6Hugh_Janus9

These are factual claims that I will need a link and a source to according to forum rules. This is more loaded and in-depth than what the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights entails. His immigration status was already revoked without due process. You and I both know that the reason he is being held from deportation by a NY judge is because of this. Simply checking to see if he is a permanent resident is not due process; a computer can see if a checkbox is filled or not before deportation.

He was not served a warrant This breaks the Fourth Amendment His citizenship was revoked without due process This breaks the Fifth Amendment I've broken it into its bare essentials for you, as reading is not your strong suit. Do you want links to sources that say he wasn't served a warrant? Because we both know you already knew that. Do you want a link to the Fourth Amendment? You should already know what that entails for someone who wants to appear so well-rounded in the law. You are deeply insincere in the worst ways.

Are you seriously asking me to link you to the Bill of Rights? It's not my job to explain the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, both of which were violated in this case. If you can't see the connections, then I would rather believe you are being dishonest than ignorant.

I already did but I quoted it so you can read it again.

Ultimately, many laws were broken under this novel use of an old statute. One is in the Bill of Rights and is granted to green card holders. You are speaking from someone without a proper perspective of US laws, and it shows. Many laws exist that are completely unenforceable, such as the bans on atheist politicians in seven US states. Just because a law is on the record does not mean it holds any power.

I have succinctly laid out the current legal process, but it appears you are unwilling to understand it. His case is only being heard in court because his lawyer had to request a hold by a NY judge for additional hearings. Once again, this is not standard. Everyone is expected to due process in criminal matters, even green card holders. Having to fight to get a proper hearing at all is not procedural. I question how established a law is if this is the first instance of it being utilized. Laws can be wrong and vague; interpretation is needed from a judicial body to understand the true implications and use of many. This decades-old statue is one of them. Maybe re-read the post you replied to again to see why this might require further interpretation, as it clearly violates the rights offered by the government. What good would a First Amendment be if a statute from the 1700s could completely disregard it? I won't bother replying to your last question as it is irrelevant. Khalil deserves the legal process, as he was granted permanent residency. If the police acquired probable cause and got a warrant, arrested and charged Khalil, was given due process in immigration law courts, and found guilty, then you can deport his terrorist ass.

This process is practically unheard of, and it's dismissive to pass it off as just usual practice. 1. Normally, a warrant would have to be issued through a judge with presented probable cause, leading to initial arrest. 2. The charges would be disputed during a hearing with an immigration judge, and if deemed guilty to the charges, they could order to revoke his green card. 3. With no green card, he would then be deported. In this scenario, there is NO warrant, NO charges, and NO immigration judge hearing regarding his charges. His citizenship was revoked without due process by a political figure exercising a decades-old statute that has remained unused in this manner. There will be no due process during the upcoming immigration hearing; the judge does not issue green cards, they only handle charges and can request to revoke citizenship (which was already done). Khalil will just be deported because he has no permanent residency after it was removed *without* due process. It is disingenuous to pass this off as normal, as this case is the first of its kind. It is even more disingenuous to say that he has received due process because he hasn't.

His green card was revoked before facing any form of due process. Immigration law judges normally determine if you broke the law and can then can order to revoke your green card. In this case the immigration law judge would simply be verifying his legal status and deporting him without any form of due process. The only reason he hasn't already been deported is because his lawyer got a NY judge to temporarily pause this deportation. The law is filled with a backlog of rarely used decades old statutes (like the one being used here). This case is a first of its kind and will be disputed. They didn't even have a warrant for his initial arrest...

He is a green-card holder not a visa holder, so as a legal resident it grants him the rights to due process

There could be video footage of a defendant gunning down someone on a clear day, and they would still get a trial before being sent to prison. To arrest and deport someone on words alone with no due process is sickening.