To the editor: The one factor contributing author Josh Hammer will get proper, when arguing that Mahmoud Khalil could possibly be deported for being a noncitizen, is that he’s an unsympathetic determine, however this doesn’t imply we ought to be unconcerned about his case (“Mahmoud Khalil isn’t a citizen. His deportation wouldn’t be unlawful,” March 13). Hammer’s “authorized” argument, citing two sources of no constitutional significance, is essentially the most specious I’ve seen but on this matter.
First, he cites “The Legislation of Nations,” written in 1758 earlier than america was based and by no means part of the U.S. Structure. Second, he cites a dissent by the late U.S. Supreme Courtroom Justice Antonin Scalia. That’s the very best he can do to construct a false argument that disregards the precise Structure.
Hammer conveniently ignores the 14th Modification, which ensures the due course of and equal safety rights that protect all “individuals” inside U.S. jurisdiction, not residents solely, from federal and state authorities overreach. He additional omits point out of enforcement statutes enacted by Congress that set forth the sort of speech that may be lawful grounds for a inexperienced card holder’s deportation, similar to having been convicted of a criminal offense of ethical turpitude.
Robert J. Switzer, West Hollywood
..
To the editor: A everlasting inexperienced card can’t be rescinded with out due course of. That’s the regulation. This requires a listening to earlier than a decide, not an government motion. Little doubt Khalil is an unsympathetic determine, however the administration doesn’t get to stifle free speech and abrogate the first Modification — both for U.S. residents or visa holders.
Richard Cooper, Desert Scorching Springs
..
To the editor: In a lot of the protection of the Khalil matter the dialogue is centered on the first Modification. Little is alleged about its limits. Jan. 6, 2021, was a evident misuse of the privilege. How about pitching tents in the course of a college and making a checkpoint to pick out which college students can cross? Free speech protects free dialogue. Erecting limitations, intimidating and bullying are usually not free speech.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: If we enable deportations of those that converse out and withhold funding from universities that enable speech that the administration manufacturers as antisemitic, the subsequent step shall be to deport anybody who speaks out towards President Trump.
George Mouro, Rancho Mirage
..
To the editor: The Supreme Courtroom determined in Bridges v. Wixon (1945) that resident aliens have 1st Modification rights. Trump can not deport Khalil just because he doesn’t just like the content material of Khalil’s speech.
John Rittmayer, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The first Modification protects towards viewpoint discrimination. It did so when Nazis sought a permit to march by Skokie, In poor health., a city closely populated with Holocaust survivors, in 1977, and when St. Paul, Minn., enacted an ordinance banning swastikas and different dangerous symbols, within the early Nineteen Nineties. The late U.S. Supreme Courtroom Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined way back that the federal government could not correctly regulate unpopular viewpoints or try and drive them from {the marketplace} of concepts.
Peter Marcus, Los Angeles
