In what may well be one of the most shameful episodes in American legal history since the abolition of chattel slavery, a Louisiana immigration judge has ruled that the Trump regime can continue its blatantly unconstitutional deportation of a lawful permanent US resident and political prisoner, Mahmoud Khalil, pretty much because Marco Rubio says so:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/mahmoud-khalil-deportable
'Very Dark Stuff': Judge Rules Palestine Activist Mahmoud Khalil Can Be Deported
"A U.S. immigration judge in Louisiana on Friday ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident and former Columbia University graduate student arrested last month after protesting Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, can be deported, a decision that came despite the Trump administration admitting the imminently expecting father committed no crime and was being targeted solely for constitutionally protected speech.
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans said that she lacked the legal authority to question the determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khalil was deportable. Earlier this week, Comans gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until Friday to produce evidence that Khalil is eligible for deportation.
No such evidence was provided other than Rubio's assertion that he reserves the right to order Khalil's expulsion under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests."
As the article itself notes, this isn't a final victory for the Trump administration; Khalil can and will continue to fight this, and most legal experts seem pretty confident this is all going to end up in front of the Supreme Court before the government can actually deport him; although why the court's 6-3 fascist high composition gives anyone confidence that they'll stop the regime's fascist and blatantly unconstitutional ideological policing and repression, is somewhat beyond me. As horrifying as this decision is, a random immigration judge doesn't get to say "surprise, fascism is legal now" even if that's more or less what this ruling is pointing to.
With that having been noted however, I need folks to understand what the regime's successful (for now) argument is here, because if you don't get that, it's impossible to grasp just how far these nazis clearly mean to go with this. The government is admitting that Mahmoud Khalil had a legal right to be in the United States, and committed no crime whatsoever. They are expressly stating that he's being targeted for deportation because of his political beliefs, and opposition to the US-back genocide being conducted by Israel, against Palestinians in Gaza as we speak; which they have chosen to define as antisemitism for political and propaganda reasons. This is a fundamental denial of Khalil's First Amendment rights which regardless of what you heard on Fox News, apply to everyone in the United States, not just people born there.
Despite this however, the regime is arguing that they have the right to deport Khalil because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the right to unilaterally, even unconstitutionally, order Khalil's expulsion; citing that the Act empowers him "to expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests." Who decides what US foreign policy interests are, has a right to to declare those decisions state secrets, and can change those potentially secret objectives at a whim? The Trump regime. Who decides which actions are "detrimental" to U.S. foreign policy decisions and who should be deported for them? Well the regime's argument is that it's Marco Rubio or whoever happens to be Trump's Secretary of State, and that he can do it by a whim, without explaining or justifying his decisions whatsoever.
So you caught that right? The regime can violate the constitutional rights of even a lawful US resident, because Marco Rubio feels a way, and he's not required to provide any more proof than "I said so." And yesterday, a U.S. immigration judge agreed with that logic. All of which now begs the question, what, or who, will Little Marco decide is "detrimental to U.S. foreign policy decisions" tomorrow?
