The First Amendment protects our right to peacefully protest the government. After I protested ICE fascists for their violation of due process rights, a number of Trump supporters sent me angry, curse laden emails and DMs, telling me they “hope I get deported by ICE” and to “learn the f*cking law.”
I decided to engage one such person, Matthew, not because I expected him to change his mind—but because of something I call Collateral Education. He may refuse to accept facts, but the thousands of people reading this may find value. Below is a near verbatim rendering of that conversation, slightly edited for clarity. Ultimately, Matthew was blinded by propaganda, hate, and insults. But all was not lost, as I still learned an important lesson that I wish to convey to you. Let’s Address This.
I’ve broken our conversation down into three main parts. Part 1 introduces us to Matthew, Part 2 finally gets him to name his specific issue, and Part 3 reminds him that google scholarship is not a substitute for actual education and knowledge.
Part 1: Opening The Convo With Hateful Insults
Matthew: After looking at some of your statuses on your Facebook page, I just gotta ask why are you so fucking stupid?
Qasim: Honestly Matthew -- what is the point of this message? Do you think this is the way to get your point across? Obviously not. So the only real reason you’d send this message is to rage bait me (which is petty and useless). So my question to you is, why do you feel the need to rage bait someone you disagree with, rather than asking a good faith question? Why do you feel better sending a rage bait DM to a stranger, rather than trying to understand a different point of view?
Matthew: Because overall, you don’t have the Chicagoland people best interest at heart you shouldn’t even be a human rights lawyer as far as I’m concerned, you have an agenda and the people of Chicago and the American people are not part of it from everything I’ve seen. So when you get on Facebook and you tell your people that taking Tylenol has 0% effect on a pregnant woman you don’t have no data to back that up however, there’s a reason why doctors still pregnant women not to just randomly take any drug whether that be Tylenol or any other type of medicine… so to wrap this up politely if you don’t have children and you are not a part of the autism community and you’re not doing anything to help or be proactive in that community then your silence is much needed. Also are there double standards in America yes, there are mostly between men and women not so much against race not in 2025 so your post about Lakin Riley is definitely uncalled for because if the Democrats didn’t let all those people in here she’d still be alive same way with that girl in Charlotte, North Carolina.
SIDE BAR: Matthew was all over the place, but at least he stopped random insults and cited specific issues. Though, I remained concerned that he’s taking medical advice from Trump.
Qasim: Okay, now you’re presenting actual areas of disagreement without name calling. See how much more effective that is in getting your point across?
Matthew: Yeah, says dude that calls people fascist because they disagree oh and nazi y’all’s favorite
Qasim: I’ve never called someone a fascist or nazi because they “disagree.” I call someone a fascist or nazi because they engage in fascist and nazi behavior like denying people due process of law, as guaranteed by our Constitution. Do you not support our Constitutional guarantee of due process of law for all people?
Matthew: Then you don’t know the constitution because even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process. I mean all you gotta do is look at article 2. There’s three ways to deport people out of this country. What gets the majority of them is the alien act.. that literally gives them no due process basically gives them the right to say if you cross the border illegally, your automatically sent back to your country of origin. However, the specific due process rights and procedures can differ based on an immigrant’s legal status and how they entered the country.
Part 2: Holding Him To A Specific Claim
After Matthew's initial tirade and rant with nonsensical right wing propaganda, I finally got him to point the specific issue he had with my advocacy for due process of law for all people in this country regardless of status. Throughout the remaining discussion he attempted to distract from his initial point with random claims about Obama, the Democrats, Open Borders, even attacking me as a lawyer and as a children’s book author. So, I instead forced him to stay on this first point. Let this be a lesson—do not let propagandists advance the debate until they answer their initial claim. Their goal is to get you to run around in circles. Hold them accountable to answer one point before moving on. And that’s exactly what I did. Let’s return to the discussion.
Qasim: Wait slow down, Matthew. You just claimed, “even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.” This is demonstrably false. Here are my receipts:
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says clearly that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” Note that this says PERSON, not citizen, and over the years the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Due Process Clause applies to all people in the United States.
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. (Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100–01 (1903))
In 1953, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. ( Jump to essay-2Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953).
No Supreme Court has ever overturned these rulings because they are grounded in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The only thing Article 2 says about immigrants is to clarify that only a U.S. born citizen can be President.
The “Alien Act” is not in the Constitution, and your interpretation is one specifically rejected by the Courts.
That’s my evidence. Now, show me your evidence to support your claim that only U.S. citizens get due process. Thanks.
Matthew: How do you think Obama deported all those people back when he was president without every single one of them getting a trial that’s because they didn’t and legally he did not have to give it to them… sometimes you liberals get confused because you guys want to extend everything to everybody but that’s not how it works if you have a visa or student visa and you are permanent here in the US for a reason such as going to school or trying to become a legal citizen and you get into some trouble or trouble find you then yes you are correct. We just can’t kick you out because you ran a stop sign however you can’t flood our southern border and expect us to welcome you literally by the thousands.
Side Bar: Trump supporters seem to forget that immigration activists referred to Obama as the “Deporter in Chief” because they were unhappy with his immigration policies. The commitment to justice must transcends party, a concept most MAGAs seem to not grasp.
Qasim: Matthew - You seem to think I’m going to defend Obama’s immigration strategy. Sorry to disappoint you. I am not. But I need you to answer the question. You claimed, “even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.” I gave you five irrefutable pieces of evidence demonstrating why your claim is false. You can either try to refute my evidence, or you can concede that you were wrong. There’s no harm in accepting you were wrong. Doesn’t make you a bad person to be wrong. We’re all human. But if facts matter to you, and I think they do, you need to either offer evidence to validate your point or accept that you were wrong on this one. Does that sound fair?
Matthew: It’s right there in the first text I sent you above the long text
Qasim: I see no evidence or reference. I see your opinion, which is not based in fact. I provided you actual evidence citing the U.S. Constitution and multiple Supreme Court rulings. You’ve cited zero evidence. Come on Matthew, don’t let me down. You can easily say you were wrong and you have my assurance that I have zero reason to gloat or mock. I think you’ve seen from this exchange that’s not how I operate. But you cannot expect me to simply take your personal opinion as “evidence.”
Matthew: I don’t need you to defend anything. I just need you to acknowledge that Obama did do what you all think is the unheard of because you seem shocked that this administration is currently doing it when in reality it’s happened before in much larger numbers and nothing was said. However, the specific due process rights and procedures can differ based on an immigrant’s legal status and how they entered the country. This is from google
Qasim: Again, I’m not here to defend Obama, as I already said. Also, on one hand you’re saying “Obama did it before in much larger numbers” while simultaneously saying that “Democrats had open borders.” Which is it? Finally, your claim from google that “the specific due process rights and procedures can differ based on an immigrant’s legal status and how they entered the country” is not evidence. Please do not confuse your google scholarship with my law degree. I cited Supreme Court rulings and the U.S. Constitution. You’re citing a google search. Do you see the problem here?
Matthew: That’s my point Aladdin. the Democrats didn’t have open borders during his presidency so all that flooded into the country under the Obama administration was quickly redirected out all you gotta do is check the numbers just saying don’t call one administration fascist and ignore the other one, especially when the other one is your own party
Side Bar: It became painfully clear that Matthew would not let facts interfere with his pre-set conclusion. So, while he resorted to racist insults, I continued to hammer home the point that he had provided zero evidence to substantiate his false claim about due process.
Qasim: Aladdin? So now we’re doubling down on overt racism? And you still provided zero actual evidence to validate your claim that “even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.” This is a lie. A completely unfounded lie. The exact opposite is true yet you continue to perpetuate a lie. I’ve given you at least 5 chances to acknowledge that you were wrong, and rather than admit you were wrong, you respond with more racist insults.
Matthew: And cool you have a law degree that doesn’t matter in this case because I can literally plug everything you copied and pasted into this messenger chat into my Google browser and look up the same thing.
Qasim: So you won’t stick to facts. You stick to insults. And you won’t admit you’re wrong, despite evidence. Remind me again what your point was in messaging me?
Part 3: Don’t Confuse Google Scholarship For My Law Degree
At this point Matthew was getting desperate, probably feeling cornered, and in over his head. But admitting he was wrong was beyond his capacity. So he did what most propagandists do. He searched google for “proof” of a conclusion he already decided was true—evidence be damned. Returning to the discussion…
Qasim: So you won’t stick to facts. You stick to insults. And you won’t admit you’re wrong, despite evidence. Remind me again what your point was in messaging me?
Matthew: Because you keep dancing around everything I copied and pasted it the first time the second time I took a screenshot of it and you still won’t admit it right there is proof. [Matthew sent the below screenshot].
Qasim: Congrats, you further proved my point. “Supreme Court jurisprudence indicates that aliens present in the United States have due process protections.” This does not support your argument that “even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.”
The *extent* of due process is different than *whether* they get due process.
The “proof” you’ve provided is further proof that even aliens in the United States get due process of law. That directly contradicts and refutes your claim that “even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.” Now that your own evidence has debunked your claim, will you have some humility and admit you were wrong on this one?
Matthew: I never said the Supreme Court denies everybody due process. I’m just saying they can and you can clearly see you right there in the screenshoted (sic) text… and what’s even more wild is you was just in Naperville so you live in the Chicagoland area and travel in the actual city. You see the damage that has been done by open borders you see what happens when we let bad people into this country that don’t want to prosper yet you continue to lie to yourself and the people of Chicago land and why because you’re trying to make it look like Minneapolis, Minnesota? Yeah no thanks
SIDE BAR: Bringing up “open borders,” Chicago, and Minneapolis was another attempt by Matthew to distract from his initial claim. I didn’t take the bait.
Qasim: You went from saying: “Even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process.”
To now saying: “I never said the Supreme Court denies everybody due process.”
Which one is it, Matthew?
Matthew: Yes, because you Democrats are trying to label everything under one and you can’t do that even in the screenshot a text above you you missed the part where it says “protectors may depend on certain factors”
Qasim: Yes, the *extent*, not *whether* they get due process. This is the problem with google scholarship, Matthew. You don’t seem to understand what words mean. That excerpt is not saying that aliens don’t get due process of law. It is saying that during that due process, certain factors determine what additional protections they may or may not have access to. But that can only be determined with due process. Hence why your claim that “Even the Supreme Court has come out and said due process is for the American people aliens don’t get due process” is an abject lie. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, and I cited numerous Supreme Court cases stating the exact opposite.
For literally the 7th or 8th time now, will you accept that you were wrong on this one, or will you continue to believe a lie?
Matthew: [Matthew sent the below screenshot].
Qasim: Yes Matthew I’m familiar with this case. Not that you actually bothered to read the case, but Thuraissigiam was afforded due process for his asylum claim. He appeared before an immigration officer and an immigration judge, was allowed to make his claim for asylum, and it was rejected on the merits. He received full due process. Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling rebuked that due process. It addressed an entirely different claim of habeas corpus.
Also, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled this means that aliens *have due process* -- otherwise how would it have gotten to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court went on to say that their ruling applies to this particular case, and should not be used as a general rule to apply to aliens seeking entry into the United States. You are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. You have no actual evidence to refute your original claim. This is why google scholarship is not a good idea.
Matthew: It doesn’t really matter how you slice it. They knew that he was going to try and claim asylum under false pretenses, and they shot him down. [Matthew sent the below screenshot].
SIDE BAR: Note that Matthew literally searched “why some immigrants might not get due process.” This is not how evidence works, it’s how propaganda reinforces already misinformed beliefs. It’s how Google and Internet algorithms reinforce false information, and why google scholarship is so dangerous. This strategy doesn’t help inform the uniformed, it helps reinforce misinformation to the ignorant. And that’s precisely the strategy Matthew was using to reinforce his ignorant and wrong views.
Qasim: Again, citing Google AI is not evidence or legal scholarship. It’s disappointing that facts and our Constitution don’t matter to you. I’m okay with you staying in my country but you really need to learn to respect our laws and way of life. If you don’t respect our Constitution and laws, why are you here?
Matthew: No, it’s actually pretty spot on. It’s not Wikipedia it’s not like you can login and just change it. No if I was a lawyer and I had an upcoming case I would not be using Google to try to save my clients ass so you’re correct on that, but in this case you can very easily see where What I’m saying is truthful
Qasim: It’s demonstrably not truthful, Matthew. At all. Again, I cited the actual Constitution and the actual Supreme Court. You cited google AI. Your argument is basically someone who argues, “Did you know that metal rusts when exposed to oxygen? If that’s what oxygen can do to hard metal, imagine what damage Oxygen does to your soft lungs? Stop breathing Oxygen.” If you only have a little bit of knowledge, that sounds like a compelling argument.
Stop buying Google AI nonsense. It’s not doing you any favors.
Side Bar: Matthew again tried to distract from his original claim. I again refused the bait.
Matthew: And see I don’t need to site any pacific because it actually happened. It’s real and this isn’t the seventh grade.
Qasim: I’m not even sure what you’re arguing anymore. But anyway, it’s clear facts aren’t your thing. Also it’s “cite” not “site” and I don’t know what “pacific” means in the sentence you wrote. But glad this isn’t the seventh grade. Good luck to you.
Matthew: Well, you say you’re a lawyer you have to have an office somewhere there right oh wait let me guess the Internet lied. You’re not really a lawyer.
Qasim: Got it. Glad you feel better now. Good night.
Matthew: Catch you later hey maybe you can write another children’s book or did the Internet lie about that too or because I saw that on the Internet is it not credible?
Side Bar: Matthew assumed that personal attacks would get me to respond, because unfortunately, that’s what Trump has taught them. We must refuse to engage in such childish pettiness, and stay focused on the task at hand to uphold justice with integrity.
Conclusion
This conversation with Matthew shows that facts do not matter to propagandists. Evidence does not matter. The Constitution does not matter. What matters is reinforcing their own fears with Google searches, sound bites, and racist insults.
But here’s the lesson learned: Despite all of the above, the lesson is we don’t have to let it go unchallenged. In fact, we cannot. We have the ability—and the responsibility—to unite across race, faith, and class, and demand justice for all people. Whether you are documented or undocumented, Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Hindu, believer or non-believer, Black, brown, or white, justice only survives if it applies to everyone.
Therefore, I will not back down from these fights. I will not be intimidated by insults or threats. And I hope you will join me. Because the only way we overcome this culture of hate is with courage, solidarity, and a steadfast commitment to justice—for every single person. Thank you for reading this. Join us by subscribing below. Share this so others have clear evidence in front of them on the dire need to protect due process of law. And let’s continue to work together to protect justice for all people in this country.
Rather than a monthly subscription, you can make a one-time contribution to support our human rights platform at any amount that fits your budget.
Kudos to you for your patience and professionalism. Aladdin?!? I would say “unbelievable” but unfortunately it’s not. All the best to you, and thank you for all of your educational, insightful posts.
"I love the poorly educated." Truest thing Trump has ever said.