To the editor: The only thing contributing writer Josh Hammer gets right, when arguing that Mahmoud Khalil could be deported for being a noncitizen, is that he is an unsympathetic figure, but this does not mean we should be unconcerned about his case (“Mahmoud Khalil isn’t a citizen. His deportation wouldn’t be unlawful,” March 13). Hammer’s “legal” argument, citing two sources of no constitutional significance, is the most specious I have seen yet on this matter.
First, he cites “The Law of Nations,” written in 1758 before the United States was founded and never a part of the U.S. Constitution. Second, he cites a dissent by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. That’s the best he can do to build a false argument that disregards the actual Constitution.
Hammer conveniently ignores the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the due process and equal protection rights that shield all “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, not citizens only, from federal and state government overreach. He further omits mention of enforcement statutes enacted by Congress that set forth the kind of speech that can be lawful grounds for a green card holder’s deportation, such as having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.
Robert J. Switzer, West Hollywood
..
To the editor: A permanent green card cannot be rescinded without due process. That’s the law. This requires a hearing before a judge, not an executive action. No doubt Khalil is an unsympathetic figure, but the administration does not get to stifle free speech and abrogate the 1st Amendment — either for U.S. citizens or visa holders.
Richard Cooper, Desert Hot Springs
..
To the editor: In most of the coverage of the Khalil matter the discussion is centered on the 1st Amendment. Little is said about its limits. Jan. 6, 2021, was a glaring misuse of the privilege. How about pitching tents in the middle of a university and creating a checkpoint to select which students can pass? Free speech protects free discussion. Erecting barriers, intimidating and bullying are not free speech.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: If we allow deportations of those who speak out and withhold funding from universities that allow speech that the administration brands as antisemitic, the next step will be to deport anyone who speaks out against President Trump.
George Mouro, Rancho Mirage
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court decided in Bridges v. Wixon (1945) that resident aliens have 1st Amendment rights. Trump cannot deport Khalil simply because he does not like the content of Khalil’s speech.
John Rittmayer, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The 1st Amendment protects against viewpoint discrimination. It did so when Nazis sought a permit to march through Skokie, Ill., a town heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, in 1977, and when St. Paul, Minn., enacted an ordinance banning swastikas and other harmful symbols, in the early 1990s. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained long ago that the government may not properly regulate unpopular viewpoints or attempt to drive them from the marketplace of ideas.
Peter Marcus, Los Angeles
