To put this in perspective, I'm an American living in the UK with the British version of LPR.
I'm an elected representative of a British trade union. My union role is almost exclusively industrial, not political.
However, my union affiliates to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and I've spoken at the union's annual conference where the head of the PSC has also been an invited speaker.
Therefore, if the roles were reversed and instead of being an American immigrant abroad, I were a foreign immigrant living in the US, I think I would be deportable under the REAL ID Act:
"Is a representative" - check, I'm a union rep.
"Of a political, social, or other group" - check, a union is all three of these.
"That endorses or espouses terrorist activity" - is affiliating to the PSC an endorsement of terrorism? I bet MAGA would say it is, if it means they can deport lefty union organisers.
If they can get away with deporting LPRs using this reasoning—and they've already made it clear they get a total hard-on for the thought of denaturalization—how long will it be before we see naturalized citizens being deported for serving in a campus students' union or as a workplace shop steward?
And then how long will it be before they target citizens born abroad to US citizen parents?
And then how long will it be before they target everyone who organizes for "radical left" causes, regardless of citizenship?
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, and it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I wish I could tell you that you were overthinking this, but sounds all too correct to me. I do still think that denaturalization is far less likely and a long way off--until they change the law, and they might, it's a long slog for the government in an actual
(not immigration) court--but I can't really argue with all of the rest, and I'm going to write up a second part to this sometime soon in which I get into some details that people may not have heard before about how the first Trump admin was trying to expand the definition of "domestic terrorist"
You're right, I certainly wouldn't want to contribute to the fear mongering about denaturalization. If it ever happens, there are still a lot of steps between here and there.
But at the same time, this is the era of "hold my beer" governance where there seem to be no boundaries that aren't self-imposed. We've already seen how the administration treats disfavorable court orders.
I would be curious to get your take on how the SCOTUS might rule on denaturalization, especially if (as in the Khalil example) the government uses terrorism accusations as a pretense.
I don't think he would start with anyone nearly as high-profile, but there are a lot of left-leaning commentators who aren't citizens from birth. There's no reason the test case even has to be someone with a public profile at all.
And as Matt described in the piece, "he can't do that" has a different meaning when it comes to Trump and MAGA.
He's shown time and time again that he can do whatever the fuck he wants, because news cycles are short and court calendars are long. How exactly would anyone expect to be able to put on a legal defense from the inside of a chain-link cage in Guantanamo?
And then, assuming he does eventually get benchslapped, that could be months or years later and by then the damage is done.
Thank you Matt. I am so grateful for your knowledge and your ability to explain . It is 5:39 a.m. as I read this and I seem to be one of the first to comment. To the next readers i verify that the author of this letter is real and a heroic figure in his field. I am real too, but considerably less heroic. I fear the chance to be truly heroic is coming for everyone now in our country. Where do I sign up? I guess right here in this space is a start.
I'm so sorry Matt. From here in Australia it looks pretty dire over there. But, I know a lot of good people, like yourself, are fighting hard daily to help and make things better.
Thank you for this. I am not a lawyer, but have been in the immigration world for long enough to remember what happened after 9/11. I have been disappointed that so many otherwise trustworthy sites have been getting this wrong, so I really appreciate this clear history.
thank you for this explanation. not an attorney and appreciate the layperson's level of explanation. i first start following you on twitter during his first admin and the horrors then. Mr Khalil's arrest should outrage anyone. i am watching closely-can't help but believe they will try to do anything to shut down any protests and political differences.
JUST THINK : FOLKS DID NOT VOTE FOR KAMALA OVER THE PRICE OF EGGS??? USED SAME EXCUSE NOT TO VOTE FOR OTHER DEMOCRATS AS WELL. SO TRUMP TELLING YOU TO STARVE IS BETTER??????
To put this in perspective, I'm an American living in the UK with the British version of LPR.
I'm an elected representative of a British trade union. My union role is almost exclusively industrial, not political.
However, my union affiliates to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and I've spoken at the union's annual conference where the head of the PSC has also been an invited speaker.
Therefore, if the roles were reversed and instead of being an American immigrant abroad, I were a foreign immigrant living in the US, I think I would be deportable under the REAL ID Act:
"Is a representative" - check, I'm a union rep.
"Of a political, social, or other group" - check, a union is all three of these.
"That endorses or espouses terrorist activity" - is affiliating to the PSC an endorsement of terrorism? I bet MAGA would say it is, if it means they can deport lefty union organisers.
If they can get away with deporting LPRs using this reasoning—and they've already made it clear they get a total hard-on for the thought of denaturalization—how long will it be before we see naturalized citizens being deported for serving in a campus students' union or as a workplace shop steward?
And then how long will it be before they target citizens born abroad to US citizen parents?
And then how long will it be before they target everyone who organizes for "radical left" causes, regardless of citizenship?
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, and it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I wish I could tell you that you were overthinking this, but sounds all too correct to me. I do still think that denaturalization is far less likely and a long way off--until they change the law, and they might, it's a long slog for the government in an actual
(not immigration) court--but I can't really argue with all of the rest, and I'm going to write up a second part to this sometime soon in which I get into some details that people may not have heard before about how the first Trump admin was trying to expand the definition of "domestic terrorist"
You're right, I certainly wouldn't want to contribute to the fear mongering about denaturalization. If it ever happens, there are still a lot of steps between here and there.
But at the same time, this is the era of "hold my beer" governance where there seem to be no boundaries that aren't self-imposed. We've already seen how the administration treats disfavorable court orders.
I would be curious to get your take on how the SCOTUS might rule on denaturalization, especially if (as in the Khalil example) the government uses terrorism accusations as a pretense.
I wonder also, given Trump's animus toward media who criticise him, if he might go after, say, John Oliver?
My thoughts exactly.
I don't think he would start with anyone nearly as high-profile, but there are a lot of left-leaning commentators who aren't citizens from birth. There's no reason the test case even has to be someone with a public profile at all.
And as Matt described in the piece, "he can't do that" has a different meaning when it comes to Trump and MAGA.
He's shown time and time again that he can do whatever the fuck he wants, because news cycles are short and court calendars are long. How exactly would anyone expect to be able to put on a legal defense from the inside of a chain-link cage in Guantanamo?
And then, assuming he does eventually get benchslapped, that could be months or years later and by then the damage is done.
Thank you Matt. I am so grateful for your knowledge and your ability to explain . It is 5:39 a.m. as I read this and I seem to be one of the first to comment. To the next readers i verify that the author of this letter is real and a heroic figure in his field. I am real too, but considerably less heroic. I fear the chance to be truly heroic is coming for everyone now in our country. Where do I sign up? I guess right here in this space is a start.
Thank you for all the work you do Matt. I'm not sure how you find the time to do anything else. Don't forget to make time for yourself.
I'm so sorry Matt. From here in Australia it looks pretty dire over there. But, I know a lot of good people, like yourself, are fighting hard daily to help and make things better.
Thank you for this. I am not a lawyer, but have been in the immigration world for long enough to remember what happened after 9/11. I have been disappointed that so many otherwise trustworthy sites have been getting this wrong, so I really appreciate this clear history.
thank you for this explanation. not an attorney and appreciate the layperson's level of explanation. i first start following you on twitter during his first admin and the horrors then. Mr Khalil's arrest should outrage anyone. i am watching closely-can't help but believe they will try to do anything to shut down any protests and political differences.
JUST THINK : FOLKS DID NOT VOTE FOR KAMALA OVER THE PRICE OF EGGS??? USED SAME EXCUSE NOT TO VOTE FOR OTHER DEMOCRATS AS WELL. SO TRUMP TELLING YOU TO STARVE IS BETTER??????