> Yes (the link is that he gave interviews at the encampments where that happened), but it doesn't even matter what he actually did
In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.
> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.
> Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity ...
I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
And, frankly, (my personal moral opinion) that is just not OK to do. If this happens, you walk away. If you don't, there may be consequences.
But if you want to shout that there is no direct proof of this person directly committing violence, well, no, there isn't. Al Capone famously also never hurt a fly (or at least, never convicted for that), in the same manner: he organized violence against people, he did not do it himself.
> Can you provide a citation to that law?
Again, this will be subtle, so if you want to shout "so you CAN'T" again, you'll probably be able to. You will not get any response beyond that. Specifically what is not addressed in my response is the conflict between Federal law and States' law. But here you go:
TLDR: the secretary of state (and thus the president) can request that a visa be revoked, and that's that. He is not limited in that. Here is the secretary of state announcing his intention to do just that:
> I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
Let them make case rather than contributing your credibility pro bono. That’s why we have courts, and also I feel compelled to note that the courts have tossed out tons and tons of those cases as prosecutorial overreach. Speculation without evidence isn’t going to matter in a fair court, and if we’re at the point where the courts no longer care about laws or evidence I doubt you’d want to be helping them.
If you look at past protests, there’s a pattern where the police arrest many people but ultimately only a few even face trials because even if something is unambiguously illegal like chucking a brick through a window or starting a fire, it’s hard to prove that anyone who isn’t right there approved or helped commit the crime. Going to a protest, joining a chant, waving a sign, or speaking up on behalf of the protest movement doesn’t mean you support violence unless you were specifically calling for violence. None of the links you shared showed him shouting for genocide and even the people who’ve been branding him as anti-Semitic rely on vague, sweeping claims which mostly seem to imply guilt by association. It’s always possible that a trial will show stronger evidence but I think almost all of the reaction here is that there absolutely should be a trial.
I get where you're coming from, but defending this particular guy also offends me. When Trump apprehends someone for, say, protesting Tesla, I'll climb on the barricades.
In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.
> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.
Can you provide a citation to that law?