Deporting Piers Morgan: Sedition Or Lack Of Good Moral Character Would Do It
Print Friendly and PDF

There has been much recently about Piers Morgan, an alien apparently legally present in the United States. It is uncertain as to which status he entered the United States, as either an immigrant or a non-immigrant with employment authorization.

His recent and continuing assault on the Second Amendment has brought his otherwise low rated interview show that replaced Larry King to the attention of the public and a group that has been sitting out the immigration battle until now as well as the battle against Black Run America; gun nuts. And that, by the way, is not a pejorative. This blogger counts as one, in fact this blogger is also a firearms instructor. Never mind that Morgan claims to support the Second Amendment, but thinks it is restricted to owning a pistol. Apparently rifles of any sort are not what our Founding Fathers were thinking about when they resisted another British assault on the right to keep and bear arms.

Many have since decided to seek the deportation of Morgan, and with good reason. Morgan's assault on our rights, leading the attack on the Second Amendment, is not only an affront to our Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in our fight for independence and self-determination, two states that only an armed people can claim. Liberty is seldom given and only an armed people can obtain or retain national independence and individual liberty.

The communists who now occupy the Executive have, of course, rejected the petition posted on the White House website that calls for Morgan's deportation.

The Daily Telegraph January 10, 2013

Piers Morgan Deportation Calls Dismissed By US

Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, has become a vociferous opponent of America's gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre.

Since arguing for tighter gun control, gun enthusiasts launched the petition in December 21 accusing him of being "engaged in a hostile attack" against the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms.

US citizens are able to file petitions on the White House website. If they collect at least 25,000 signatures within 30 days the White House is obliged to issue a response.

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, has now commented on the petition, saying that Morgan would not be deported.

Of course, sedition and a failure to adhere to the basic principles of nation, as well as a failure to support and defend the Constitution of the United States should disqualify any alien from entering or remaining in the United States. In fact previously that authority was exercised by the United States when confronted with aliens who were inimical to the Constitution.

The Palmer Raids and the deportation of numerous communists and their detritus often referred to as radicals, anarchists and socialists, showed the principle that immigrants should be required to adhere to the Constitution and the rights given to man by our Creator. Those, like the communists deported in the aftermath of the Palmer Raids, who are contemptuous or hostile to our rights, have no place here.

Interestingly enough, the neo-cons, not usually known for supporting gun rights, have pointed out the fact that the Obama Regime will not deport the illegal alien Morgan, just as it will not deport another member of the media, Jose Antonio Vargas, also an illegal alien.

The Daily Caller December 23, 2012 by Patrick Howley

Wall Street Journal Columnist Explains On Twitter How To Deport Piers Morgan

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto Saturday night joined in the chorus of American voices suggesting that British-born CNN host Piers Morgan could legally be deported from this country for his televised attacks on the Second Amendment, and pointed out the legal precedent that leaves Morgan vulnerable to deportation...

“Your opinion is protected, your presence in the U.S. is not. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972),” Taranto replied to Morgan.

Taranto linked to transcripts from a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to allow a foreign journalist into the United States did not violate the First Amendment. The case resulted from Nixon administration attorney general Richard Kleindienst’s refusal to grant a temporary non-immigrant visa to Marxist Belgian journalist Ernest Mandel.

The irony is that the old enemy of immigration law enforcement, the execrable James Tarantoad is suddenly El Patrullero. But we take what we can get from the neo-cons. Take what you can get and run with it until it drops in its tracks.

The Toad is correct though. The First Amendment does not extend to enemy aliens.

Held: In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien.

However, such plenary power to exclude aliens is also matched by similar powers to remove aliens. In the case of Morgan he has unfortunately already been admitted to the United States and is ostensibly legally present, though it will be shown that is not correct.

Of course, the first issue has Morgan been lawfully issued a visa, either immigrant or non-immigrant. He is either here as a legal permanent resident or in a non-immigrant working visa, perhaps the O-1B category for such types as movie and television types, and has he consequently been legally admitted to the United States.

This brings us to his visa application and the issue of good moral character. All aliens entering the United States must meet the standard of good moral character. From the Treason Bar itself:

What is “good moral character”?

Good moral character is defined in INA § 101(f) which provides a list of bars to good moral character. These bars are either permanent in nature or apply only if they occurred during the period during which the applicant is required to have maintained good moral character.

Permanent Bars: Convicted of murder at any time, Convicted of an “aggravated felony” (defined in INA § 101(a)(43)) on or after 11/29/1990, Nazi persecution, participation in genocide or acts of torture at any time, habitually drunk, convicted of two or more gambling offenses, obtained income primarily from illegal gambling, two or more convictions of any type for which the aggregate sentence was 5 years or more, incarcerated for 180 days or more, given false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit, prostitution, polygamy, alien smuggling, drug trafficking, and crimes involving moral turpitude.

But more importantly:

The definition of good moral character also includes a catch-all provision which states “the fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character.” INA § 101(f). In other words, the adjudicating immigration officer or the immigration judge can consider any factor in determining whether the person has good moral character. These are discretionary factors. They do not bar good moral character, but they can when considered together with any positive factors.
Some of these discretionary factors are listed below. Discretionary Factors: extra-marital affairs, willful failure to support dependents, being on probation or parole, receipt of public benefits via fraud, failure to file taxes, tax fraud, failure to register for the selective service, unlawful voting, and false claim to U.S. citizenship.

Which brings us back to Morgan. Before his failing stint with CNN, he was editor of the Daily Mirror and the News Of The World, both hack of a Fleet Street rags, which was recently involved in a scandal where it was hacking into cellular telephones of persons it was reporting stories on, which is of course a serious crime both in the UK and in the United States. Morgan as editor knew of and accessed hacked voice mails.

Listen to Morgan's testimony on the issue. He is asked directly if he ever listened to hacked voice mails. His response is that he "did not believe so." Translated it means "Yes, I did, but I am lying to save my skin without directly denying the allegation." Such responses by criminals to direct questions are quite common. Note that he does not have a direct unequivocal denial that identifies a person telling the truth, but uses a modification based on his "belief," a common behavior pattern used by those who are lying.

This in addition Morgan admits he heard a voice mail obtained from Paul McCartney but states that he cannot divulge when and where he heard it. Which is an open admission that he participated in an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Something that negates good moral character.

Former employees such as James Hipwell testified that hacking was widespread under Morgan's editorship.

Which tells us that Morgan did not have the good moral character to enter the United States as either an immigrant or non-immigrant. Therefore his visa was or is invalid and fraudulently obtained. Consequently he is unlawfully present in the United States and should be deported, just as Jose Antonio Vargas should be deported.

But that ain't happening anytime soon under the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty.

Print Friendly and PDF