Daniel Kanstroom

I mean, in general, but I'm certainly advising people to think hard before traveling. And that includes people with green cards, which is pretty unique in my experience. Over many years, there's been a general sense that

I mean, in general, but I'm certainly advising people to think hard before traveling. And that includes people with green cards, which is pretty unique in my experience. Over many years, there's been a general sense that

That people who have green cards, that is to say they have lawful permanent resident status, which by the way is a status that a person is completely entitled to hold for their whole life if they want to or for some reason they can't naturalize and become a U.S. citizen. That was designed to be a stable, protected status and it is extremely unusual.

That people who have green cards, that is to say they have lawful permanent resident status, which by the way is a status that a person is completely entitled to hold for their whole life if they want to or for some reason they can't naturalize and become a U.S. citizen. That was designed to be a stable, protected status and it is extremely unusual.

for the government to start digging around in a person's past to find reasons to deport a person with a green card. That, by the way, was one of the unique things that Marco Rubio declared in the Khalil case that he had revoked his green card status. I'm unaware of any provision in law that allows the Secretary of State to simply revoke a person's green card status.

for the government to start digging around in a person's past to find reasons to deport a person with a green card. That, by the way, was one of the unique things that Marco Rubio declared in the Khalil case that he had revoked his green card status. I'm unaware of any provision in law that allows the Secretary of State to simply revoke a person's green card status.

That person is entitled to a hearing, as I think we will see. And at that hearing, the government is going to have to explain what its reasons were for trying to deport this person. And, you know, we'll see what the evidence is.

That person is entitled to a hearing, as I think we will see. And at that hearing, the government is going to have to explain what its reasons were for trying to deport this person. And, you know, we'll see what the evidence is.

Well, first of all, I think it's useful to go back and ask why this country has birthright citizenship in the first place. Because I think many people think that is kind of odd. U.S. citizenship is such an incredibly valuable commodity. Why do we just give it to people based on the accident of having been born here? That's a fair question. But the answer is important.

Well, first of all, I think it's useful to go back and ask why this country has birthright citizenship in the first place. Because I think many people think that is kind of odd. U.S. citizenship is such an incredibly valuable commodity. Why do we just give it to people based on the accident of having been born here? That's a fair question. But the answer is important.

Thank you. It's good to be here.

Thank you. It's good to be here.

It was created in the aftermath of the Civil War, primarily to redress a situation in which African-Americans, particularly slaves and even freed slaves and even people who had not been enslaved at all, were deemed by the Supreme Court not to be citizens.

It was created in the aftermath of the Civil War, primarily to redress a situation in which African-Americans, particularly slaves and even freed slaves and even people who had not been enslaved at all, were deemed by the Supreme Court not to be citizens.

And the country realized that having a large cohort of people who were excluded from the courts and from the right to vote and all the aspects of citizenship was a very dangerous thing. And it was integral to slavery, but it was also a bad thing in general.

And the country realized that having a large cohort of people who were excluded from the courts and from the right to vote and all the aspects of citizenship was a very dangerous thing. And it was integral to slavery, but it was also a bad thing in general.

we created an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees that anyone who's born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, which actually means only excluding a very small category of diplomats and Native American Indians, perhaps, and people on warships or invading armies, those people all get citizenship. So we opted for a generous conception of citizenship.

we created an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees that anyone who's born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, which actually means only excluding a very small category of diplomats and Native American Indians, perhaps, and people on warships or invading armies, those people all get citizenship. So we opted for a generous conception of citizenship.

And I think that has stood us well. The Supreme Court upheld it in the late 19th century. It's been reaffirmed ever since then in many court opinions. And yet it keeps coming under challenge for varieties of reasons in particular historical periods. But if we remember why we created it in the first place, then I think that helps us to understand what's so dangerous about trying to remove it.

And I think that has stood us well. The Supreme Court upheld it in the late 19th century. It's been reaffirmed ever since then in many court opinions. And yet it keeps coming under challenge for varieties of reasons in particular historical periods. But if we remember why we created it in the first place, then I think that helps us to understand what's so dangerous about trying to remove it.

Yes, it's new, again, in the extent of it, in the severity of it, in what often seems to be the arbitrariness of it. But the government has enormous power at the border, at the airports, you know, when a person comes to a port of entry. There's basically no place, except maybe on the battlefield during a war, where the government has such unfettered power, such discretionary authority.

Yes, it's new, again, in the extent of it, in the severity of it, in what often seems to be the arbitrariness of it. But the government has enormous power at the border, at the airports, you know, when a person comes to a port of entry. There's basically no place, except maybe on the battlefield during a war, where the government has such unfettered power, such discretionary authority.

And the courts have recognized that because much of immigration enforcement is tied up with national security and foreign policy and things like that, where the government is given a free hand. But we've rarely, if ever, seen the government intervene use that free hand in the way that it's happening now.

And the courts have recognized that because much of immigration enforcement is tied up with national security and foreign policy and things like that, where the government is given a free hand. But we've rarely, if ever, seen the government intervene use that free hand in the way that it's happening now.

I mean, there were aspects of this in the post 9-11 period where there was a ramp up of interrogations and questions and, you know, so forth. So, again, it's not totally unprecedented. And the power that's being used goes far back into U.S. history cases that were decided in the 19th century.

I mean, there were aspects of this in the post 9-11 period where there was a ramp up of interrogations and questions and, you know, so forth. So, again, it's not totally unprecedented. And the power that's being used goes far back into U.S. history cases that were decided in the 19th century.

And as I said, even precedents from the 18th century have all built this regime, which many of us worried was dangerous precisely because of the great power that it gives to government. And we'd say in the hands of an irresponsible government or a reckless government, this could cause real harm. And I fear that that's what we're seeing now.

And as I said, even precedents from the 18th century have all built this regime, which many of us worried was dangerous precisely because of the great power that it gives to government. And we'd say in the hands of an irresponsible government or a reckless government, this could cause real harm. And I fear that that's what we're seeing now.

On the other hand, when we've seen episodes like this in the past, they do tend to pass. One of the main ones, the famous ones, was called the Palmer Raids in 1919 after the First World War. And it was similarly very aggressive, very brutal. Actually, one of the lead deportation agents at that time was J. Edgar Hoover, who ultimately created the FBI out of that incident.

On the other hand, when we've seen episodes like this in the past, they do tend to pass. One of the main ones, the famous ones, was called the Palmer Raids in 1919 after the First World War. And it was similarly very aggressive, very brutal. Actually, one of the lead deportation agents at that time was J. Edgar Hoover, who ultimately created the FBI out of that incident.

And there was tremendous fear in the country. There were anarchists. There were bombs going off in Washington, D.C. And many people were deported. But ultimately, it passed. And then a different kind of regime took effect, ultimately in the Roosevelt administration that had a very different attitude towards about how we calibrate these things.

And there was tremendous fear in the country. There were anarchists. There were bombs going off in Washington, D.C. And many people were deported. But ultimately, it passed. And then a different kind of regime took effect, ultimately in the Roosevelt administration that had a very different attitude towards about how we calibrate these things.

And I personally think that this history of this country as basically a welcoming country for non-citizens and immigrants is extremely powerful. And little by little, as examples like the one I described about the person who seems to have been wrongly sent to the prison in El Salvador come out, there is a conscience of the American people that's going to find this quite revolting.

And I personally think that this history of this country as basically a welcoming country for non-citizens and immigrants is extremely powerful. And little by little, as examples like the one I described about the person who seems to have been wrongly sent to the prison in El Salvador come out, there is a conscience of the American people that's going to find this quite revolting.

Yeah, it's extremely difficult. And this is why we created the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project, because the government for many years has used deportation as a kind of black hole where mistakes could be buried and the government could then say, sorry, there's nothing we can do. This is a big problem, and we're seeing it now in the Salvadoran prison example and a very harsh example of that.

Yeah, it's extremely difficult. And this is why we created the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project, because the government for many years has used deportation as a kind of black hole where mistakes could be buried and the government could then say, sorry, there's nothing we can do. This is a big problem, and we're seeing it now in the Salvadoran prison example and a very harsh example of that.

And if a person is deported, they can be barred from the United States for many, many years or for life.

And if a person is deported, they can be barred from the United States for many, many years or for life.

It's extremely difficult to do that. In some cases, it has been possible, but we have had to spend years years sometimes litigating just to bring back one person who then faced detention when he was brought back to this country in any case and ultimately had to have hearings, which took time and resources. The system is set up in such a way that once a person is deported,

It's extremely difficult to do that. In some cases, it has been possible, but we have had to spend years years sometimes litigating just to bring back one person who then faced detention when he was brought back to this country in any case and ultimately had to have hearings, which took time and resources. The system is set up in such a way that once a person is deported,

It's extremely difficult to question that or challenge it. And that's why judges try to prevent what they think may be wrongful deportations before they happen. That's what all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions are about. The courts are saying we need to preserve jurisdiction.

It's extremely difficult to question that or challenge it. And that's why judges try to prevent what they think may be wrongful deportations before they happen. That's what all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions are about. The courts are saying we need to preserve jurisdiction.

There's an entity called the Board of Immigration Appeals that for many years took the position that once a person has been deported, they said this in one major case, they have passed beyond our aid. Now, for a human rights lawyer, that's a very difficult proposition to accept.

There's an entity called the Board of Immigration Appeals that for many years took the position that once a person has been deported, they said this in one major case, they have passed beyond our aid. Now, for a human rights lawyer, that's a very difficult proposition to accept.

Yes, this has been a longstanding problem. And the solution had been thought to appoint more immigration judges, particularly at the border, to have more expeditious asylum hearings. which would comply with basic due process norms. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Congress has not acted for a very long time. So the system has been chronically underfunded for decades.

Yes, this has been a longstanding problem. And the solution had been thought to appoint more immigration judges, particularly at the border, to have more expeditious asylum hearings. which would comply with basic due process norms. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Congress has not acted for a very long time. So the system has been chronically underfunded for decades.

I believe the current backlog in the appellate side of the immigration system combined with the trial side is somewhere between two and three million cases at this time. And cases are being docketed out into the future for years. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. Nobody thinks this is a good system. The question is what do you do about it?

I believe the current backlog in the appellate side of the immigration system combined with the trial side is somewhere between two and three million cases at this time. And cases are being docketed out into the future for years. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. Nobody thinks this is a good system. The question is what do you do about it?

And what you could have done about it and still could do about it is appoint more judges in order to handle the backlog or maybe take a position that after a certain number of years – It's just not fair to continue with a person in proceedings unless it's an extremely serious case. That would be another method of dealing with it. But we do have a problem.

And what you could have done about it and still could do about it is appoint more judges in order to handle the backlog or maybe take a position that after a certain number of years – It's just not fair to continue with a person in proceedings unless it's an extremely serious case. That would be another method of dealing with it. But we do have a problem.

I don't think the solution is to eliminate everybody's due process rights and simply deport them, however.

I don't think the solution is to eliminate everybody's due process rights and simply deport them, however.

It's enormously expensive. It's enormously time-consuming. And I think... Most importantly, it is taking resources away from other law enforcement initiatives that, at least to my mind, are much, much more compelling and important. I mean, if you have a person who is an actual terrorist or who has actual terrorist connections, that's one thing.

It's enormously expensive. It's enormously time-consuming. And I think... Most importantly, it is taking resources away from other law enforcement initiatives that, at least to my mind, are much, much more compelling and important. I mean, if you have a person who is an actual terrorist or who has actual terrorist connections, that's one thing.

But if you're going after people because of things they have written or things they have said while pursuing a PhD in education at Tufts University and using the same level of resources for that, that strikes me as much more problematic. This has been a problem for deportation from the beginning, and the resources that would be needed to –

But if you're going after people because of things they have written or things they have said while pursuing a PhD in education at Tufts University and using the same level of resources for that, that strikes me as much more problematic. This has been a problem for deportation from the beginning, and the resources that would be needed to –

do the kinds of deportations that candidate Trump had talked about, there's no way that we could marshal that level of funding to do that kind of a job. So we have to begin to be a little realistic about what it is we're talking about here. And many countries have recognized this.

do the kinds of deportations that candidate Trump had talked about, there's no way that we could marshal that level of funding to do that kind of a job. So we have to begin to be a little realistic about what it is we're talking about here. And many countries have recognized this.

And this is why many countries have had sort of waves of legalization programs that say to people, well, look, you've been here for 10 years now. Come into the system. If you don't have a criminal record, if you basically lived a good life, and paid your taxes, you know, we can give you some sort of pathway to some sort of stable and legal status, probably even citizenship over the long haul.

And this is why many countries have had sort of waves of legalization programs that say to people, well, look, you've been here for 10 years now. Come into the system. If you don't have a criminal record, if you basically lived a good life, and paid your taxes, you know, we can give you some sort of pathway to some sort of stable and legal status, probably even citizenship over the long haul.

I think my immediate reaction was what I hope would be anyone's immediate reaction. Which was horror. This is a very, very extreme example of government power. Masked agents, which are extremely unusual in this country. Arresting somebody suddenly without permission.

I think my immediate reaction was what I hope would be anyone's immediate reaction. Which was horror. This is a very, very extreme example of government power. Masked agents, which are extremely unusual in this country. Arresting somebody suddenly without permission.

But actually, what this administration is doing is the opposite. It's marginalizing people. It's actually seeking to get their tax records in order to facilitate deportation, which makes people not want to pay their taxes and participate in society. during the time that they're here. So it strikes me that a lot of this is amazingly counterproductive.

But actually, what this administration is doing is the opposite. It's marginalizing people. It's actually seeking to get their tax records in order to facilitate deportation, which makes people not want to pay their taxes and participate in society. during the time that they're here. So it strikes me that a lot of this is amazingly counterproductive.

Probably. It's hard to know. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. But international law, first of all, prohibits the removal of a person to a place where they would be persecuted or tortured. And it looks to me as if the conditions in that facility in general could rise to that level. And I think other human rights lawyers have begun to make those kinds of assessments that

Probably. It's hard to know. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. But international law, first of all, prohibits the removal of a person to a place where they would be persecuted or tortured. And it looks to me as if the conditions in that facility in general could rise to that level. And I think other human rights lawyers have begun to make those kinds of assessments that

Secondly, there are basic norms of fairness and process that people are entitled to because the fundamental principle of human rights law is not, by the way, to say the government does not have the power to control its borders. Human rights law recognizes a world of nation states.

Secondly, there are basic norms of fairness and process that people are entitled to because the fundamental principle of human rights law is not, by the way, to say the government does not have the power to control its borders. Human rights law recognizes a world of nation states.

But to say that when that power is exercised, it has to respect the dignity of the person who is the object of that exercise of massive power is And people are entitled to make their case and to be heard. And that's a pretty minimal thing. I mean to say we're deporting you because you're a gang member and you say actually you got the wrong guy. I'm not a gang member.

But to say that when that power is exercised, it has to respect the dignity of the person who is the object of that exercise of massive power is And people are entitled to make their case and to be heard. And that's a pretty minimal thing. I mean to say we're deporting you because you're a gang member and you say actually you got the wrong guy. I'm not a gang member.

And if the next place you find yourself is in a massive high security facility in El Salvador – That is not legal under international law. Now that, of course, raises the question of whether the United States considers itself bound by international human rights law. But even under the U.S. Constitution, or I would say especially under the U.S. Constitution and U.S.

And if the next place you find yourself is in a massive high security facility in El Salvador – That is not legal under international law. Now that, of course, raises the question of whether the United States considers itself bound by international human rights law. But even under the U.S. Constitution, or I would say especially under the U.S. Constitution and U.S.

Any apparent warning to what must have been for her a terrifying and probably unknown fate for reasons that she probably had some general understanding of, but no specific charging document, no specific reason. warrant, no reading of charges, no explanation. This is a horrible thing to see.

Any apparent warning to what must have been for her a terrifying and probably unknown fate for reasons that she probably had some general understanding of, but no specific charging document, no specific reason. warrant, no reading of charges, no explanation. This is a horrible thing to see.

statutes, a lot of these actions seem extremely problematic, too.

statutes, a lot of these actions seem extremely problematic, too.

It is extremely unique. The statute was passed in the 1790s. And by the way, it was paired with another law that was called the Alien Friends Act. That was the one that said aliens who were like affiliated with various ideologies that we don't like can be deported. It was the Friends Law that was criticized so much by Jefferson and Madison and ultimately Sunset.

It is extremely unique. The statute was passed in the 1790s. And by the way, it was paired with another law that was called the Alien Friends Act. That was the one that said aliens who were like affiliated with various ideologies that we don't like can be deported. It was the Friends Law that was criticized so much by Jefferson and Madison and ultimately Sunset.

And Jefferson won the election of 1800. And we never heard of that law again because everybody recognized that having a law that would give vast discretionary power to the executive branch. To name its enemies or to simply say we're under attack, therefore round up all the usual suspects was a problem.

And Jefferson won the election of 1800. And we never heard of that law again because everybody recognized that having a law that would give vast discretionary power to the executive branch. To name its enemies or to simply say we're under attack, therefore round up all the usual suspects was a problem.

So in the three times when the Alien Enemies Act has been used, the War of 1812 and during the Second World War and immediately after the Second World War in particular, it has been during a time of actual conflict, armed conflict. This extension to the actions of cartels or various other entities is extremely problematic.

So in the three times when the Alien Enemies Act has been used, the War of 1812 and during the Second World War and immediately after the Second World War in particular, it has been during a time of actual conflict, armed conflict. This extension to the actions of cartels or various other entities is extremely problematic.

Now, the courts do give the executive branch a lot of leeway to make these kind of judgment calls about dangers to the peace and security of the country. But where the courts, I think, will intervene is at the very least to say that people are entitled to due process.

Now, the courts do give the executive branch a lot of leeway to make these kind of judgment calls about dangers to the peace and security of the country. But where the courts, I think, will intervene is at the very least to say that people are entitled to due process.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you.

And one would think that tactics like this would be limited to the most extreme cases, you know, SWAT teams or hostage situations. But to see a graduate student in Somerville, Massachusetts, pulled off the street, it had to be terrifying. And that was my first reaction. I can tell you about my second, third, and fourth reaction as we go forward, because I had a lot of different reactions.

And one would think that tactics like this would be limited to the most extreme cases, you know, SWAT teams or hostage situations. But to see a graduate student in Somerville, Massachusetts, pulled off the street, it had to be terrifying. And that was my first reaction. I can tell you about my second, third, and fourth reaction as we go forward, because I had a lot of different reactions.

Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you for watching. Thank you.

Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you for watching. Thank you.

Well, this is a kind of unknown situation. What we're going to have to see is the relationship between the government's power to regulate the status of non-citizens who are in this country, especially non-citizens who are here temporarily, although temporarily could mean many years, as it did in her case.

Well, this is a kind of unknown situation. What we're going to have to see is the relationship between the government's power to regulate the status of non-citizens who are in this country, especially non-citizens who are here temporarily, although temporarily could mean many years, as it did in her case.

versus the general protections of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and general protections of due process of law, and general procedural protections in our government. And those things are going to be tested in her case, among many others. The government does have enormous power over students who are coming here to study.

versus the general protections of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and general protections of due process of law, and general procedural protections in our government. And those things are going to be tested in her case, among many others. The government does have enormous power over students who are coming here to study.

But the government is also restrained by the Constitution. And we haven't seen this particular provision used very often. In fact, it's quite rare. And so the courts are going to have to sort out how to calibrate that balance. My own feeling is that unless they can come up with some activities that she actually engaged in that were against the law...

But the government is also restrained by the Constitution. And we haven't seen this particular provision used very often. In fact, it's quite rare. And so the courts are going to have to sort out how to calibrate that balance. My own feeling is that unless they can come up with some activities that she actually engaged in that were against the law...

They may have a hard time deporting her simply for speech or for publishing an op-ed.

They may have a hard time deporting her simply for speech or for publishing an op-ed.

It is both yes and no. And the provision at issue here, you know, goes back quite a long way and gives specific authority to the Secretary of State with a very vague set of standards. They call it the alien, but let's say the non-citizens. Activities or actions or speech in the United States would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences.

It is both yes and no. And the provision at issue here, you know, goes back quite a long way and gives specific authority to the Secretary of State with a very vague set of standards. They call it the alien, but let's say the non-citizens. Activities or actions or speech in the United States would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences.

And then there's an even higher standard if they're trying to deport somebody for... things that would be protected under the Constitution if done by a U.S. citizen. So it hasn't been invoked much precisely because the courts have never really clarified the exact relationship here.

And then there's an even higher standard if they're trying to deport somebody for... things that would be protected under the Constitution if done by a U.S. citizen. So it hasn't been invoked much precisely because the courts have never really clarified the exact relationship here.

But to the extent that there is precedent for this, I think the precedent is rather strong that the First Amendment does not use the word citizen. First Amendment says Congress shall make no law. And courts have recognized that and have recognized that due process also applies to any person.

But to the extent that there is precedent for this, I think the precedent is rather strong that the First Amendment does not use the word citizen. First Amendment says Congress shall make no law. And courts have recognized that and have recognized that due process also applies to any person.

It is something by design, and it's not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for quite some time now in this country where people have been moved to these detention centers in Louisiana and elsewhere. And originally, I think it was part of a change in detention of non-citizens who were facing deportation.

It is something by design, and it's not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for quite some time now in this country where people have been moved to these detention centers in Louisiana and elsewhere. And originally, I think it was part of a change in detention of non-citizens who were facing deportation.

There had been a use of local facilities, and there were problems with that, by which I mean local jails and state-run facilities. There were all sorts of questions about conditions. So there was a move to try to create more federal detention facilities.

There had been a use of local facilities, and there were problems with that, by which I mean local jails and state-run facilities. There were all sorts of questions about conditions. So there was a move to try to create more federal detention facilities.

But when one asks why was this particular one situated in a fairly remote area – I believe it's at least a couple hours, maybe more, from New Orleans, as I recall – lawyers have routinely noted two things. One, it makes it incredibly difficult to actually be in touch to visit with a client, which is important if you want to represent somebody.

But when one asks why was this particular one situated in a fairly remote area – I believe it's at least a couple hours, maybe more, from New Orleans, as I recall – lawyers have routinely noted two things. One, it makes it incredibly difficult to actually be in touch to visit with a client, which is important if you want to represent somebody.

It's very helpful if you can sit in a room with them and look into their eyes, get to know them as a client, have long interviews with them. And second, that particular part of the country and the particular judges in that part of the country tend to be rather supportive of the government and rather unfriendly to lawyers for non-citizens.

It's very helpful if you can sit in a room with them and look into their eyes, get to know them as a client, have long interviews with them. And second, that particular part of the country and the particular judges in that part of the country tend to be rather supportive of the government and rather unfriendly to lawyers for non-citizens.

So it has a reputation as being a difficult place if a person is moved there because so-called habeas corpus petitions have to be filed in the place where the person is actually held. This actually was an issue in Mr. Khalil's case, too, about whether you could bring him back to the place where he has his witnesses and his lawyers and where the alleged activities took place.

So it has a reputation as being a difficult place if a person is moved there because so-called habeas corpus petitions have to be filed in the place where the person is actually held. This actually was an issue in Mr. Khalil's case, too, about whether you could bring him back to the place where he has his witnesses and his lawyers and where the alleged activities took place.

So there's often a struggle about that. But this is not a new government tactic. However, like many of the tactics that we're witnessing now, it's being used in extremely expeditious ways and often apparently with the intent of avoiding a judge's order not to do it.

So there's often a struggle about that. But this is not a new government tactic. However, like many of the tactics that we're witnessing now, it's being used in extremely expeditious ways and often apparently with the intent of avoiding a judge's order not to do it.

Well, even beyond our clinical programs, what I hear from a range of lawyers throughout the country and from potential clients and from former clients and from family members of potential clients and former clients and from colleagues who are citizens or non-citizens or naturalized citizens or married to non-citizens is a tremendous sense of fear.

Well, even beyond our clinical programs, what I hear from a range of lawyers throughout the country and from potential clients and from former clients and from family members of potential clients and former clients and from colleagues who are citizens or non-citizens or naturalized citizens or married to non-citizens is a tremendous sense of fear.

And I think that is a big part of what the administration has been aiming to do. So the administration has acted on the shoulders of a system that was long recognized as being extremely discretionary, extremely deferential to government power, potentially extremely arbitrary, potentially extremely harsh. I've been writing about this for more than 25 years. And yet we're seeing

And I think that is a big part of what the administration has been aiming to do. So the administration has acted on the shoulders of a system that was long recognized as being extremely discretionary, extremely deferential to government power, potentially extremely arbitrary, potentially extremely harsh. I've been writing about this for more than 25 years. And yet we're seeing

uniquely extreme examples of it done with a kind of cruelty and a kind of, I would say, gratuitous cruelty, arrogant cruelty that has rarely been seen in the history of this country. And the point of that is to send a message, is to scare people. And it is working. I just heard this morning about a person who was apparently

uniquely extreme examples of it done with a kind of cruelty and a kind of, I would say, gratuitous cruelty, arrogant cruelty that has rarely been seen in the history of this country. And the point of that is to send a message, is to scare people. And it is working. I just heard this morning about a person who was apparently

sent to this prison in El Salvador who had been under an order from an immigration judge specifically not to be sent to El Salvador. The government has admitted that it was a mistake. And yet they say, well, but there's nothing we can really do about it because now he's in the custody of El Salvador. It's hard to imagine a more terrifying set of facts than that.

sent to this prison in El Salvador who had been under an order from an immigration judge specifically not to be sent to El Salvador. The government has admitted that it was a mistake. And yet they say, well, but there's nothing we can really do about it because now he's in the custody of El Salvador. It's hard to imagine a more terrifying set of facts than that.

Well, what it tells us is that a lot of the campaign rhetoric about a problem of undocumented immigration was really not true because I think people in the administration knew, as those of us who've studied the history of this knew, that it would be basically impossible to round up and deport 10 to 15 million people without establishing –

Well, what it tells us is that a lot of the campaign rhetoric about a problem of undocumented immigration was really not true because I think people in the administration knew, as those of us who've studied the history of this knew, that it would be basically impossible to round up and deport 10 to 15 million people without establishing –

a massive and extremely expensive and extremely brutal police state. So that agenda was always problematic as compared with the agenda of shutting down the southern border, which I would argue is also quite problematic. But that seemed to be a little more potentially doable. But what we're actually seeing is something quite different. And It's actually a quite different form of deportation.

a massive and extremely expensive and extremely brutal police state. So that agenda was always problematic as compared with the agenda of shutting down the southern border, which I would argue is also quite problematic. But that seemed to be a little more potentially doable. But what we're actually seeing is something quite different. And It's actually a quite different form of deportation.

It has different justifications and has different goals. And the goals here seem to be political, not really aimed at immigration enforcement or the undocumented. It's aimed at the documented. It's aimed at, as you say, people here who are students, people here with green cards. I would— expect that the next step will be people who have been naturalized citizens.

It has different justifications and has different goals. And the goals here seem to be political, not really aimed at immigration enforcement or the undocumented. It's aimed at the documented. It's aimed at, as you say, people here who are students, people here with green cards. I would— expect that the next step will be people who have been naturalized citizens.

And in this sense, it also dovetails with the executive order that was designed to try to overturn the 14th Amendment grant of birthright citizenship. So you would see a tremendous expansion of government power over the bodies and the minds and the words and the writings of many, many millions of people. This debate is very old in this country. It goes back to the founding generation.

And in this sense, it also dovetails with the executive order that was designed to try to overturn the 14th Amendment grant of birthright citizenship. So you would see a tremendous expansion of government power over the bodies and the minds and the words and the writings of many, many millions of people. This debate is very old in this country. It goes back to the founding generation.

One of the laws that's being used now by the Trump administration, again, I would argue in ways that will ultimately be challenged if not overruled completely by courts, was something called the Alien Enemies Act. And that came from a time when the government – in that case, it was the John Adams administration – had great fear about French revolutionaries and Irish revolutionaries.

One of the laws that's being used now by the Trump administration, again, I would argue in ways that will ultimately be challenged if not overruled completely by courts, was something called the Alien Enemies Act. And that came from a time when the government – in that case, it was the John Adams administration – had great fear about French revolutionaries and Irish revolutionaries.

And a couple of laws were passed, these so-called Alien and Sedition Acts. But even at that time – Thomas Jefferson, who opposed this sort of enforcement, said and wrote that the friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment. But the citizen will soon follow or in fact has already followed because they were using the so-called Sedition Act against citizens.

And a couple of laws were passed, these so-called Alien and Sedition Acts. But even at that time – Thomas Jefferson, who opposed this sort of enforcement, said and wrote that the friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment. But the citizen will soon follow or in fact has already followed because they were using the so-called Sedition Act against citizens.

And every time we've seen these episodes, they tend to have a metastatic quality. They expand in dangerous ways because once you let this sort of government power take root, it can be very hard to uproot it. And that, again, is why it's important to note that the First Amendment does not say citizen. The First Amendment is both a grant of rights to people to speak –

And every time we've seen these episodes, they tend to have a metastatic quality. They expand in dangerous ways because once you let this sort of government power take root, it can be very hard to uproot it. And that, again, is why it's important to note that the First Amendment does not say citizen. The First Amendment is both a grant of rights to people to speak –

But it's also a restraint on the power of government to suppress speech and to suppress ideas. And so when you see these attempts to shut people up by intimidating them and by terrifying them, that does raise very fundamental questions that this country has had to deal with in recurring ways over many generations. And now we're going to have to fight those battles again.

But it's also a restraint on the power of government to suppress speech and to suppress ideas. And so when you see these attempts to shut people up by intimidating them and by terrifying them, that does raise very fundamental questions that this country has had to deal with in recurring ways over many generations. And now we're going to have to fight those battles again.

It's absolutely a strategy. The administration has been quite clear about it. They've said it repeatedly. Again, they're not the first administration to think of this. are quite profound right now. And I mean, I get calls from people all the time asking if they should leave the country. Personally, I don't think we're at a moment where I'm advising people to leave the country.

It's absolutely a strategy. The administration has been quite clear about it. They've said it repeatedly. Again, they're not the first administration to think of this. are quite profound right now. And I mean, I get calls from people all the time asking if they should leave the country. Personally, I don't think we're at a moment where I'm advising people to leave the country.

I mean, in general, but I'm certainly advising people to think hard before traveling. And that includes people with green cards, which is pretty unique in my experience. Over many years, there's been a general sense that

That people who have green cards, that is to say they have lawful permanent resident status, which by the way is a status that a person is completely entitled to hold for their whole life if they want to or for some reason they can't naturalize and become a U.S. citizen. That was designed to be a stable, protected status and it is extremely unusual.

for the government to start digging around in a person's past to find reasons to deport a person with a green card. That, by the way, was one of the unique things that Marco Rubio declared in the Khalil case that he had revoked his green card status. I'm unaware of any provision in law that allows the Secretary of State to simply revoke a person's green card status.

That person is entitled to a hearing, as I think we will see. And at that hearing, the government is going to have to explain what its reasons were for trying to deport this person. And, you know, we'll see what the evidence is.

Well, first of all, I think it's useful to go back and ask why this country has birthright citizenship in the first place. Because I think many people think that is kind of odd. U.S. citizenship is such an incredibly valuable commodity. Why do we just give it to people based on the accident of having been born here? That's a fair question. But the answer is important.

Thank you. It's good to be here.

It was created in the aftermath of the Civil War, primarily to redress a situation in which African-Americans, particularly slaves and even freed slaves and even people who had not been enslaved at all, were deemed by the Supreme Court not to be citizens.

And the country realized that having a large cohort of people who were excluded from the courts and from the right to vote and all the aspects of citizenship was a very dangerous thing. And it was integral to slavery, but it was also a bad thing in general.

we created an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees that anyone who's born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, which actually means only excluding a very small category of diplomats and Native American Indians, perhaps, and people on warships or invading armies, those people all get citizenship. So we opted for a generous conception of citizenship.

And I think that has stood us well. The Supreme Court upheld it in the late 19th century. It's been reaffirmed ever since then in many court opinions. And yet it keeps coming under challenge for varieties of reasons in particular historical periods. But if we remember why we created it in the first place, then I think that helps us to understand what's so dangerous about trying to remove it.

Yes, it's new, again, in the extent of it, in the severity of it, in what often seems to be the arbitrariness of it. But the government has enormous power at the border, at the airports, you know, when a person comes to a port of entry. There's basically no place, except maybe on the battlefield during a war, where the government has such unfettered power, such discretionary authority.

And the courts have recognized that because much of immigration enforcement is tied up with national security and foreign policy and things like that, where the government is given a free hand. But we've rarely, if ever, seen the government intervene use that free hand in the way that it's happening now.

I mean, there were aspects of this in the post 9-11 period where there was a ramp up of interrogations and questions and, you know, so forth. So, again, it's not totally unprecedented. And the power that's being used goes far back into U.S. history cases that were decided in the 19th century.

And as I said, even precedents from the 18th century have all built this regime, which many of us worried was dangerous precisely because of the great power that it gives to government. And we'd say in the hands of an irresponsible government or a reckless government, this could cause real harm. And I fear that that's what we're seeing now.

On the other hand, when we've seen episodes like this in the past, they do tend to pass. One of the main ones, the famous ones, was called the Palmer Raids in 1919 after the First World War. And it was similarly very aggressive, very brutal. Actually, one of the lead deportation agents at that time was J. Edgar Hoover, who ultimately created the FBI out of that incident.

And there was tremendous fear in the country. There were anarchists. There were bombs going off in Washington, D.C. And many people were deported. But ultimately, it passed. And then a different kind of regime took effect, ultimately in the Roosevelt administration that had a very different attitude towards about how we calibrate these things.

And I personally think that this history of this country as basically a welcoming country for non-citizens and immigrants is extremely powerful. And little by little, as examples like the one I described about the person who seems to have been wrongly sent to the prison in El Salvador come out, there is a conscience of the American people that's going to find this quite revolting.

Yeah, it's extremely difficult. And this is why we created the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project, because the government for many years has used deportation as a kind of black hole where mistakes could be buried and the government could then say, sorry, there's nothing we can do. This is a big problem, and we're seeing it now in the Salvadoran prison example and a very harsh example of that.

And if a person is deported, they can be barred from the United States for many, many years or for life.

It's extremely difficult to do that. In some cases, it has been possible, but we have had to spend years years sometimes litigating just to bring back one person who then faced detention when he was brought back to this country in any case and ultimately had to have hearings, which took time and resources. The system is set up in such a way that once a person is deported,

It's extremely difficult to question that or challenge it. And that's why judges try to prevent what they think may be wrongful deportations before they happen. That's what all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions are about. The courts are saying we need to preserve jurisdiction.

There's an entity called the Board of Immigration Appeals that for many years took the position that once a person has been deported, they said this in one major case, they have passed beyond our aid. Now, for a human rights lawyer, that's a very difficult proposition to accept.

Yes, this has been a longstanding problem. And the solution had been thought to appoint more immigration judges, particularly at the border, to have more expeditious asylum hearings. which would comply with basic due process norms. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Congress has not acted for a very long time. So the system has been chronically underfunded for decades.

I believe the current backlog in the appellate side of the immigration system combined with the trial side is somewhere between two and three million cases at this time. And cases are being docketed out into the future for years. Nobody thinks this is a good idea. Nobody thinks this is a good system. The question is what do you do about it?

And what you could have done about it and still could do about it is appoint more judges in order to handle the backlog or maybe take a position that after a certain number of years – It's just not fair to continue with a person in proceedings unless it's an extremely serious case. That would be another method of dealing with it. But we do have a problem.

I don't think the solution is to eliminate everybody's due process rights and simply deport them, however.

It's enormously expensive. It's enormously time-consuming. And I think... Most importantly, it is taking resources away from other law enforcement initiatives that, at least to my mind, are much, much more compelling and important. I mean, if you have a person who is an actual terrorist or who has actual terrorist connections, that's one thing.

But if you're going after people because of things they have written or things they have said while pursuing a PhD in education at Tufts University and using the same level of resources for that, that strikes me as much more problematic. This has been a problem for deportation from the beginning, and the resources that would be needed to –

do the kinds of deportations that candidate Trump had talked about, there's no way that we could marshal that level of funding to do that kind of a job. So we have to begin to be a little realistic about what it is we're talking about here. And many countries have recognized this.

And this is why many countries have had sort of waves of legalization programs that say to people, well, look, you've been here for 10 years now. Come into the system. If you don't have a criminal record, if you basically lived a good life, and paid your taxes, you know, we can give you some sort of pathway to some sort of stable and legal status, probably even citizenship over the long haul.

I think my immediate reaction was what I hope would be anyone's immediate reaction. Which was horror. This is a very, very extreme example of government power. Masked agents, which are extremely unusual in this country. Arresting somebody suddenly without permission.

But actually, what this administration is doing is the opposite. It's marginalizing people. It's actually seeking to get their tax records in order to facilitate deportation, which makes people not want to pay their taxes and participate in society. during the time that they're here. So it strikes me that a lot of this is amazingly counterproductive.

Probably. It's hard to know. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. But international law, first of all, prohibits the removal of a person to a place where they would be persecuted or tortured. And it looks to me as if the conditions in that facility in general could rise to that level. And I think other human rights lawyers have begun to make those kinds of assessments that

Secondly, there are basic norms of fairness and process that people are entitled to because the fundamental principle of human rights law is not, by the way, to say the government does not have the power to control its borders. Human rights law recognizes a world of nation states.

But to say that when that power is exercised, it has to respect the dignity of the person who is the object of that exercise of massive power is And people are entitled to make their case and to be heard. And that's a pretty minimal thing. I mean to say we're deporting you because you're a gang member and you say actually you got the wrong guy. I'm not a gang member.

And if the next place you find yourself is in a massive high security facility in El Salvador – That is not legal under international law. Now that, of course, raises the question of whether the United States considers itself bound by international human rights law. But even under the U.S. Constitution, or I would say especially under the U.S. Constitution and U.S.

Any apparent warning to what must have been for her a terrifying and probably unknown fate for reasons that she probably had some general understanding of, but no specific charging document, no specific reason. warrant, no reading of charges, no explanation. This is a horrible thing to see.

statutes, a lot of these actions seem extremely problematic, too.

It is extremely unique. The statute was passed in the 1790s. And by the way, it was paired with another law that was called the Alien Friends Act. That was the one that said aliens who were like affiliated with various ideologies that we don't like can be deported. It was the Friends Law that was criticized so much by Jefferson and Madison and ultimately Sunset.

And Jefferson won the election of 1800. And we never heard of that law again because everybody recognized that having a law that would give vast discretionary power to the executive branch. To name its enemies or to simply say we're under attack, therefore round up all the usual suspects was a problem.

So in the three times when the Alien Enemies Act has been used, the War of 1812 and during the Second World War and immediately after the Second World War in particular, it has been during a time of actual conflict, armed conflict. This extension to the actions of cartels or various other entities is extremely problematic.

Now, the courts do give the executive branch a lot of leeway to make these kind of judgment calls about dangers to the peace and security of the country. But where the courts, I think, will intervene is at the very least to say that people are entitled to due process.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you.

And one would think that tactics like this would be limited to the most extreme cases, you know, SWAT teams or hostage situations. But to see a graduate student in Somerville, Massachusetts, pulled off the street, it had to be terrifying. And that was my first reaction. I can tell you about my second, third, and fourth reaction as we go forward, because I had a lot of different reactions.

Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you for watching. Thank you.

Well, this is a kind of unknown situation. What we're going to have to see is the relationship between the government's power to regulate the status of non-citizens who are in this country, especially non-citizens who are here temporarily, although temporarily could mean many years, as it did in her case.

versus the general protections of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and general protections of due process of law, and general procedural protections in our government. And those things are going to be tested in her case, among many others. The government does have enormous power over students who are coming here to study.

But the government is also restrained by the Constitution. And we haven't seen this particular provision used very often. In fact, it's quite rare. And so the courts are going to have to sort out how to calibrate that balance. My own feeling is that unless they can come up with some activities that she actually engaged in that were against the law...

They may have a hard time deporting her simply for speech or for publishing an op-ed.

It is both yes and no. And the provision at issue here, you know, goes back quite a long way and gives specific authority to the Secretary of State with a very vague set of standards. They call it the alien, but let's say the non-citizens. Activities or actions or speech in the United States would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences.

And then there's an even higher standard if they're trying to deport somebody for... things that would be protected under the Constitution if done by a U.S. citizen. So it hasn't been invoked much precisely because the courts have never really clarified the exact relationship here.

But to the extent that there is precedent for this, I think the precedent is rather strong that the First Amendment does not use the word citizen. First Amendment says Congress shall make no law. And courts have recognized that and have recognized that due process also applies to any person.

It is something by design, and it's not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for quite some time now in this country where people have been moved to these detention centers in Louisiana and elsewhere. And originally, I think it was part of a change in detention of non-citizens who were facing deportation.

There had been a use of local facilities, and there were problems with that, by which I mean local jails and state-run facilities. There were all sorts of questions about conditions. So there was a move to try to create more federal detention facilities.

But when one asks why was this particular one situated in a fairly remote area – I believe it's at least a couple hours, maybe more, from New Orleans, as I recall – lawyers have routinely noted two things. One, it makes it incredibly difficult to actually be in touch to visit with a client, which is important if you want to represent somebody.

It's very helpful if you can sit in a room with them and look into their eyes, get to know them as a client, have long interviews with them. And second, that particular part of the country and the particular judges in that part of the country tend to be rather supportive of the government and rather unfriendly to lawyers for non-citizens.

So it has a reputation as being a difficult place if a person is moved there because so-called habeas corpus petitions have to be filed in the place where the person is actually held. This actually was an issue in Mr. Khalil's case, too, about whether you could bring him back to the place where he has his witnesses and his lawyers and where the alleged activities took place.

So there's often a struggle about that. But this is not a new government tactic. However, like many of the tactics that we're witnessing now, it's being used in extremely expeditious ways and often apparently with the intent of avoiding a judge's order not to do it.

Well, even beyond our clinical programs, what I hear from a range of lawyers throughout the country and from potential clients and from former clients and from family members of potential clients and former clients and from colleagues who are citizens or non-citizens or naturalized citizens or married to non-citizens is a tremendous sense of fear.

And I think that is a big part of what the administration has been aiming to do. So the administration has acted on the shoulders of a system that was long recognized as being extremely discretionary, extremely deferential to government power, potentially extremely arbitrary, potentially extremely harsh. I've been writing about this for more than 25 years. And yet we're seeing

uniquely extreme examples of it done with a kind of cruelty and a kind of, I would say, gratuitous cruelty, arrogant cruelty that has rarely been seen in the history of this country. And the point of that is to send a message, is to scare people. And it is working. I just heard this morning about a person who was apparently

sent to this prison in El Salvador who had been under an order from an immigration judge specifically not to be sent to El Salvador. The government has admitted that it was a mistake. And yet they say, well, but there's nothing we can really do about it because now he's in the custody of El Salvador. It's hard to imagine a more terrifying set of facts than that.

Well, what it tells us is that a lot of the campaign rhetoric about a problem of undocumented immigration was really not true because I think people in the administration knew, as those of us who've studied the history of this knew, that it would be basically impossible to round up and deport 10 to 15 million people without establishing –

a massive and extremely expensive and extremely brutal police state. So that agenda was always problematic as compared with the agenda of shutting down the southern border, which I would argue is also quite problematic. But that seemed to be a little more potentially doable. But what we're actually seeing is something quite different. And It's actually a quite different form of deportation.

It has different justifications and has different goals. And the goals here seem to be political, not really aimed at immigration enforcement or the undocumented. It's aimed at the documented. It's aimed at, as you say, people here who are students, people here with green cards. I would— expect that the next step will be people who have been naturalized citizens.

And in this sense, it also dovetails with the executive order that was designed to try to overturn the 14th Amendment grant of birthright citizenship. So you would see a tremendous expansion of government power over the bodies and the minds and the words and the writings of many, many millions of people. This debate is very old in this country. It goes back to the founding generation.

One of the laws that's being used now by the Trump administration, again, I would argue in ways that will ultimately be challenged if not overruled completely by courts, was something called the Alien Enemies Act. And that came from a time when the government – in that case, it was the John Adams administration – had great fear about French revolutionaries and Irish revolutionaries.

And a couple of laws were passed, these so-called Alien and Sedition Acts. But even at that time – Thomas Jefferson, who opposed this sort of enforcement, said and wrote that the friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment. But the citizen will soon follow or in fact has already followed because they were using the so-called Sedition Act against citizens.

And every time we've seen these episodes, they tend to have a metastatic quality. They expand in dangerous ways because once you let this sort of government power take root, it can be very hard to uproot it. And that, again, is why it's important to note that the First Amendment does not say citizen. The First Amendment is both a grant of rights to people to speak –

But it's also a restraint on the power of government to suppress speech and to suppress ideas. And so when you see these attempts to shut people up by intimidating them and by terrifying them, that does raise very fundamental questions that this country has had to deal with in recurring ways over many generations. And now we're going to have to fight those battles again.

It's absolutely a strategy. The administration has been quite clear about it. They've said it repeatedly. Again, they're not the first administration to think of this. are quite profound right now. And I mean, I get calls from people all the time asking if they should leave the country. Personally, I don't think we're at a moment where I'm advising people to leave the country.