but you say yourself you don't know what the facts are. Deriding the guy as 'rather silly' is basically accepting the claims by ICE at face value and judging him accordingly. It seems like it would be smarter to gather or wait for facts before drawing a conclusion.
It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they say they are somehow protected. They are not. No one was derided because it was a hypothetical
Legal cases are often considered in this fashion - assume the accusation is correct on the facts about a hypothetical person - what is the law? Else you waste a lot of time and money figuring if someone did something only to realize "ok he did that, but as it happens, that's totally fine!". Once you are certain the claim is actually problematic, then you turn to the facts - did the person in question do it?
If it’s true that they can most deport anyone at their discretion, why does the actual have a long list of specific reasons, most of which are felonies or other crimes which would normally carry long jail sentences?
This is not the correct law. I think this is a law where congress is trying to force the US attorney general (and with them the states' attorneys general) to immediately rescind a visa and deport individuals in certain cases, such as the named felonies.
A lot such laws exist, because there has been a long fight between the federal government and various states about deportation (and of course, it's not just federal vs states, there's also states that want people in other states to get deported, e.g. New York vs Texas)
Can you point me to the law you believe covers this? All of the coverage I’ve read says otherwise and that includes older discussions from Trump’s first term. Everything says some kind of serious crime - felony, support for terrorism, etc. – or something like marriage fraud or other problems with his actual immigration application.
That’s specific to non-immigrant visas - students, diplomats, business travelers, etc. where the visa is time-limited and linked to a particular purpose such as being an employee of an American business or teaching at a college. The best known example on HN is the H1-B visa but there are quite a few others:
As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified:
The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
They probably invoked very particular section of the law which gives a power to the US Secretary of State to take green card in extraordinary circumstances of danger to the states.
The provisions you keep citing most likely can’t be invoked like this, and must involve immigration courts. It’s much harder for the state to remove permanent residents than visa holders.
They showed up at first saying they were revoking his student visa, were surprised he didn't have a student visa and was here because he is a permanent resident, and then they made a bunch of stuff to justify hauling him away to imprison him in Louisiana.
