23 December 2012 - 5:32pm | posted by | 5 comments

GUNS: 26,000 angry Americans support petition to deport Piers Morgan

PIERS: Called for gun curbsPIERS: Called for gun curbs

More than 26,000 people have signed a petition on a White House website calling for the deportation of CNN host British-born Piers Morgan .

Morgan, ex-editor of the Daily Mirror, has been outspoken on his show, calling for more gun control in the US, following the Newtown massacre .

The petition, which has been submitted on a White House website, had received 26,209 signatures at midnight UK time today- well over the 25,000 figure which a petition must reach to oblige the White House to address it.

The petition states, "British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens."

The petition was launched by writer and blogger Kurt Nimmo.

Morgan has made several forceful attacks on pro-gun advocates following the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut..

"There are nearly 12,000 murders a year from guns in this country," said Piers on one CNN broadcast in which he confronted gun advocates .

"When are you guys going to focus on that, and stop telling me the answer is more guns? It is not the answer! How many more kids have to die, before you guys say, 'we want less guns, not more?'"

As for the petition, Morgan responded acidly , by tweeting:

"Ironic U.S. gun rights campaign to deport me for 'attacking 2nd Amendment rights' - is my opinion not protected under 1st Amendment rights?"

The first amendment protects freedom of speech.

On Twitter the battle went on with Lord Sugar attacking Morgan - and Louise Mensch supporting him.

Is it possible to deport a non-citizen from the US for something they've said? See the Mark Daniels comment below.

Comments

23 Dec 2012 - 19:28
paish11362's picture

Oh' bugger!!! We don't want him back. We were hoping you would keep him.

4
0
23 Dec 2012 - 19:33
MARKLDANIELS

RE: Piers Morgan Deportation Petition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-m...

People occasionally ask me what the U.S. government may do with respect to the speech of noncitizens. (See also this post by Megan McArdle, guestblogging at InstaPundit, which raises the same issue.) Here's a summary of current First Amendment law on the subject. Note that I report here on what is the law (and what the uncertainties in the law are), rather than opining on what it should be.

1. "Noncitizens," not "immigrants." First, a simple but often-forgotten note: The question here is not about the speech of immigrants; it's about the speech of noncitizens. The millions of immigrants who are citizens (for instance, me) are treated exactly the same way for First Amendment purposes as any other citizens. More broadly, we are legally like native-born U.S. citizens in virtually all respects.

There are a few exceptions: We can't be President or Vice-President; if we lied on our naturalization applications, we could be stripped of our citizenship (this is how some former Nazis ended up being stripped of citizenship); and I suspect that in practice we may arouse more scrutiny during security checks, especially if our country of former citizenship is an enemy of the U.S., or harbors many enemies of the U.S. But those are narrow exceptions, and the rule is that immigrant citizens have the same rights, including the same free speech rights, as native-born citizens.

2. Criminal punishment and traditional civil liability: The government may not criminally punish noncitizens — or presumably impose civil liability on them — based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen. See Bridges v. Wixon (1945).

3. Entry: The government may bar noncitizens from entering the United States because of what they've said or are likely to say, even if the speech would have been constitutionally protected if said by a citizen. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972).

4. Deportation for speech alone: The rule is unclear. The leading case, Harisiades v. Shaugnessy (1952), which upheld Harisiades' deportation for being a Communist, speaks about nearly unlimited Congressional power over deportation, but that language is in the section holding that the deportation of Harisiades didn't violate the Due Process Clause. The Court's conclusion that the deportation of Harisiades didn't violate the Free Speech Clause (Harisiades had argued that the deportation violated both clauses) rested on the conclusion that active membership in the Communist Party was substantively unprotected by the First Amendment — both for citizens and noncitizens. (This view that the First Amendment doesn't protect Communist Party membership was the law at the time,)

Lower court cases are likewise mixed. For the view that Harisiades doesn't generally let the government act based on otherwise protected speech by aliens, see American-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1995), reversed on other grounds, 525 U.S. 471 (1999); Parcham v. INS, 769 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir. 1985). For the view that Harisiades gives Congress nearly unlimited immigration power over aliens, see Price v. INS, 941 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1991).

5. Deportation for technical immigration law violation, motivated by the noncitizen's speech: The Court has, however, squarely held that if the government tries to deport someone who has violated immigration law — for instance, by overstaying his visa, or working without authorization — the person may not challenge the deportation on the grounds that he was selectively prosecuted based on his otherwise protected speech. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm. (1999). Outside the immigration context, such selective prosecution claims may generally be made (though they aren't easy to make), and, if they're successful, they can lead courts to throw out the case against the speaker. See Wayte v. United States (1985).

6. Citizenship: It's likewise unclear whether Congress can deny noncitizens citizenship based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen. For a lower court's argument in favor of such power, see Price: “While a resident alien may not participate in the process of governing the country, naturalized citizens may. Naturalization decisions, therefore, deserve at least as much judicial deference as do decisions about initial admission.”

7. Noncitizens may also have statutory rights. I've spoken here just of constitutional rights, which noncitizens have no matter what Congress might do. Noncitizens, and especially permanent residents, also have statutory rights to remain in the country unless they've done (or there's sufficient reason to think they've done) certain bad things — at least until Congress revises the statutes to broaden the grounds for deportation (which it may even do retroactively, since the Ex Post Facto Clause only bars retroactive criminal punishment, and deportation is not treated as criminal punishment).

So if the Executive Branch decides to deport someone, it has to have statutorily authorized grounds, and it has to provide hearings at which an immigration judge decides whether the conditions for deportation are met. (These hearings are required both by federal statute, and, at least as to permanent residents, by the Due Process Clause, on the theory that deprivation of a permanent resident's rights to live here is tantamount to a deprivation of liberty or property.) This last paragraph is just a sketch of the statutory landscape; I am not an expert in immigration law, and can thus speak in detail and with some confidence only about the specifically First Amendment issues. ~ Eugene Volokh http://www.volokh.com/posts/1123520953.shtml

1
0
24 Dec 2012 - 20:28
richb29179's picture

As a snowbird resident I find this topic quite interesting,as a Canadian citizen I do not think we can or are in a position to compare laws or rights between countries,in saying that ,the topic here is based on human rights,the right to live in a safe enviroment.How can this be achieved with more weapons regardless of type?This idea that safety and security can be achieved by this "Last Man Standing" mindset .How do expect to stop fire with fire?As a civilized society do we not have to give up some of our liberty's so our fellow man and especially children can live in a safe and happy enviroment?It seems to me that everyone is concerned only with themselves and so little about others. Yes the message from CNN has had some interesting topics arise, tough guestions to answer to,but let us not be fooled by the gun lobbyists making their statments of defense based on profit for themselves.There is a time and place for weapons ,but how can we ever associate guns with inocent children has no place in any constitution. Rick B

1
0
25 Dec 2012 - 02:13
jcwel74608's picture

This is what "arms" looked like when the second amendment was written. It takes nearly a minute to load with a single shot. If the CT shooter had used one of these, he might have been able to murder one child before a teacher hit him over the head with a chair while he was trying to reload. The Founding Fathers had no knowledge of semi-automatic rifles, high-capacity ammo clips, plastic explosives, or atomic bombs. If they had, I'm certain they would have included exceptions as to what private citizens could posses. Even now, there are few who would argue that the right to bear arms includes *all* arms. So if we can ban nerve gas and land mines, why not other things? A line must be drawn somewhere. I say we draw it a little closer to the side that protects my personal safety from maniacs and murderers, and a little farther from the side that protects someone's right to own more firepower than an entire army regiment had in 1787.

(below this was a picture of a flint-lock type gun as used in 1787 )

0
0
24 Dec 2012 - 21:35
cvoge15709's picture

Not surprising. Gun nuts tend to be both rabidly conservative and blindly religious and so become hysterical when any of their idiotic beliefs are questioned. They hate anyone disagreeing with them since their pathetic house of cards is hard enough to keep up as it is.

2
0

Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Latest Projects from the Profile Hub

Sports Bra Award Win

19/12/2014
Our super-star lingerie client, Wacoal Eveden, is...

Malibu - creating the perfect brand moment to enhance engagement

17/12/2014
The challenge How do you change customers’ perception of...

Driving Sales From Social During Black Friday

16/12/2014
The craze of Black Friday crossed the pond and hit the UK...

BREACH: LETS JACK

16/12/2014
‘Jack’ – the infectious track by British producer Breach...

Launching the Seasonal Cities App

15/12/2014
In Q3 2014 Rooster was tasked with launching the new travel...