Would you support Biden deporting non-citizen Jan. 6 rioters?

[GeneralMacArthur]

January 6 rioters, according to many liberals, committed an act of treason, insurrection, and/or terrorism.  They forcibly entered and occupied government property -- for the express purpose of overturning a democratic election.  They violently attacked countless officers and many expressed the clear intent of violently attacking congressmen, and were armed to act on that threat.

Mahmoud Khalil -- who I will emphasize is a terrible person who deserves to get punched in the mouth really hard -- was imprisoned without any due process, hidden from his associates and any legal aid, and will be deported, despite being a lawful permanent resident.  All of this was done not by any police force or legal act, but because the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wanted to make an example of him.

Republicans have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince me that they believe the constitutional protections of the first, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments do not apply in this case because Khalil is an immigrant, not a citizen, and thus is subject to the whims of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of State -- which, being part of the executive branch, implies he is subject to the whims of Donald Trump.  And that his rights in the United States are governed not by the constitution but by the policies determined by the executive branch, which can change at any time.

As of 24 hours ago this is now an unshakeable, deeply-held lifelong belief that Republicans espouse.  So, that being true, would it also be ok for Joe Biden to imprison and deport Jan. 6 rioters?  About 5-10% of them were non-citizens, including a good number of lawful permanent residents.  Republicans may not agree that they were terrorists, but that doesn't matter because we've just established that the only opinion that matters on interpretation of these statutes is that of the POTUS.  So by the very sincere and non-negotiable core belief that Republicans are now willing to defend to the death, it's perfectly alright for a president do arrest, imprison, and deport non-citizens, without any due process whatsoever, if they do things that he personally judges to be "terrorism" or any other violation of statutes that can be changed at any time.

What am I missing?

[The '90s' Last Champion]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

[The '90s' Last Champion]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

I mean the government can't deport people without a hearing. ICE can detain them, but it can't actually send them anywhere until they get a deportation hearing. In said hearing, these alleged crimes should be brought before the judge and the judge should then decide whether or not the bar for deportation has been met. I believe firmly that the system works and we just need to let it do its work.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obviously

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

I mean the government can't deport people without a hearing. ICE can detain them, but it can't actually send them anywhere until they get a deportation hearing. In said hearing, these alleged crimes should be brought before the judge and the judge should then decide whether or not the bar for deportation has been met. I believe firmly that the system works and we just need to let it do its work.

Has Trump given any indication that he agrees with you on this point, OR is he trying to unilaterally deport people without any due process whatsoever, and it's only the liberal activist judges of the rigged court system who are stopping him -- the one remaining check we have on his power and something he will eliminate given a long enough time?

[The '90s' Last Champion]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

I mean the government can't deport people without a hearing. ICE can detain them, but it can't actually send them anywhere until they get a deportation hearing. In said hearing, these alleged crimes should be brought before the judge and the judge should then decide whether or not the bar for deportation has been met. I believe firmly that the system works and we just need to let it do its work.

Has Trump given any indication that he agrees with you on this point, OR is he trying to unilaterally deport people without any due process whatsoever, and it's only the liberal activist judges of the rigged court system who are stopping him -- the one remaining check we have on his power and something he will eliminate given a long enough time?

I mean Vosem cited that court case where they ruled that non-citizens can be deported for any reason the government finds valid because it's considered a civic offense. So I don't necessarily think there's anything illegal going on here. He also stated his view that the current Supreme Court will probably agree with this line of reasoning.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

I mean the government can't deport people without a hearing. ICE can detain them, but it can't actually send them anywhere until they get a deportation hearing. In said hearing, these alleged crimes should be brought before the judge and the judge should then decide whether or not the bar for deportation has been met. I believe firmly that the system works and we just need to let it do its work.

Has Trump given any indication that he agrees with you on this point, OR is he trying to unilaterally deport people without any due process whatsoever, and it's only the liberal activist judges of the rigged court system who are stopping him -- the one remaining check we have on his power and something he will eliminate given a long enough time?

I mean Vosem cited that court case where they ruled that non-citizens can be deported for any reason the government finds valid because it's considered a civic offense. So I don't necessarily think there's anything illegal going on here. He also stated his view that the current Supreme Court will probably agree with this line of reasoning.

This is a strange thing people on Atlas do where they cite some post in some other megathread as though we've all read the entire thread and know exactly what post you're referring to.  No, I didn't see Vosem cite that court case.  Why don't you provide a link?

I don't know what precedent he cited but it is very disturbing to me if lawful permanent residents can have their constitutional protections completely ignored and be imprisoned, held indefinitely without trial and deported without any hearing at all based solely on the decision of the executive branch.  Does that not strike you as extremely dangerous and very easy to abuse for an unscrupulous POTUS?  When you type "non-citizens can be deported for any reason the government finds valid" does that not strike you as just a little bit contrary to the way the country is supposed to work?  This guy wasn't a tourist visiting for a weekend that the feds kicked out.  He was a green card holder who had been in this country for years and built a whole life here.  People in that situation should not have to worry about their entire life being stripped away from them at the unilateral behest of someone in the executive branch, without any legal protections whatsoever.

[The '90s' Last Champion]

Yes, absolutely. Violent rioting is a serious crime and keeping non-citizens in our prisons is quite expensive if we have the option of deportation.

Should it be the personal prerogative of the president to decide that though?  In reality the Jan. 6 rioters were arrested by the FBI and given due process of law with full access to legal counsel.  They weren't kidnapped by the DHS in the middle of the night and taken 2000 miles away to a prison without anyone, including any lawyer, even being told.  And POTUS wants him to not get a trial at all.

I mean the government can't deport people without a hearing. ICE can detain them, but it can't actually send them anywhere until they get a deportation hearing. In said hearing, these alleged crimes should be brought before the judge and the judge should then decide whether or not the bar for deportation has been met. I believe firmly that the system works and we just need to let it do its work.

Has Trump given any indication that he agrees with you on this point, OR is he trying to unilaterally deport people without any due process whatsoever, and it's only the liberal activist judges of the rigged court system who are stopping him -- the one remaining check we have on his power and something he will eliminate given a long enough time?

I mean Vosem cited that court case where they ruled that non-citizens can be deported for any reason the government finds valid because it's considered a civic offense. So I don't necessarily think there's anything illegal going on here. He also stated his view that the current Supreme Court will probably agree with this line of reasoning.

This is a strange thing people on Atlas do where they cite some post in some other megathread as though we've all read the entire thread and know exactly what post you're referring to.  No, I didn't see Vosem cite that court case.  Why don't you provide a link?

I don't know what precedent he cited but it is very disturbing to me if lawful permanent residents can have their constitutional protections completely ignored and be imprisoned, held indefinitely without trial and deported without any hearing at all based solely on the decision of the executive branch.  Does that not strike you as extremely dangerous and very easy to abuse for an unscrupulous POTUS?  When you type "non-citizens can be deported for any reason the government finds valid" does that not strike you as just a little bit contrary to the way the country is supposed to work?  This guy wasn't a tourist visiting for a weekend that the feds kicked out.  He was a green card holder who had been in this country for years and built a whole life here.  People in that situation should not have to worry about their entire life being stripped away from them at the unilateral behest of someone in the executive branch, without any legal protections whatsoever.

First Amendment rights do accrue to legal aliens in the sense that they may not be subject to criminal liabilities for exercising rights that accrue to US citizens (Bridges v. Wixton (1945)). However, deportation is a civil penalty, not a criminal one, and the old rule is that legal aliens may be deported for any reason at all which Congress finds appropriate, including at the very least things which the Due Process Clause protects for US citizens (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)).

So, can legal aliens be deported for exercising free speech rights? There's actually a circuit court split on this question, but the general pattern is 'legal liberals' saying no and 'legal conservatives' saying yes; notably, the DC Circuit court case establishing that they can be, Blumen v. FEC (2011), was authored by a certain...uh...Brett Kavanaugh.

So my guess is that the Supreme Court would find, on 6-3 ideological lines, that this is totally fine.

The United States is not even close to having an immigration regime in which immigrants roam the land attacking religious minorities with impunity. If anything, immigrants are likelier to be the religious minorities getting attacked. Get real.

Do you or do you not accept that in Canada there has been severe anti Hindu violence fueled by Khalistani extremists who the current government's "1 Million people a year" policy let in, and that the US should have better vetting to avoid a repeat of such an episode in the United States?

I do not accept that the United States is even close to a demographic, cultural, or foreign-policy situation in which we have any legitimate reason to take sides in South Asian communalist psychodrama of all things, no, and to the extent that anybody in this country is interested in making it otherwise, it is disproportionately MAGA-curious Hindus.

You are, I think, missing the point. This is fair, for many years, I missed it too. I fought with my parents over it, and they always told me I was missing the point. I was young and naive and thought that things could be different if these people just assimilated. The problem is they don't assimilate. For example, there are people living in Canada linked to multiple terrorist attacks against both Canada and India. This isn't something that just goes away and you don't need too many radicals to get in through an open border to suddenly get a situation where the social fabric unravels.

America is dangerously close to this too, as the campus protests revealed just how much our social fabric has unraveled due to poorly vetted immigration following the refugee crisis and the indoctrination of woke, anti-American propaganda all across college campuses. We really need to avoid going any further, otherwise we will become our neighbor to the North where ethnic strife has become an accepted part of life and no political party dares to address it out of the need to pander to extremists.

Okay, I'll play (even though I am almost a decade older than you and do not appreciate being talked down to in a way you picked up from your parents, to say the absolute f**king least): if we started vetting prospective immigrants much more aggressively for people with weird axes to grind against other religions that are also minorities in the United States, would you accept that this would probably lead to a hell of a lot fewer Hindus coming in as well as a hell of a lot fewer Muslims and Sikhs?

Pretty much every court that has looked at the question has found that denial of citizenship on account of something that would be an exercise of free speech rights if done by an American is legal. The seminal case about entry (yes, you can be refused entry as a tourist in the US if the feds don't like something you said) is Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972).

I think the second point is key. It would be free speech if done by a US citizen but when it's not a US citizen, the rules are different.

[AtorBoltox]

If ‘excessive hyperbole’ was still a category on this forum anyone talking about how this guy was ‘disappeared’ would be infracted, Jesus

[You are responsible]

I'd support the deportation of all January 6 rioters, irrespective of their citizenship.

U.S. citizens can go to Guantanamo with the option to seek "asylum" in Russia.

[Farmlands]

Absolutely. Trying to overturn the results of a democratic election you don't like goes counter to most ideals the US constitution promotes. Being a non-citizen should already grant people a lot less leeway for crimes, and participating in it is more than enough justification.

[Rhode Islander First, American Second]

Yes. Citizens too. In fact I would support deporting all of them from this life. Death penalty for every single last one of them. In a just world, those terrorists would've already been taken out right at the Capitol like Trashli Babbitt was.

[7,052,770]

This is the wrong analogy. Of course I would support deporting a non-citizen who tried to violently overthrow the government.

The better comparison would deporting someone who participated in a campus 2020 election protest and never got violent.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

No, actually. I'm shocked that I'm the only one who's said that.

[Voice of low info America]

No unarmed J6er should be charged with a crime, let alone deported.

[Ferguson97]

No, anyone who set foot in the Capitol should be sentenced to life in prison.

[Don't Tread on Me]

No, anyone who set foot in the Capitol should be sentenced to life in prison.

But what if they were mere observers?

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Republicans have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince me that they believe the constitutional protections of the first, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments do not apply in this case because Khalil is an immigrant, not a citizen, and thus is subject to the whims of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of State -- which, being part of the executive branch, implies he is subject to the whims of Donald Trump.  And that his rights in the United States are governed not by the constitution but by the policies determined by the executive branch, which can change at any time.

The fourth, too.  ICE didn't have a warrant when they showed up and snatched him.

[MaynardFriedman]

I think the legal system worked well until one man pardoned J6 so the answer is a No from me.