“The writ of habeas corpus, a right deeply rooted in English common law and recognized by the U.S. Constitution, allows people nabbed by the government to challenge their detention in court. That complicates President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Last month, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that foreign nationals who allegedly are subject to immediate deportation as “alien enemies” have a right to contest that designation by filing habeas petitions.”
…
“Although President Donald Trump views unauthorized immigration as an “invasion,” judges have been appropriately skeptical of that description. And while Trump might believe judicial review in this context is inconsistent with “the public safety,” that assessment is likewise controversial. Finally, the power to suspend habeas corpus has long been understood as belonging to Congress, not the president.”
“A group of 49 white South Africans departed their homeland Sunday for the United States on a private charter plane having been offered refugee status by the Trump administration under a new program announced in February.
The group, which included families and small children, was due to arrive at Dulles International Airport outside Washington on Monday morning local time, according to Collen Msibi, a spokesperson for South Africa’s transport ministry.
They are the first Afrikaners — a white minority group in South Africa — to be relocated after U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Feb. 7 accusing South Africa’s Black-led government of racial discrimination against them and announcing a program to offer them relocation to America.
The South African government said it is “completely false” that Afrikaners are being persecuted.”
“The arrest of Mohsen Mahdawi was a test of just how far President Donald Trump’s power over immigrants could go. Mahdawi, a ten-year legal U.S. resident and a student at Columbia University, was at his interview to become a U.S. citizen earlier this month. But because he wasn’t a citizen yet, the Trump administration argued that it could deport Mahdawi for his protest activity, and had Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents pick him up at the immigration center.
On Wednesday, however, a federal judge ordered ICE to free Mahdawi, who was born in a refugee camp in the Palestinian territories, while his case proceeded. “The two weeks of detention so far demonstrate great harm to a person who has been charged with no crime,” U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford said at the hearing, according to ABC News. “Mr. Mahdawi, I will order you released.””
…
“”Noncitizen residents like Mr. Mahdawi enjoy First Amendment rights in this country to the same extent as United States Citizens,” he emphasized. “If the Government detained Mr. Mahdawi as punishment for his speech, that purpose is not legitimate, regardless of any alleged First Amendment violation. Immigration detention cannot be motivated by a punitive purpose. Nor can it be motivated by the desire to deter others from speaking.””
“The Trump-appointed judge found that the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act “exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.””
“The Declaration of Independence referred to “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The First Amendment strictly specifies that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Both are rooted in the understanding that rights don’t come from government but are inherent in individuals. The government must respect our rights whether or not it agrees with how we exercise them so long as we, in turn, respect others’ equal rights.
In February, Eugene Volokh of the Hoover Institution and the UCLA School of Law wrote that “when it comes to aliens and immigration law, the First Amendment questions aren’t settled” in a discussion about the constitutionality of deporting noncitizens for their speech. That may still be true, but cases like American Association of University Professors v. Rubio show at least some federal judges viewing First Amendment protections as universally applicable, which squares with American history.
Campus radicals have the same free speech rights as we all possess, even if they’re just visiting.”
“When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Venezuelan makeup artist Andry Hernandez Romero in 2024, it suspected he belonged to the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet ICE provided no “official records, media reports, and correspondence,” “intelligence information received from other agencies,” or “validation” or “confirmation” by “law enforcement, Corrections, or sending jurisdiction,” to prove that Hernandez Romero was tied to the gang.
Instead, ICE officials flagged Hernandez Romero as a potential Tren de Aragua associate based on two of his tattoos: the words mom and dad, topped with crowns, on each wrist.”
“In defending its actions, the Trump administration is citing a 2005 amendment to a 73-year-old law giving the secretary of State the power to deport anyone whose continued presence in the United States would have potentially “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Whatever adverse consequences Ozturk may have on American foreign policy, the consequences of her being targeted for deportation based on nothing more than her words are far worse. Now, every immigrant and visa holder, no matter their status, must be especially vigilant when discussing American politics, international affairs — conceivably any subject — in a way that upsets the government.
This is obviously bad for immigrants, many of whom fled societies where expressing an unpopular viewpoint can land one in prison, or worse. But it’s also bad for American citizens, living in a country where the government feels ever more emboldened to clamp down on free expression.
While the arrest and deportation of legal immigrants for expressing opinions has clear First Amendment implications, the exclusion of foreigners on the basis of their statements and beliefs does not. Rather than deporting people who come to this country legally only to espouse extremist views and endorse violence, the U.S. government should do a better job preventing their entry in the first place.”
…
“if a disproportionate number of the people prevented from coming to Europe and the United States as a result of ideologically exclusive immigration policies are Muslim, then that signifies the oppressive orthodoxies of the Islamic world, not Western intolerance. These are societies in which the predominant attitudes regarding Jews, the rights of women, the equality of sexual minorities, liberal democracy and secularism are decades if not centuries behind those of the West.”
“Texas, the only state that tracks immigrant crime, compares convictions per 100,000 Americans. Score: illegal immigrants, 782; legal immigrants, 535; native-born Americans, 1,422. It’s the opposite of what most of us have heard.”
…
“even illegal immigrants are a net gain. Not just because they harvest our food, do construction, etc., but also because Social Security and Medicare taxes are deducted from their paychecks. That’s money they never get back because they’re not legal.”