They came on tourist visas. They overstayed them. They applied for asylum. And now, after federal officials moved to deport them, the family of the accused Boulder terrorist is claiming victimhood—with the help of a federal judge and the ever-ready lawfare machine.

Welcome to the United States immigration system—where the only thing more durable than a visa overstay is the manufactured outrage that follows it. And maybe the baseless lawsuit that tries to sanctify it.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting Hayem El Gamal, wife of Mohamed Sabry Soliman—the Egyptian national accused of attacking a pro-Israel vigil with incendiary weapons.

ICE detained her and her five children after they overstayed their visas. This should not be controversial. It’s how immigration law is supposed to work: when the government determines that foreign nationals have overstayed their welcome, the next step is simple—they go back to the country they came from.

But according to their lawyer, Eric Lee, deporting them isn’t immigration enforcement—it’s fascism.

“Punishing individuals for the alleged actions of their relatives is a feature of premodern justice systems or police state dictatorships, not democracies,” Mr. Lee told The New York Times with maximum indignation and zero self-awareness.

Mr. Lee continued, “The detention and attempted removal of this family is an assault on core democratic principles….”

Ah, yes—the “core democratic principle” of ignoring visa limits and squatting indefinitely in Colorado Springs while your husband hurls Molotov cocktails at peaceful Jews.

Let freedom ring.

You have to hand it to Mr. Lee and his faithful amplifier at The New York Times—they manage to deliver this hair-on-fire “democratic principles” routine with straight faces and Ivy League punctuation.

The problem, of course, is that this fatuous flibbertigibbet fails to understand the meaning of any of the words over four letters long. His rhetoric isn’t so much an argument as a cascade of logical fallacies, stacked one atop the other like bad legal kindling.

And before you know it, Soliman will be “Colorado Man” and his family will be portrayed as The Waltons.

Let’s set the record straight. Hayem El Gamal and her five children entered the United States in 2022 on tourist visas. Not refugee status. Not asylum. Not any path to permanency.

A tourist visa is a six-month courtesy—not a blanket invitation to build a family compound in Colorado and wait for DHS to forget you exist. That’s more than enough time to hike Pike’s Peak, endure nine innings of Rockies baseball (penance enough), and still have time to road-trip the country in the Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

Simply put, their visa term ended. Years before. They stayed. That’s unlawful.

Sidebar: I’ve traveled the world—and some of the seven seas. Not once did I consider lingering for years after my visa or right of entry expired. But if I had, I’m reasonably sure I’d realize within seconds it was a bad idea. Why? Because bad things tend to happen to people who do that. Like being picked up by the local constabulary without warning—followed by a swift descent into bureaucratic hell. But that’s just me.

Back to the case at hand. Now, the accused’s family’s endless summer is ending after all, and they were to be removed under the law. That’s how sovereign borders are supposed to work.

But to the activist legal class, removal for overstaying a tourist visa is tantamount to persecution—provided you can find a sympathetic judge and a fanboy reporter.

The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, moved swiftly to detain the family and initiate removal proceedings. But Judge Gallagher intervened—citing “irreparable harm” if the deportation were to proceed.

To whom, exactly?

To the U.S. immigration system? To the rule of law? To Jewish citizens increasingly at risk from radicalized networks shielded by judicial activism? Since when does it become grounds to stay years past the expiration of a tourist visa because Pops decides to lob incendiaries at innocent people?

The family’s lawyers claim they were “shocked” by Soliman’s arrest. Perhaps. But the law doesn’t care—rather, shouldn’t care—about feelings. It cares about facts. And the truth is: they’re here unlawfully. It’s well past time they returned to Cairo—taking their activist lawfare strategy and see-no-evil, hear-no-evil routine with them.

Another gem buried in the lawsuit: the family is allegedly “part of Soliman’s asylum application.” That’s right—asylum-by-association. The man accused of launching Molotov cocktails at Americans during a vigil for Israeli hostages had a pending asylum claim—and now his family insists they’re legally piggybacking on his bid for refuge.

It’s hard to say what’s more offensive: the legal argument itself, or the notion that it entitles the family to remain here while the courts sort out his alleged terrorism.

Even more galling?

Mr. Lee wants it both ways—he claims the family’s legal right to stay hinges on their connection to Soliman’s asylum application, then spins around to insist they had nothing to do with his actions.

It’s remarkable how quickly the relationship toggles between a legal tether and moral distance, depending on which one yields a better outcome in court.

But then again, this is the same legal-industrial complex that believes 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) doesn’t mean what it says, and that due process is something you invent by certifying imaginary classes and ignoring Rule 65 bond requirements.

Eric Lee claims that deporting Hayem El Gamal and her children would be “an assault on core democratic principles.” But the real assault came when the immigration cartel turned the Constitution into a suicide pact—and the courts into sanctuaries for bad legal arguments.

In a healthy republic, visa overstays are deported. Full stop. But in modern America, the courtroom has become the last refuge of the unlawful: file a lawsuit, allege “harm,” shout “democracy,” and hope the judge confuses your expired tourist visa with a civil rights crusade.

And speaking of assaults on democratic principles, Mr. Lee—who won the last election? Wasn’t swift immigration enforcement on the ballot? How exactly does flouting the duly enacted law of the land demonstrate fidelity to democracy—rather than open defiance of it?

The vacation from immigration enforcement must end. The Molotovs were real. So is the damage to the rule of law—ironically inflicted by those who claim to defend it. And it’s time the courts stopped mistaking performative litigation for legitimate law.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.