I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point, or don't know what due process is, but whether or not he had questionable affiliations isn't even the central concern. The suspension of due process is. Any person on our soil is entitled to due process BEFORE getting black bagged and disappeared/deported. Heard of innocent til proven guilty?

from your own source

>However, the government will have to prove to the immigration judge that Khalil willfully failed to disclose that information, and whether that disclosure would have impacted his eligibility for permanent residency.

There is a reason we have a court system, and to sort out these issues BEFORE we take violent action against people here legally is entirely the point.

The fascists are using a law from hundreds of years ago that's only been invoked thrice, all while at war, and the last time to wrongfully put the japanese in internment camps, to circumvent due process - that is the forrest you seem to be willingly missing for the trees.

> black bagged and disappeared/deported

This is just terrible, ridiculous hyperbole. Disagree with his methods if you wish (and I do, myself), but an orange Pinochet, Trump is absolutely not. Your framing is incredibly one-sided... "the fascists" (you're gonna have to define that word every time you use it since it's literally the most useless word in any rational discussion), "hundreds of years ago" (um, nope? See below), "last used to put japanese in internment camps" (Nope, that's simply your media's false representation of the facts, again- see below)

The legal standard for material misrepresentation is "Would a reasonable immigration officer have acted differently if the information had been disclosed?"

Given that the 3+ organizations he failed to disclose, almost definitely WOULD have caused an officer to act differently were they disclosed as was appropriate, the misrepresentation is thus material. (Arguably. Perhaps not definitively.)

So the bar of proving willful failure is lower on this one, and the courts usually then infer from circumstantial evidence: 1) Was the form crystal clear in what needed to be disclosed? (Presumably, it is.) 2) Were the omissions selective and beneficial to the applicant? (Looks like it.) 3) Was there a repeated pattern across multiple institutions and roles, all tied to politically sensitive affiliations? (The DOJ alleges this.)

In short, the DOJ has a valid case, and your claim of "suspension of due process" is simply false. If due process were suspended, you’d expect to see: 1) No hearing, 2) Secret evidence, 3) No legal representation, 4) Expedited removal without judicial review. None of that is happening. He’s going before an immigration judge, has access to counsel, and can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and federal circuit courts if necessary. That's literally what is making the news.

Here are the relevant statutes:

INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)]

    "Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible."

INA § 237(a)(1)(A) – [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A)]

    "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable."

Relevant case law:

Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1960; A.G. 1961) - Clarified that even omissions can be material if they had the potential to affect the outcome of the immigration process.

Hassan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2010) - The court upheld removal where the applicant failed to disclose his membership in a student organization that had links to a banned group, despite his argument that the omission was minor or irrelevant.

Ajdin v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, 437 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2006) - The Second Circuit held that willful omission of material facts—even without direct intent to deceive—is enough if the applicant understood the question and failed to respond accurately.

Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) - Found that even omissions not obviously harmful to national security can be deemed material if they relate to affiliations or associations that could affect admissibility.

Other considerations:

UNRWA is not a designated terrorist organization, but allegations that parts of its workforce have been sympathetic to Hamas or antisemitism (especially after October 7) may be enough for DHS to claim that disclosing such a link would’ve raised red flags in background checks.

CUAD? That one’s iffier—political expression is generally protected, but immigration law isn’t shy about excluding individuals affiliated with subversive groups or with a “propensity” for inciting unrest. If the gov can tie CUAD directly to Hamas sympathies or disruptions, it gets dicey.

I wonder why you didn't quote the text here lol. Did you think we wouldn't click through and read it ourselves?

Listen man, whatever causes you to so willingly believe everything that known grifters and con artists are selling you is the same issue that has you convinced that everyone in your life is part of a vast and deep conspiracy to make you look stupid. You view everyone as being incapable of comprehending, in awe of your problem solving skills and media literacy, and well, you're right for very wrong reasons.

Right, right. As if your framing is completely objective. Give me a fucking break.

I refer you to this answer I gave the sibling comment because your framing of facts is just as incredibly biased as his was.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43601426

> whatever causes you to so willingly believe everything that known grifters and con artists are selling you

I literally question everything and base my opinion on facts. I think for example that regardless of basis, the optics on this one are bad. What do you do? Refer to whatever Daily Kos and Occupy Democrats says is the truest depiction of facts? LOL

> You view everyone as being incapable of comprehending

You literally are saying this in a conversation where I've tried to use evidence-based reasoning, citing what I can, and you literally lead with ad hominem, ridiculous hyperbole and slander. That's fucking rich. You must constantly confuse "looks like the authorities might be right on this one" with "bootlicking". Which is just intellectually lazy. Sorry I pissed facts into your "fascist" Cheerios.