Khalil Mahmoud

[OreoRosies86]

I also don’t think anyone who expects our leadership to uphold the laws are also saying that there aren’t many problematic aspects within our immigration system as it stands. I’m not saying deportation is not appropriate action in many cases. I’m not even saying there isn’t a massive strain on our social programs. But those programs (like suicide hotline and SNAP) are being taken from everyone regardless of status. Government isn’t supposed to operate arbitrarily on whims. And considering how many people are all about “your feelings aren’t facts” it’s crazy to me how many people are A-ok with that very attitude when it comes to immigrants.

 

[Mayk]

It doesn’t need to say citizen. Due process is for anyone on American soil, and it’s mind blowing to me how many people either ignore this, or don’t know at all. In fact the average immigrant who has been required to take our country’s entrance exam probably knows the Constitution 10000x better than the average American does.

"It’s not as simple as saying 'due process is for anyone on American soil.' Yes, the Constitution uses the word 'person' in the Fifth Amendment, but applying that to every single non-citizen—especially those here illegally—has been the subject of decades of legal debate and evolving court rulings.


While some minimal procedural rights have been recognized by the courts, that doesn’t mean undocumented immigrants are entitled to the full range of constitutional protections as citizens. Deportation is a civil process, not a criminal one, and the legal system has always treated it differently.


And as for immigrants knowing the Constitution better than Americans—sure, they study it for the test, but memorizing facts doesn’t necessarily mean they grasp the complexities of constitutional law or how it applies in practice. That kind of claim sounds more like a political jab than a serious legal argument.

 

[OreoRosies86]

"It’s not as simple as saying 'due process is for anyone on American soil.' Yes, the Constitution uses the word 'person' in the Fifth Amendment, but applying that to every single non-citizen—especially those here illegally—has been the subject of decades of legal debate and evolving court rulings.


While some minimal procedural rights have been recognized by the courts, that doesn’t mean undocumented immigrants are entitled to the full range of constitutional protections as citizens. Deportation is a civil process, not a criminal one, and the legal system has always treated it differently.


And as for immigrants knowing the Constitution better than Americans—sure, they study it for the test, but memorizing facts doesn’t necessarily mean they grasp the complexities of constitutional law or how it applies in practice. That kind of claim sounds more like a political jab than a serious legal argument.

No one said illegal immigrants get a full range of constitutional protections. The ones they are entitled to I outlined clearly in earlier posts. And I’m not making “jabs” at anyone, yes the constitution is always a work in progress, but as it stands now the simple fact of the matter is you cannot deport people without due process. This is something that many are ok with ignoring, but I doubt very much it’s going to be ok with most people if that means their rights are on the chopping block next. It’s not even really even worth debating whether or not people are entitled to due process once they are here, it’s merely a fact.

 

[Mayk]

No one said illegal immigrants get a full range of constitutional protections. The ones they are entitled to I outlined clearly in earlier posts. And I’m not making “jabs” at anyone, yes the constitution is always a work in progress, but as it stands now the simple fact of the matter is you cannot deport people without due process. This is something that many are ok with ignoring, but I doubt very much it’s going to be ok with most people if that means their rights are on the chopping block next. It’s not even really even worth debating whether or not people are entitled to due process once they are here, it’s merely a fact.

But that is just it... "it's not a fact" they are not owed due process when they come here illegally or over stay a visa. They are not citizens, they are visitors.

 

[OreoRosies86]

But that is just it... "it's not a fact" they are not owed due process when they come here illegally or over stay a visa. They are not citizens, they are visitors.

So if I’m understanding you correctly, if a person has overstayed a visa or come here illegally, you believe it is constitutional to zip tie their wrists, place them into a van, and put them on an airplane without any kind of due process whatsoever. If you believe that, I’d say you are misinformed at best, and there probably isn’t going to be a way for us to find common ground on this issue.

 

[Matata]

But that is just it... "it's not a fact" they are not owed due process when they come here illegally or over stay a visa. They are not citizens, they are visitors.

It is indeed a fact unless you consider the Constitution to be in error. The 5th and 14th amendments state the conditions that apply to illegal aliens and the conditions for their removal.

Easy to read AI synopsis of 14th:
...the 14th Amendment's protections apply to all persons within the United States, including undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses to extend to all individuals physically present in the US, regardless of their immigration status. This means that undocumented immigrants are entitled to the same basic legal protections as citizens and legal residents when it comes to issues like due process, the right to a fair trial, and protection from unlawful discrimination.

5th amendment annotated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court's%20jurisprudence%20indicates,to%20the%20United%20States%2C%20and

 

[Matata]

I think we forgot that this discussion started because Mahmoud was here legally and denied due process and what the potential was for eroding due process and free speech rights for all citizens. I think those concerns have been proved by crackdowns on student protests, lawyers and law firms, educational institutions, and the press.

 

[Mayk]

It is indeed a fact unless you consider the Constitution to be in error. The 5th and 14th amendments state the conditions that apply to illegal aliens and the conditions for their removal.

Easy to read AI synopsis of 14th:
...the 14th Amendment's protections apply to all persons within the United States, including undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses to extend to all individuals physically present in the US, regardless of their immigration status. This means that undocumented immigrants are entitled to the same basic legal protections as citizens and legal residents when it comes to issues like due process, the right to a fair trial, and protection from unlawful discrimination.

5th amendment annotated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court's%20jurisprudence%20indicates,to%20the%20United%20States%2C%20and

Basic protections like due process apply to all persons within U.S. borders, but that doesn’t mean illegal presence is legitimized or protected. The law clearly distinguishes between the rights of citizens and those of non-citizens, especially in terms of immigration enforcement. In fact, the same system that recognizes due process for non-citizens also legally supports their detention and deportation under established immigration laws.

 

[Mayk]

I think we forgot that this discussion started because Mahmoud was here legally and denied due process and what the potential was for eroding due process and free speech rights for all citizens. I think those concerns have been proved by crackdowns on student protests, lawyers and law firms, educational institutions, and the press.

I remember he overstayed his visa and has led numerous demonstrations on college campuses with a loud megaphone stuck in his face cheering on the people in checked scarves and masks. Which takes us back to due process is for citizens not for visitors who overstayed their visa.

 

[Avondale]

due process is for citizens not for visitors who overstayed their visa.

And this is how democracy erodes.

 

[Mayk]

And this is how democracy erodes.

The strength of a democracy lies in its consistent application of the rule of law

 

[Matata]

I remember he overstayed his visa and has led numerous demonstrations on college campuses with a loud megaphone stuck in his face cheering on the people in checked scarves and masks. Which takes us back to due process is for citizens not for visitors who overstayed their visa.

Please provide a citation within the Constitution that supports the bold above. It appears that him receiving a green card in 2024 making him a lawful permanent resident somehow makes the overstay irrelevant but that's up to the courts to decide. It has been consistently reported that he had a green card and was here legally. He was never charged with a crime during his detention and deportation. His deportation case is still pending on appeal by Homeland Security. None of this negates the fact that he was denied due process to which he was entitled under the 5th & 14th amendments.

Basic protections like due process apply to all persons within U.S. borders, but that doesn’t mean illegal presence is legitimized or protected. The law clearly distinguishes between the rights of citizens and those of non-citizens, especially in terms of immigration enforcement. In fact, the same system that recognizes due process for non-citizens also legally supports their detention and deportation under established immigration laws.

I don't remember anyone arguing against this. The issue that started this discussion is that he was detained and deported without due process under applicable immigration laws.

 

[Mayk]

Democracy depends on the strength of the separation of powers of the 3 branches of government which we have seen eroded these past 6 months.

You and I disagree and entering this conversation adds a political spin. Which would get the thread shut down and I would find myself on "Ban Island".

 

[Matata]

You and I disagree and entering this conversation adds a political spin. Which would get the thread shut down and I would find myself on "Ban Island".

Don't want you on Ban Island and so I'll delete my response to keep things kosher. Still waiting for the citation I requested in post #702.

 

[Mayk]

I will be going back to pre-loved to stalk those lovely treasures... these topics are often emotional and we each come from a different place and have strong feelings.

Hopefully everyone can respect some of the things that make this so passionate for many on both sides.

Love and Respect

 

[Avondale]

The strength of a democracy lies in its consistent application of the rule of law

This does not contradict what I said. But in order to avoid things getting mixed up, allow me to elaborate.

Your earlier statement that due process is for citizens not for visitors treats due process as a privilege granted to some but not others. For the time being the criteria based on which it is granted is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it is viewed as a privilege.

However, the right to due process is - and should be - a fundamental concept based on which a legal system is built. Because due process itself is the foundation on which the judicial branch (from the separation of powers) is built. If you don't have a strong judicial branch, strong and independent courts, you have no guarantee that the rule of law will be consistently applied, or applied at all.

Due process has to be for everybody. It must be ingrained in the system so deeply that it's immovable, indisputable, indestructible. This is the only way for it to be guaranteed.

If, instead, it is applied selectively to some but not others, then it stops being a fundamental concept. It becomes a privilege to which access is given to some but not others.

The problem with privileges is that the criteria based on which they are granted can change. Today you're applying the principle of "is this person legally in the country". To you, and I'm sure to many others, that seems entirely reasonable. Illegal immigrants who are criminals are such an undesirable element by everyone in society, it's best to get rid of them as soon as possible. And why should we care about their well-being? The certainly don't care about anyone else's well-being.

But tomorrow the government can decide to change the criteria. To change who the bad guys are. It can decide that only people of a certain race or nationality, or sex have right to due process. Or only people with a certain level of education. Or only people above a certain level of income.

If you want to have consistent application of the rule of law, you need courts that can guarantee that. If you want the courts to be able to guarantee that, you need their power to be absolute. The court's power cannot be absolute if it doesn't extend over everyone and everything. The moment you limit its reach, the moment you make access to the court a privilege, you lose the court's position of absolute power, and you lose the court's ability to guarantee the rule of law.

I hope I'm explaining this in a way that's easy enough to comprehend. You're entitled to have your opinions, of course, and I do not dispute that. But it's also important for everyone to understand the full ramifications of their opinions, if they were to be put into legal action.

Today denying due process to bad people seems reasonable. Because they're bad people. They're undeserving. And this will be okay, for now. Until someone somewhere decides to change the definition of what a bad and undeserving person is.

Once the door is opened, once the court's power and reach is compromised, everyone who depends on it is compromised, too. You as well. Everyone who lives in the US. Because they could be next, because they can no longer rely on the guarantees that a strong and solid judicial branch provides.

 

[Mreader]

I remember he overstayed his visa and has led numerous demonstrations on college campuses with a loud megaphone stuck in his face cheering on the people in checked scarves and masks. Which takes us back to due process is for citizens not for visitors who overstayed their visa.

He had a green card which was in full order when he was taken.

 

[missy]

For the record I’ve never tried to get any thread shut down. I’ve t tried to share my point of view shored up with facts . Just because you don’t like what I’m sharing doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to say it nor does it mean my point of view is not valid. I want to keep tthreads open so everyone who wants to can share their thoughts. If a thread is closed that doesn’t permit us to discuss and share

People who are here illegally should be seeking asylum or documents. Not living here after expired visas or no papers at all. Expired requires action too.

100% agree and I do not understand why this is controversial

People who commit crimes, insight riots, threaten citizens (including Jewish people) should face the consequences. Including being shown the door home.

Exactly.
Follow the law or leave
We don’t need more trouble
Again, it’s a privilege to live here. IMO
If you agree follow the law
If you don’t, leave

The woman who died in CO at her peaceful protest where she was set on fire by an illegal,,..where is your outrage? Oh she’s Jewish and he was an illegal. Does that make it acceptable?

The elderly woman who was set on fire and murdered was a Holocaust survivor.
The hate is so strong people won't condemn murderous actions
Their outrage shines brightly through Holocaust inversion, lecturing jews on what is and what is not antisemitic, and misappropriating Anne Frank's quotes. No matter your perspective it’s wrong to murder innocent people. She went through the holocaust only to be murdered here in the USA by someone blindly hating for no rational reason

I am still amazed how easily so many people believe everything rapists and mass murderers say because the alternative would be to believe Jews and those who support our right to exist

The a$$ who killed Laken Reily where is your outrage? So many more examples.

It was a horrific murder. No defense for it yet people continue making excuses
She did not deserve to die
She had her whole life in front of her

Instead there is a mile long thread for some guy whose visa ran out and he is walking around on college campuses spewing hate through a megaphone while wearing a a checked scarf (symbolic) with paid protestors intimidating students.

Yup and instead of spending time with his family and new baby he is back out there spewing hate and lies.
I think we know his ulterior motive

I could go on but this should be enough to bring out the wolves and divert some of the attention from those piling on…

Yes. There is no need to pile on those with whom you do not agree. Instead we should all be able to share our perspectives without being attacked. Numerous members who were active have stopped posting because no one wants to have hate spewed at them
Let’s be polite and civil with each other even if you disagree with others points of view. Nothing gets accomplished otherwise

herefore we have a right to comment, add content and voice our opinions!

Unless our opinion differs from yours?
I think everyone here has a right to share their opinions. Not just those with whom we agree.
And this should not be controversial. No one should be silenced. We are all contributing members here and we’ve stayed for a reason. We like many of the members and we share hobbies in common. I’ve gotten to know many psers in person and I’ve never been disappointed

 

[OreoRosies86]

The strength of a democracy lies in its consistent application of the rule of law

Then this is exactly why you should care that the written law is being upheld for everyone, all the time, in every situation, always.

 

[OreoRosies86]

This does not contradict what I said. But in order to avoid things getting mixed up, allow me to elaborate.

Your earlier statement that due process is for citizens not for visitors treats due process as a privilege granted to some but not others. For the time being the criteria based on which it is granted is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it is viewed as a privilege.

However, the right to due process is - and should be - a fundamental concept based on which a legal system is built. Because due process itself is the foundation on which the judicial branch (from the separation of powers) is built. If you don't have a strong judicial branch, strong and independent courts, you have no guarantee that the rule of law will be consistently applied, or applied at all.

Due process has to be for everybody. It must be ingrained in the system so deeply that it's immovable, indisputable, indestructible. This is the only way for it to be guaranteed.

If, instead, it is applied selectively to some but not others, then it stops being a fundamental concept. It becomes a privilege to which access is given to some but not others.

The problem with privileges is that the criteria based on which they are granted can change. Today you're applying the principle of "is this person legally in the country". To you, and I'm sure to many others, that seems entirely reasonable. Illegal immigrants who are criminals are such an undesirable element by everyone in society, it's best to get rid of them as soon as possible. And why should we care about their well-being? The certainly don't care about anyone else's well-being.

But tomorrow the government can decide to change the criteria. To change who the bad guys are. It can decide that only people of a certain race or nationality, or sex have right to due process. Or only people with a certain level of education. Or only people above a certain level of income.

If you want to have consistent application of the rule of law, you need courts that can guarantee that. If you want the courts to be able to guarantee that, you need their power to be absolute. The court's power cannot be absolute if it doesn't extend over everyone and everything. The moment you limit its reach, the moment you make access to the court a privilege, you lose the court's position of absolute power, and you lose the court's ability to guarantee the rule of law.

I hope I'm explaining this in a way that's easy enough to comprehend. You're entitled to have your opinions, of course, and I do not dispute that. But it's also important for everyone to understand the full ramifications of their opinions, if they were to be put into legal action.

Today denying due process to bad people seems reasonable. Because they're bad people. They're undeserving. And this will be okay, for now. Until someone somewhere decides to change the definition of what a bad and undeserving person is.

Once the door is opened, once the court's power and reach is compromised, everyone who depends on it is compromised, too. You as well. Everyone who lives in the US. Because they could be next, because they can no longer rely on the guarantees that a strong and solid judicial branch provides.

This exactly. No one else finds it scary that an overreaching entity can just decide to disappear you one day? It certainly scares me

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I'm sure this has been said, but to reiterate in plain language.
You need due process to have legal recourse to lawfully remove any individual.

The only rights an immigrant does not have access to are federal benefits and voting rights if undocumented.
Every physical body on US soil has due process and full protection under the law.

It's clear and irrefutable.

If they do not have due process, then by extension, you do not.
These are the facts, any argument must be made within the parameter of the law.
That is how our Constitution is written and applied to all.

 

[ShinyPink]

Well, given the BBB passed the senate, none of this matters. I'm sick and so sad. Welcome to more of these kidnappings and disappearances. Welcome to people celebrating the detention of humans in cruel conditions. Welcome to the end of freedom as we knew it.

And no. I am not being overly dramatic. I am f***ing disgusted.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The whole debate about who has rights kind of reminds me of Salem. If you weren’t a witch, you had nothing to worry about…..

 

[Lookinagain]

I remember he overstayed his visa and has led numerous demonstrations on college campuses with a loud megaphone stuck in his face cheering on the people in checked scarves and masks. Which takes us back to due process is for citizens not for visitors who overstayed their visa.

They are entitled to some due process once they set foot on U.S. soil. No, it's not the full range of due process, but at a minimum those entering illegally at the border are entitled to the expedited due process where they can make their case in front of an immigration officer and ask for asylum based on facts that they present. People who are already here, for instance one who overstays a visa, would generally be entitled to more, a hearing in front of an immigration judge, not just an officer. There is plenty of case law on that. One from 2001 is ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS ET AL. The extent of their protection may depend on certain factors, including whether they were lawfully admitted or developed ties to the U.S. or whether they have engaged in specified criminal activity. But there is still some due process protection. I think that is pretty clear from the fact that in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS required Albrego Garcia to be returned, given whatever due process he may be entitled to and then perhaps deported again.

 

[LightBright]

Probably, but hopefully it won’t be shut down. Because this is a HUGE reason why there are so many people running roughshod all over the principles this country was founded on. People who never had to take the most basic history class, or ever learned the basics of Constitutional law, are not only those with the loudest opinion, but some of them are actually actively working in government

This is really puzzling to me. I say this sincerely but also with alarm and frankly annoyance that so many Americans don’t seem to value responsible, law abiding, loyal citizens, instead they doggedly support anyone who can get here!

Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, it appears that they even have due process rights when it comes to being deported.

However, the sheer magnitude of illegal immigration happening in the last four years (I believe it was 6,500 people per day) makes due process for every case, practically speaking, impossible. So we are stuck with everyone who paid to get here. Research this fact.

There’s also a massive contrast between the privileges (a massive drain on social services) of illegal immigrants and their no strings attached presence (few obligations to the USA, but often obligated to illegal or off the books economies) versus the people who are living here on Work Visas, or who were admitted as legal.

So why would Americans NOT support changes to the Constitution to eliminate the laws helping immigrants who walk or swam to our country versus the ones who waited in line. All they have to do is get here?

Also, why would Americans be fighting for illegal immigrants to remain off the record and unscrutinized?

Correction: US military veterans get $300 Billion per year while illegal immigrants get roughly $200 Billion in government services and USAID non-profit funding.

At minimum, we need a process to register and scrutinize undocumented citizens, and I would be joyful if there was a process to allow those who have been working to work on the books in an organized way, with sponsorships, like proper Visa Holders. I believe immigrants enrich annd revitalize our country.

I think we need a Constitutional challenge on the current laws allowing anyone to cross any border and get protections and privileges.

Will Durant states that "Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos". While advocating for liberty, Durant also cautioned about the potential for chaos if liberty turns into "license". This suggests a need for a balance between freedom and order to maintain social stability. (AI summary)

 

[OreoRosies86]

This is really puzzling to me. I say this sincerely but also with alarm and frankly annoyance that so many Americans don’t seem to value responsible, law abiding, loyal citizens, instead they doggedly support anyone who can get here!

Illegal immigrants do have Constitutional rights, it appears that they even have due process rights when it comes to being deported.

However, the sheer magnitude of illegal immigration happening in the last four years (I believe it was 6,500 people per day) makes due process for every case, practically speaking, impossible. So we are stuck with everyone who paid to get here. Research this fact. Do you want to support that?

There’s also a massive contrast between the privileges (a massive drain on social services) of illegal immigrants and their no strings attached presence (no obligations to the USA, but often obligated to illegal or off the books economies) versus the people who are living here on Work Visas, or who were admitted as legal.

So why would Americans NOT support changes to the Constitution to eliminate the laws helping immigrants who walk or swam to our country versus the ones who waited in line. All they have to do is get here?

Also, why would Americans be fighting for illegal immigrants to remain off the record and unscrutinized? Why do they get more support and passion than veterans, for example? Why must we go away and leave them alone?

At minimum, we need a process to register and scrutinize undocumented citizens, and I would be joyful if there was a process to allow those who have been working to work on the books in an organized way, with sponsorships, like proper Visa Holders. I believe immigrants enrich annd revitalize our country.

I think we need a Constitutional challenge on the current laws allowing anyone to cross any border and get protections and privileges.

Will Durant states that "Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty and dies with chaos". While advocating for liberty, Durant also cautioned about the potential for chaos if liberty turns into "license". This suggests a need for a balance between freedom and order to maintain social stability. (AI summary)

I’m not going to keep trying to explain that whether or not people agree with this portion of the Constitution, it exists. You can’t just pluck people from the streets without due process and say “Well yeah, but they’re a drain on our society.” But whatever, soon that pesky due process will be gone for everyone, along with healthcare, food assistance, mental healthcare, and general civility in our society. Actually I think we already unceremoniously left that behind years ago, but enjoy Utopia I guess?

I also think it’s very strange that the only argument I see over and over and over is that because some people care about due process must also mean they don’t care about veterans or Jews. Or that they condone violence, or crimes, or murder. I’ve literally been told in the last week by fellow adults that I’m married to a self hating Jew and that because I believe in due process means I’m making excuses for murders. Like… what? Have people really become this incapable of critical thinking? What’s next, people who want due process upheld for all kill puppies and push grandmas in front of buses? What is the end game here as a society if this is the current state of affairs on a diamond forum?

 

[LightBright]

How much is the actual cost to imprison these people?
How much do we actually pay?
I suspect the profit margin is way higher than on diamonds.
Someone is making a $hit load of money. Enough to buy as many politicians as they need apparently.

It’s very likely going to be privatized. The privatization of border crossings and immigrant temporary shelters (also privatization of prisons) led to abuses, not just related to any political party.

It’s a lot of private entities we are paying (correct me if anyone has facts on this). I hope we’ve got reporters and watch dogs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It’s very likely going to be privatized

That horse left the barn long ago. Google says about 90.8% of people in ICE custody are in privately owned prisons- as of July 2023.

not just related to any political party.

This is also true and extremely relevant to our current situation. Dems did not fix things when they had the chance.......

 

[LightBright]

I’m not going to keep trying to explain that whether or not people agree with this portion of the Constitution, it exists. You can’t just pluck people from the streets without due process and say “Well yeah, but they’re a drain on our society.” But whatever, soon that pesky due process will be gone for everyone, along with healthcare, food assistance, mental healthcare, and general civility in our society. Actually I think we already unceremoniously left that behind years ago, but enjoy Utopia I guess?

I also think it’s very strange that the only argument I see over and over and over is that because some people care about due process must also mean they don’t care about veterans or Jews. Or that they condone violence, or crimes, or murder. I’ve literally been told in the last week by fellow adults that I’m married to a self hating Jew and that because I believe in due process means I’m making excuses for murders. Like… what? Have people really become this incapable of critical thinking? What’s next, people who want due process upheld for all kill puppies and push grandmas in front of buses? What is the end game here as a society if this is the current state of affairs on a diamond forum?

That’s why I think we need a Constitutional challenge to clarify. It does not make any sense to allow immigrants to get here by any means necessary, then have no way to send them home without a legal challenge.

 

[OreoRosies86]

That’s why I think we need a Constitutional challenge to clarify. It does not make any sense to allow immigrants to get here by any means necessary, then have no way to send them home without a legal challenge.

And you’re certainly entitled to believe that, and lobby for the changes you want to see in government. Just as long as you understand that when the government can act on deportation without due process, you are then tacitly agreeing to go down a very slippery and unpredictable slope if you’re not demanding that the law be adhered to and respected. It’s also terribly ironic hearing “If people don’t like our laws they can leave” when deportation without due process IS BREAKING THE LAW