the War Machine can go Full Throttle? NO.
None of this makes sense to me. Why is NO ONE talking about restructuring and updating the National Electrical Grid? Like opening a few new nuclear power plants is suppose to fix the ailing, damaged grid? But we're all suppose to have electric lawnmowers & electric cars - what, with Rolling Blackouts?!? NO.
The US Military is the biggest contributor to Climate Change, and the table may have already been tipped too far. But, until the Elites start talking about ending these WASTEFUL Wars - I call Bullshit on their Climate Crisis.
There was a rumor on X that Brian Thompson, Luigi’s health insurance CEO murder victim, was about to testify in front of congress. If true, this would add to the ‘group effort’ intrigue…
Good show, Gents! Thank you! I'll bet Matt has a hat room. It's probably got huge speakers and a Bose subwoofer. It would have laser lights and shit, and when he goes inside and closes the door, automatically something like "Everybody Dance Now" comes blasting out of the speakers, and the lazers are going, and Matt moonwalks up to the "chosen hat" for the show. lol
I don’t believe Matt, I hate to say. He knows that all three or four times this law was enforced. He just won’t admit it. How bout that great progressive Woodrow Wilson, Matt?
It really is something how the left, even “respectable” members like Chief Warren, largely condemn and try to limit armed self defense against criminals, but make excuses for or praise assassination of people they dislike. Your self defense is crime, our crime is self defense.
Walter’s cynicism is slowly wearing out Matt. Matt desperately clinging to his youth. Get over it , Matt, you’re over 50!! And you ain’t dumb! You’re officially old!!
One thing we lack these days is a functional media; as we all know when they are as biased as currently, they steer information to fit their narrative and there's not full disclosure and proper discussion of relevant facts.
So on the current alien expulsions, in the spirit of Matt's attempts to provide primary sources to people, I offer a couple of key ones.
The first is only the start of a search, but it's the most useful I've seen. It's the Supreme Court decision in Turner v Williams in 1904. That case itself may apply in some cases, but most importantly it has a long writeup summarizing the status of SC decisions, and a list of those decisions for futher research, on the topic through that point, ending in the summary statement: "No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
It deals with the curtailed due process rights for the removal of aliens from the US, very different from rights citizens enjoy. And it highlights that due process definitely kicks in again if Congress wants to do more than expulsion: a judicial process would be needed for any punitive sentence like imprisonment. Detention during a removal process is fine.
The second resource is the US code under "Deportable aliens" which applies in a lot of these cases, too: 8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens. You can be deported for lots of reasons short of a criminal sentence, some reasons quite benign like not updating the government on your address. Some of the language directed to expulsion for bad behaviors requires a conviction and some seems not to. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227. It is the relevant code in most cases contemplated in the Turner v Williams writeup, i.e.: it is the set of rules Congress has passed that provide the power to the executive for summary removals that the SC is discussing.
"No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
This decision (your first example) was at least partly based on race, which should automatically invalidate it, in my opinion. "Habits" is another one--exactly what habits?
We know many court decisions get invalidated, such as Roe v. Wade, or the Dred Scott decision, usually for good reason.
In the context of the times, from the 1880’s to 1940s many races were completely excluded by law from the United States. Everybody celebrates Emma Lazarus’s poem on the Statue of Liberty but right after that was written the US banned many/most races from the USA for decades. We didn't really let in many nonwhite people during those times.
I am grateful for being made aware of what your opinion is, thank you. It is interesting to see what different people make of the primary sources. Others have taken them and seen that the state of current law is quite surprisingly different from what they surmised.
"Repeated decisions of this Court have determined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States; to prescribe the terms and conditions of which they may come in; to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive officers; that the deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury have no application."
"We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the United States can, as a matter of public policy, by Congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons included in such decree, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials."
"But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
I had to read everything over a few times to get a handle. Forgive me. I'm curious. Doesn't the phrase that was quoted and begins with "No limits can be put by the courts..." apply to the entire paragraph?
It seems on it's own to contradict the 2nd paragraph. But if you apply it only to the words that start the 3rd paragraph "But when Congress sees fit to further promote..." there is a continuum. Doesn't the quote apply to that "subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property" thing?
I think I get it. Applying the case to Khalil, then I see a problem. Khalil seems to fit under the protection, however there's a difference. Wing's only crime seemed that he was here, but Khalil did much more. From what I've read, he committed crimes (like vandalism?), it would seem proper to subject Khalil to a jury trial, right? Well, I guess Wing technically committed a crime by violating the Geary Act... Is it the same thing? It is, isn't it?
So then deporting Khalil without a jury trial would appear to violate the 5th and 6th amendment protections that, by using Wong Wing v US, he is entitled to.
EDIT: The gov picks up people with those FISA warrants and holds them without trial, is Khalil different?
Depends on the grounds for deportation. They are using Sec 1227(a)(4)(C)(1), not any criminal conviction.
Basically due process rights only apply to if they will take away your life liberty or property. as the constitution says. But kicking you out is NOT doing that is what the SC isnsaying. Locking you up for a crime is doing that, so finding you guilty of a crime requires a trial. Sending you back to home country doesnt restrict your liberty there and can be done without trial.
Okay, sending him home doesn't violate his rights. Then he's screwed! He clearly violated his green card agreement, right? What's he got left, and why would he do that? He strikes me as quite intelligent. Why would he brazenly involve himself in those goings on? I'm going to read Matt's articles on Khalil again, so maybe I can figure out why Matt was upset. I don't get it.
Lima beans and pork chops tonight! I always make that when I get a chance to watch a ATW Livestream!
I’ll be right over.
Ah yes, one rich asshole complicit in denying people healthcare to pad his pocket gets capped and it’s pearl-clutching time.
Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands dead every year due to a lack of access to healthcare - eh, nothing to see here.
Come on guys, get with it or let it go. FFS
Why do you think Americans have never demanded "access to healthcare" the way so many across the world have?
We have, you’re just not listening
If this is true, and I'm genuinely asking, why don't you have it?
People in Matt's subscriber mob seem to think of Americans as feisty "wild at heart" freedom-lovers.
But because their masters on Wall Street and in Washington profit from the horrendous present system, they don't allow these feisty folks to have what they, according to you, "demand".
I am listening. And what I hear is wealthy bastards telling you all to eat shit. And then the scraping of spoons on metal plates.
Because *our* country is owned by donors and not voters. What we demand doesn’t count for much.
Which you’d know if you were one of us and/or were actually listening instead of trolling, dipshit. Jog on.
You're making my point, fuckwit.
Where are you when the vast majority of halfwits on Matt's threads go on and on about what brave free people Americans are?
So, how does all that shit taste?
Most Americans are NOT "Brave Freedom-lovers." That's the story they tell themselves - I did it as well, for many decades. Americans are the MOST propagandized populace on the planet. They make Russia's Press look like, well... look what we think of Russia? How much of Americans' Russia/China/Iran fear is real and how much is War-For-Profit Propaganda? Americans are also trained to think we are "Independent thinkers," when most just follow the Blue/Red Team Duopoly and what the Teams tell them to think. Americans also seem to think Billionaires give a shit about them and their lives. It's a Peasant-mindset that believes THEIR Oligarch Superior is the "Good One, who cares about American Lives"
My understanding was that Obama solved this 15 years ago, saving 69,420,000,000 lives.
Oddly, I was one of the few people who benefited from Obamacare. I was self-employed, making a low enough income to get a pretty good subsidy; Prior to that, if I did manage to get private insurance, it increased by about 30% a year, and there was a real problem with pre-existing conditions. But regular middle-class folks got screwed under Obamacare, like my sister.
Oh yeah, Joe Lieberman with the donors-assist.
Look- I hold no love what so ever for the healthcare industry- but I don’t think celebrating the public execution of an executive by a rich kid is the right course of action. Morally or logistically. Once we start embracing vigilante justice it’s all down hill from there.
I'm not celebrating the public execution of anyone. I'm also not pretending that the American healthcare system isn't a complete travesty to make the 1% richer while legions of Americans get sick and die every year.
Do you honestly think CEO Murderer McGreedface would've been shot if we had universal healthcare in America?
Well- Japan has universal healthcare-and politically motivated assassinations still occur there. The people who engage (or want engage) in this type of violence will move on to their next bone to pick in attempts to justify it.
When was the last assassination if a Japanese healthcare CEO, motivated by a lack of access to healthcare?
Or are you just going to move the goalposts again?
You’re a pathetic troll, fuckwit.
"deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement."
Now the "suspected Venezuelan gang members" will be deported back to Venezuela instead of being sent to El Salvador.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/23/nx-s1-5338005/venezuela-resume-accepting-deportation-flights-us
But I'm sure that will still be met with howls of righteous indignation by the same people who've never uttered a peep about the hundreds of thousands of children allowed in by Biden who've gone missing.
Remember the Time magazine cover of Trump and the "family separation" child crying? Reporters took the time to review the child and mother's situation. The child and mother were not separated, she was standing next to her mother. The mother filed an asylum claim to stay in the USA. The reporters who tracked down her husband back home in Honduras asked him about asylum and what they faced in Honduras. He said "nothing, she just went to the USA for better job opportunities". So asylum was a lie. She had other children that had been left behind in Honduras. "She took one child with her because it's easier to get in to the US with a child, but the others stayed here with me". Talk about family separation!
Sandra Maria Sanchez. The true facts of that incident should be etched into every American's mind, but they are not not. She had three other children, and her husband had a great job as a captain at a Honduran port.
When I was double-checking my facts just now, I encountered this in a NY Times article:
"John Moore’s dramatic image of a 2-year-old Honduran asylum seeker crying as her mother was searched and detained near the U.S.-Mexico border has been named the photo of the year in the 2019 World Press Photo contest."
Incredible.
Very interesting read! Thank you Kelly Green and Substack Reader!
Due process, mouth breather.
129 year settled case law that deportation doesn't require due process. Aliens are allowed due process for criminal proceedings but can be deported through summary processes for anything Congress establishes. Summary meaning fully adjudicated by Exec branch and not subject to judicial review. 2/3 of deportees go out this way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States
However, imprisonment at hard labor is a criminal punishment, and imposing criminal punishment without a jury trial to establish a defendant's guilt violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
So if they go to gitmo or the El Salvador prisons it’s all good you’re saying?
If they are deported it's all good, because due process is a right prior to deprivation of "life, liberty or property", but the Supreme Court decided that both deportation and detention to accomplish same are not deprivation of liberty because you'll be at liberty back in your home country. You keep your liberty, just not the opportunity to enter or be in the USA.
However, they can't be sentenced to hard labor without a jury trial because that would be denial of due process prior to a deprivation of liberty.
This seems like it can be abused in so many ways. I can’t argue case law with you because I didn’t study it and don’t have much spare time.
I would ask how this case applies to deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador?
Arrest them all, let El Salvador sort them out.
That should be the threat for illegal entry - "We'll send you to El Salvador!" Kind of like "Don't make me call your father!"
I want to let everybody who doesn't know what El Salvador is like, to get some idea what it's like:
A white American traveling by themselves in El Salvador, would be seen as a ginormous bag of cash sitting behind the wheel, or whatever. The white American might actually escape, if he takes advantage of the deadly scrum that'll develop between local factions, who, like hunters to a kill, will shoot each other over who's kill it is.
Is Walt coming out as "Free Speech - except for..." Does Walt think the Uhuru Movement in Florida, the group that was charged with being Russian dupes - do They have Free Speech rights? Is it cuz they're American Citizens and Walt doesn't believe non-citizens should have Free Speech?
Matt has been consistent on Free Speech, although he dances around the Special Sparkle Country. But, Walt is coming out as "Free Speech, but ONLY for..."
Is Walt SO afraid that too many people will find out about the GENOCIDE that his Zionazi buddies are committing, with American Taxpayer money?
Sounds like Walt is MORE concerned with PROTECTING ZIONAZIS than he cares about Free Speech. He keeps talking about being "consistent." You are pretty fncking consistent about DEFENDING the Zionazi policies of Trump and Emperor Elon.
At just about every turn, Walt, you've already been consistent.. consistently ANTI Free Speech for anyone criticizing the Special Sparkle Princess Country. How am I wrong?
Khalil didn't destroy any property or injure anyone.
He used words that upset the perfect fantasy of the PRO WAR, Anti-America First Zionists. Which means, to Walt, that he should be held without bail or bond, indefinitely, until he's deported.
Interesting.
Due process is fundamental to this country. There’s not even a debate
Someone should send an envoy to negotiate a truce for all of the lone Teslas currently being assaulted by mobs of passive aggressive liberal toddlers.
Like we saw progress into phase 2 of the Israeli/Palestine agreement.
Fuck Trump and his negotiation team
Refuse Fascism
Oppose Oppression
People
Please
Peace
dear comrades
This is one of those "bot" things, isn't it? See! How can us civil Americans properly address a serious social problem, when we don't even know if it's originating within the society, or originating out of some AI operating out of the Dominican Republic?
MICROPHONE DROP! I dare a counter reply! This one actually feel reeeeeal good!
I have brain farts! Sometimes they stink, sometimes they don't What can I say?
You made the mistake of catching me here. Please, seek professional psychiatric help. I don't need to see or know any more about you. You would, without a doubt, benefit greatly from professional help.
I am not belitting your plight, your cause, or those you care about. That is important to all. I'm addressing your method, and frankly, it's fucking crazy! Stop it!
I believe there is some Climate Change - caused by man, mostly industries. But, is it on the scale where the Public needs to abandon their gas stoves & lawnmowers, BUT Oligarchs & Famous people can still fly allover in Private Jets? NO. A Crisis where the Public has to start eating bugs (no cow-farts meat for the Peasants!) but the War Machine can go Full Throttle? NO.
None of this makes sense to me. Why is NO ONE talking about restructuring and updating the National Electrical Grid? Like opening a few new nuclear power plants is suppose to fix the ailing, damaged grid? But we're all suppose to have electric lawnmowers & electric cars - what, with Rolling Blackouts?!? NO.
The US Military is the biggest contributor to Climate Change, and the table may have already been tipped too far. But, until the Elites start talking about ending these WASTEFUL Wars - I call Bullshit on their Climate Crisis.
There was a rumor on X that Brian Thompson, Luigi’s health insurance CEO murder victim, was about to testify in front of congress. If true, this would add to the ‘group effort’ intrigue…
Good show, Gents! Thank you! I'll bet Matt has a hat room. It's probably got huge speakers and a Bose subwoofer. It would have laser lights and shit, and when he goes inside and closes the door, automatically something like "Everybody Dance Now" comes blasting out of the speakers, and the lazers are going, and Matt moonwalks up to the "chosen hat" for the show. lol
I don’t believe Matt, I hate to say. He knows that all three or four times this law was enforced. He just won’t admit it. How bout that great progressive Woodrow Wilson, Matt?
It really is something how the left, even “respectable” members like Chief Warren, largely condemn and try to limit armed self defense against criminals, but make excuses for or praise assassination of people they dislike. Your self defense is crime, our crime is self defense.
Walter’s cynicism is slowly wearing out Matt. Matt desperately clinging to his youth. Get over it , Matt, you’re over 50!! And you ain’t dumb! You’re officially old!!
Bought my 5 shares today. Should have bought it after I watched Gutfeld
How do you NOT know the early days of L&O??
One thing we lack these days is a functional media; as we all know when they are as biased as currently, they steer information to fit their narrative and there's not full disclosure and proper discussion of relevant facts.
So on the current alien expulsions, in the spirit of Matt's attempts to provide primary sources to people, I offer a couple of key ones.
The first is only the start of a search, but it's the most useful I've seen. It's the Supreme Court decision in Turner v Williams in 1904. That case itself may apply in some cases, but most importantly it has a long writeup summarizing the status of SC decisions, and a list of those decisions for futher research, on the topic through that point, ending in the summary statement: "No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
It deals with the curtailed due process rights for the removal of aliens from the US, very different from rights citizens enjoy. And it highlights that due process definitely kicks in again if Congress wants to do more than expulsion: a judicial process would be needed for any punitive sentence like imprisonment. Detention during a removal process is fine.
The second resource is the US code under "Deportable aliens" which applies in a lot of these cases, too: 8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens. You can be deported for lots of reasons short of a criminal sentence, some reasons quite benign like not updating the government on your address. Some of the language directed to expulsion for bad behaviors requires a conviction and some seems not to. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227. It is the relevant code in most cases contemplated in the Turner v Williams writeup, i.e.: it is the set of rules Congress has passed that provide the power to the executive for summary removals that the SC is discussing.
"No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
This decision (your first example) was at least partly based on race, which should automatically invalidate it, in my opinion. "Habits" is another one--exactly what habits?
We know many court decisions get invalidated, such as Roe v. Wade, or the Dred Scott decision, usually for good reason.
In the context of the times, from the 1880’s to 1940s many races were completely excluded by law from the United States. Everybody celebrates Emma Lazarus’s poem on the Statue of Liberty but right after that was written the US banned many/most races from the USA for decades. We didn't really let in many nonwhite people during those times.
I am grateful for being made aware of what your opinion is, thank you. It is interesting to see what different people make of the primary sources. Others have taken them and seen that the state of current law is quite surprisingly different from what they surmised.
Here is more from Turner v Williams 1904:
"Repeated decisions of this Court have determined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States; to prescribe the terms and conditions of which they may come in; to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive officers; that the deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury have no application."
"We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the United States can, as a matter of public policy, by Congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons included in such decree, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials."
"But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land"
I had to read everything over a few times to get a handle. Forgive me. I'm curious. Doesn't the phrase that was quoted and begins with "No limits can be put by the courts..." apply to the entire paragraph?
It seems on it's own to contradict the 2nd paragraph. But if you apply it only to the words that start the 3rd paragraph "But when Congress sees fit to further promote..." there is a continuum. Doesn't the quote apply to that "subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property" thing?
Try this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States
I think I get it. Applying the case to Khalil, then I see a problem. Khalil seems to fit under the protection, however there's a difference. Wing's only crime seemed that he was here, but Khalil did much more. From what I've read, he committed crimes (like vandalism?), it would seem proper to subject Khalil to a jury trial, right? Well, I guess Wing technically committed a crime by violating the Geary Act... Is it the same thing? It is, isn't it?
So then deporting Khalil without a jury trial would appear to violate the 5th and 6th amendment protections that, by using Wong Wing v US, he is entitled to.
EDIT: The gov picks up people with those FISA warrants and holds them without trial, is Khalil different?
Depends on the grounds for deportation. They are using Sec 1227(a)(4)(C)(1), not any criminal conviction.
Basically due process rights only apply to if they will take away your life liberty or property. as the constitution says. But kicking you out is NOT doing that is what the SC isnsaying. Locking you up for a crime is doing that, so finding you guilty of a crime requires a trial. Sending you back to home country doesnt restrict your liberty there and can be done without trial.
Okay, sending him home doesn't violate his rights. Then he's screwed! He clearly violated his green card agreement, right? What's he got left, and why would he do that? He strikes me as quite intelligent. Why would he brazenly involve himself in those goings on? I'm going to read Matt's articles on Khalil again, so maybe I can figure out why Matt was upset. I don't get it.