Can Piers Morgan Be Deported for His Comments on Gun Control?

At the time of writing this blog, more than 48,000 people have signed a petition on the White House website asking that CNN talk show host be deported for his comments on gun control in the wake of the mass shootings at Sandy Hook school.

According to one of the two petitions, “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 White House is obligated to respond if the petition gathers 25,000 signatures within 30 days. Mr. Morgan, a British citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. Non-citizens can be deported from the US for a number of immigration offenses, but can Mr. Morgan’s strident comments favoring gun control truly lead to his deportation?

Not really, based on a quick analysis of some of the relevant provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Morgan certainly doesn’t seem to be seeking “the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,” and so he is clearly not deportable under INA 237(a)(4)(A)(iii).  Nor is he one who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity”, under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), and so he’s not inadmissible under that broad provision.  And there’s no reason to think that opposition to the Second Amendment would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Indeed, it is more likely the reverse given the international outrage against proponents of gun ownership, especially the ownership of automatic assault weapon, that led to the killings of 20 defenseless children and 6 others. So INA 212(a)(3)(C) does not apply.

Mr. Morgan has nothing to fear, if he indeed fears being deported from the United States, and the petitioners are truly wasting their time and losing more and more credibility  in the wake of an increasing number of gun related deaths. While the United States is clearly not the envy of the world with regard to its obsession for gun ownership that results in more homicides than most other nations, it can at least boast of freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone, citizen or non-citizen, whether within or outside the US, has the right to peacefully advocate for a change to the US Constitution, including a re-evaluation of the Second Amendment that forms the basis for people to easily own guns, including assault weapons that lead to the tragic and senseless slaughter of innocents.

Download PDF
5 replies
  1. Anonymous says:

    Assault weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment. Under a Borkian interpretation, what did not exist in 1787 can not have been within the ambit of the protection.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I support this position. No one in their right mind would have granted constitutional protection of rights to possess assault weapons that rightfully belong to either the police force or the military for protection of the innocent people. Our founding fathers were all great patriots who understood the length and breath of the rights granted under the Constitution.
    Bhavani Nirmal

  3. Anonymous says:

    I do not know if he can be deported but he should be deported. I did not think it was possible however he is worse than Larry King. I long for the days when that old goat did interviews. Get rid of the slimy limey….

  4. Anonymous says:

    The Supreme Court decision in the case of Kleindienst v. Mandel establishes the legal precedent for foreigners to be barred from entry or deported if they espouse anti-American ideologies that are anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

  5. Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLC says:

    Kliendienst v. Mandel involved a former INA provision rendering inadmissible non-citizens "who advocate the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship" or "who write or publish . . . (v) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship". INA 212(a)(28)(D),(G)(v). These provisions do not exist presently, and even if they did, they would not be applicable to Mr. Morgan as no one is accusing him of advocating world communism or totalitarian dictatorship. To be inadmissible under the current INA for communism related grounds, you must actually be or have been affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party. INA 212(a)(3)(D)(i).

    It is true that Kleindienst v. Mandel may stand for the proposition that Congress has the power to not admit non-citizens due to specific political opinions, but till now, Congress has not passed any law that would render people inadmissible based on the type of political opinion expressed by Mr. Morgan.

    Cyrus D. Mehta


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.