I've seen recent examples of the government targeting green card holders for their speech. As a naturalized citizen who wants to exercise my free speech rights, how concerned should I be about potentially having my citizenship challenged on technical grounds? Are there realistic scenarios where this could happen despite First Amendment protections?
There's ample legal precedent in the federal system that a green card holder is a "US Person" for many things related to the federal government. For instance, a green card holder can form a corporation, own an FFL, register it with the ATF, become an FFL 02/07 (firearms manufacturer), and even become a SOT (special occupational taxpayer), to manufacture, buy and sell NFA items (silencers). The corporation owned by the permanent resident can even manufacture post-1986 full auto ATF-defined "machine guns", to be retained/owned by the company, as manufacturer samples for demos and sales to law enforcement within the USA.
Permanent Residents are also treated as a "US Person" for the purposes of FAA pilot licensing, up to the largest categories of multi-engine jet transport aircraft.
This doesn't address what recently happened with one specific Permanent Resident that's been in the news, but it's a very chilling effect if suddenly green card status people don't have the right to the 1st amendment.
Show me the law that says only citizens can own NFA items - there is no special regulation in the gun control act of 1934 which specifies permanent residents or citizens. If you can buy a regular 4473 FFL item (any serialized firearm post-1968) and silencers are legal in your state, a permanent resident can buy a silencer, most typically on an eForm4 from a local dealer.
Similarly, a permanent resident can buy an NFA item, short barrel rifle (SBR, sub 16" barrel, rifled barrel, serialized firearm) on an eform4 from their local dealer, as long as the category of SBR is legal in their state of residence. A permanent resident in a state with few or no firearm restrictions such as Idaho could buy an AR-15 or AK/AKM semiauto action based based SBR. If the permanent resident is in a state with restrictive new assault weapon laws, such as WA, they could still buy an SBR, but it has to meet the other requirements of their state of not being a state-prohibited assault weapon (such as a 10 inch barreled bolt action chambered in 8.6 blackout, as bolt and lever actions are exempted from the recent WA state assault weapons ban)
That same theoretical permanent resident can even own what's casually called a double stamp item, two NFA items attached together, such as putting a silencer on an SBR, if they have enough money to buy both, pay the $400 total in NFA item tax stamps, and pay their local FFL SOT dealer for the transfer. Exactly the same financial cost to them as for a US citizen.
If you buy it online, it will go on an eform3 shipped from the originating vendor/manufacturer/dealer to the inventory and books of your local FFL SOT, and then an eform4 to you.
You can see the "paper" version of the ATF form 4 there.
An alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa generally may not purchase firearms (except under certain exemptions) or NFA items. A permanent resident is an immigrant class status.
Quoting the ATF form 4:
Alien Admitted to the United States Under a Nonimmigrant Visa. An
alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa includes,
among others, persons visiting the United States temporarily for
business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain
a residence abroad, and certain temporary foreign workers. These aliens
must answer “yes” to question 16.d.1 and provide the additional
documentation required under question 16.d.2. Permanent resident aliens
and aliens legally admitted to the United States pursuant either the Visa
Waiver Program or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa
requirements may answer “no” to this question and are not required to
submit the additional documentation under 16.d.2. An alien admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa is not prohibited from purchasing,
receiving, or possessing a firearm if the alien: (1) is in possession of a
hunting license or permit lawfully issued by the Federal Government,
a State, or local government, or an Indian tribe federally recognized by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is valid and unexpired; (2) was
admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes; (3)
is an official representative of a foreign government who is accredited to
the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an
international organization having its headquarters in the United States; (4)
is an official representative of a foreign government who is enroute to or from
another country to which that alien is accredited; (5) is an official of a foreign
government or a distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the
Department of State; (6) is a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign
government entering the United States on official law enforcement business; (7)
has received a waiver from the prohibition from the Attorney General of the
United States.
----
You will note that the 4473 and the form 4 has a section for citizenship. Theoretically, a Canadian with permanent resident status typically provides their citizenship and alien number as part of the application.
See also, questions 35 through 38 on the FFL application form, which asks if you're an alien admitted to the united states under a nonimmigrant class visa. The FFL application form does not require you to be a US citizen. It does not allow for nonimmigrant class visa holders to be an FFL. Again, a PR is an immigrant class person.
I don't exactly have the highest opinion of the level of intelligence of some retail gun store customer service employees, but the basic 4473 even has a section for putting in your alien number (A#) which is on a permanent resident card. Just don't answer the question about being a nonimmigrant foreigner incorrectly on the check box section.
Until recently, I would have said that the only way a citizen could have his or her citizenship taken away was by committing treason but there has been talk by the current administration about expanding the grounds as well as increasing denaturalization efforts. The first Trump administration tried this but it was largely unsuccessful but it's a different administration and a different Supreme Court so I don't think concerns now are unjustified.
> a) Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify
It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation
According to USCIS, the misrepresentation need not be but-for material. That is, you only need to show that the omission or misrepresentation was relevant to the naturalization inquiry. But you do not need to prove that the government would have denied naturalization had it known the true facts. In that respect, the standard is similar to 18 USC 1001, which has been applied extremely broadly in federal prosecutions. The second Trump administration has much smarter lawyers than the first one, and I'd count on them to be aggressive about using the full scope of section 1451(a).
Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process
The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions
For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No
Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No
Years go by and the person gets a green card.
The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable.
The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that
When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member.
Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder.
Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org.
Is the green card holder under threat?
So this is not legal advice and I'm not an immigration lawyer. And I'm not explaining how the law is likely to be applied. Instead, I'm explaining how an aggressive government prosecutor could plausibly seek to apply it.
The wording of 8 USC 1451(a) is not limited to particular questions on visa or green-card applications. The statute refers to how the "order and certificate of naturalization were ... procured" which arguably encompasses everything leading up to the order and certificate. Moreover, the statute has two separate prongs for revocation: (1) the "order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured"; or (2) "were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation."
The way government prosecutors interpret these statutes is to push each of these terms and prongs as far as they can logically go. For example, you could argue that the phrase "illegally procured" encompasses any unlawful activity that has some arguable nexus to the visa or naturalization process.
As to the second prong, 8 USC 1427(a) sets forth extensive requirements for who qualifies for naturalization. The requirements are extremely vague and broad:
> No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
That third requirement is so broad that almost any fact about a person could be deemed material to the naturalization decision. Now, remember that 8 USC 1451(a) only allows naturalization to be revoked based on concealing or misrepresenting material facts. So it must be the case that you were arguably required to disclose the fact to the government at some point and either didn't or misrepresented the fact. But if you made an omission or misstatement on any government form ever, that could be fair game for bringing revocation proceedings.
I am also not an immigration lawyer. In Maslenjak v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf), eight justices disagreed with the expansive interpretation of the statute you describe. From the majority opinion, "The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization." and "Suppose that an applicant for citizenship fills out the paperwork in a government office with a knife tucked away in her handbag. She has violated the law against possessing a weapon in a federal building, and she has done so in the course of procuring citizenship, but nobody would say she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law.” That is because the violation of law and the acquisition of citizenship in that example are merely coincidental: The one has no causal relation to the other."
So that case involves 28 USC 1425, which doesn’t have an expressly-stated materiality requirement. The holding of the case is that, nonetheless, the statute requires an omission or misrepresentation to be material, which the Court defines as information “that would have mattered to an immigration official.”
8 USC 1451(a) has an express materiality requirement, which I addressed in my comment. The standard of what “would have mattered to an immigration official” can be seen extremely broadly in view of 8 USC 1427(a). In the context of the false statements statute, 18 USC 1001, material facts are those that have the “tendency” to influence the decision maker, but need not actually influence the decision. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995).
The materiality requirement provides some protection. It’s doubtful revocation could be premised on someone having illegally parked their car when going into a USCIS interview. But the standard for materiality is still quite expansive and leaves a lot of room for aggressive prosecutors.
Iirc not legal advice but there are reasons why some people may not want to apply for citizenship, if something has happened since they got their green card and they'd prefer not to have to have to put on an application.
This is why the ask what seems like an absurd question - “Are you a Nazi?” - on the US citizenship application.
Not because they expect people to say “yes”, but because if they find out later you hide information about your involvement in WW2, they deport you for lying.
No need to prove you were an actual Nazi. You withheld information which is enough grounds for revoking citizenship.
Advocating for Palestinians isn’t advocating for a “terror group”. Which is itself a nebulous term that is used for political reasons.
Now, working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason, but that’s okay when you’re the president I guess.
Are you denying that Hamas is a terrorist group? Committing terrorism is literally the central part of their operations. Are you denying that October 7th was terrorism? Are you denying that launching thousands of rockets against Israel to kill as many Jewish people as possible is terrorism?
This is a very common trope in any Israel/Gaza debate. Person A says 'Palestinians' and Person B judos that into 'Hamas' to make Person A's point sound extremist.
Is calling out a right wing military state for bombing and killing over 14,000 Palestinian children terrorism? Just talking about it makes you the bad guy, huh?
Presenting it in those false terms makes you a bad guy, yes. Israel is not a "military state" and a left wing Israeli government would have carried out much the same military operations. "Children" were not bombed. Military targets were bombed. Many children died in consequence, not least because of Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way in an attempt to win over credulous fools, albeit some of them well-meaning.
There is no left wing in Israel, you are painting a false narrative. It is a fascist state run by thugs (much like ours, which is probably why they are so eager to sell out Americans to Israel).
Children were bombed. They knew the kids were there and they bombed them. Often happily doing it knowing they'd slaughter hundreds to get one supposed terrorist. They bulldozed bodies. They tiktoked the destruction of universities and hospitals.
"Hamas's eagerness to put them in harm's way" is such a tired lie to cover up for the slaughter of innocent people by the Israeli terror state.
The 2021 elections ended with a government of 61 seats, including 7 seats for Labor (left), 6 seats for Meretz (fairly hard left), 4 seats for Ra'am (Islamist), so 25% from what would be considered a "left bloc" from a Western viewpoint. Then Yesh Atid and Blue and White had 17 and 8 respectively, both centrists, so just short of 50%. So there most certainly is a left (albeit small) and a substantial centre. Israel has a pluralistic political sphere.
Israel's military operates according to the laws of war, which forbid targeting of civilians, but do not forbid civilian deaths.
In a sense you're right though. If by "left" you mean "peace movement", that was on life support after the second intifada, and Oct 7th pulled the plug. There will be no substantial peace movement in Israel for a generation. Many of those slaughtered on Oct 7th were from the hard left/peace movement bloc.
And to reiterate, yes, presenting things in those false terms makes you a bad guy.
Seats mean nothing. If there is a plurality and any kind of left movement there, what opposition have they given to the right? AFAICT, Yair's biggest criticism was that the war was managed poorly by Bibi.
80% of Israeli jews support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. People are arrested for saying the oppressed have a right to defend themselves. You see videos of IDF troops calling for the death of all Arabs while they are on vacation. You see them doing crimes against humanity in Gaza war footage. That isn't a healthy society, it isn't a society with a leftist movement. It is a fascist bloodthirsty society, run by thugs like Bibi, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir.
Supporting them means you either naive or that you lack any morals. Which makes your "bad guy" accusation meaningless.
Yes, that's my point. Any plausible Israeli government, left, right or centre, would have conducted the war in roughly the same way, including the historical left governments of Ben Gurion, Meir, Rabin, Peres or Barak. Thus attempts to paint Israel as "right wing" due to its conduct of the war are fallacious.
I'm just pointing out that painting falsehoods about Israel and its people (as you have continued to do in your most recent post) does indeed make you a bad guy. I don't expect you to agree with me!
> Any plausible Israeli government, left, right or centre, would have conducted the war in roughly the same way
So why did Benny Gantz leave the unity government and say publicly that it was because of irreconcilable differences over how the war was being conducted?
"Roughly the same way" is a vague term that leaves a thousand miles of leeway of interpretation. Of course Benny Gantz also supported a military response in broad strokes, but stated war goals and prioritization of those goals were very different
No plausible alternative government would have conducted the war in a way that would have avoided the slander of "genocide" and "murdering children". People will accuse Israel of that regardless.
Israel claims the Golan Heights as part of its sovereign territory. It captured the Golan Heights during a defensive war in 1967, when it also captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. It gave back the Sinai Peninsula for a peace agreement with Egypt in 1979. The capture of all that territory happened under a left-wing Labor government led by Levi Eshkol. The return of the Sinai happened under a right-wing government led by Menachem Begin, of the party that is the forerunner to Likud. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip to leave it in the hands of the Palestinian Authority in 2005. That happened under Ariel Sharon, a right wing prime minister (albeit in a centrist party, Kadima).
The West Bank is still occupied because the Palestinians have not agreed to a peace deal with Israel, despite being offered one including that land most recently in 2008. Given what happened on Oct 7th, I don't think there will ever be such an offer again.
Israel is currently occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria because Hezbollah fired 8,000 missiles at Israel from southern Lebanon during 2023 and 2024, and Hezbollah was supplied with those missiles through, with the consent of, Syria. Hezbollah's presence south of the Litani river was in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
So whether Israel captures or returns land has really nothing to do with whether its government is left or right wing. Israel is not authoritarian. It is a constitutional democracy.
The West Bank was occupied and colonised, which is a war crime. The peace deal involves leaving only a fraction of the territory to the Palestinians, and leaves Israeli citizens in the colonies.
Occupied from whom? Who was the previous government of that land? The fact is, there has never been an independent modern state in that land. Before 1967 it was occupied by Jordan. Before 1948 it was occupied by the British Mandate, and before that it was occupied by the Ottoman Empire.
The peace deal offered by Olmert to Abu Mazen was for 95% of the West Bank, plus land from Israel itself to make it up to 100%. Abu Mazen declined. I suspect that in a post-Oct 7th world, the Palestinians will never get an offer like that again.
It's either not occupied, it's part of Israel and Israel subjugates the Palestinians to an apartheid rule (with a big part of their lives controlled by Israel, included where they can move, work, live, and different laws applied to them), and harassed by colonists. Or it's Palestine and Israel is occupying it.
In any case the UN and the ICJ think it's occupied territory, and the colonies are a war crime.
Israel is in administrative control over that part of the land. It's not clear to me exactly how much it owes the people who reside there, who used to be Jordanian citizens and who had their citizenship stripped by Jordan.
That part of the world has never been part of a modern state. Jordan doesn't want it. The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist. There is and has never been a state of Palestine. Abu Mazen turned down an from Olmert to make it into a Palestinian state. Arafat turned down an offer from Barak.
When Jordan took control of that that territory, including East Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, they expelled or murdered all Jewish citizens living there. After the second world war ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland. Israel _didn't_ expel residents of the West Bank, after capturing it in a defensive war, and somehow that makes Israel not a democracy?
People live in the West Bank. If you take control of the area for 58 years you need to give them some rights and either make them citizens or give them independence. Neither thing happened, and the reality is that they live in an apartheid system, with different laws than other Israelis living in the same area. Israel might be a democracy but Palestinians are not citizens of Israel.
Germans expelled from parts of Europe was also bad, so?
Why should they be given independence? They're formerly Jordanian citizens and formerly Ottoman subjects. It's not as though some country or civil polity has been eliminated and needs to be restored. There never was any. They were offered a country by the Peel Report in 1937 and then the UN Resolution 181 in 1947, but they rejected it. They were offered a country by Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008, but they rejected it. They were given de facto control over Gaza, but they used the opportunity to launch rockets at Israel for 15 years and then to commit Oct 7th.
Germans expelled from parts of Europe was good! It was the natural consequence of Germany trying to take over all of Europe and failing. Germany has now lived in peace with its neighbours for 80 years. The people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have not demonstrated they can live in peace with Israel.
Then don’t give them independence, but if Israel has administrative control of the area, it must respect the human rights of the people that live there. If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting: I can buy land wherever I want, move freely, work freely, travel abroad. Palestinians can’t. So it’s one or the other, either you consider them a nation with whom you can have a peace treaty and thus all the “they are not a country” doesn’t apply, or they are foreign nationals and you have to treat them as such. Israel chooses the awful option: apartheid, because then it can still keep an ethnic state whiteout killing or deporting millions. It is debatable if Israel needs to be an ethnic state to protect Jews, but at least its apologists should acknowledge that.
> If I’m a foreign national in a country I can do almost everything a national can do besides voting
Certainly not in general! That very much depends on the country and the immigration status under which you are in that country. Most visas strongly restrict the right to work. If you leave, you may not be allowed back in, unless you can obtain fresh clearance.
Under the Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the PLO, the recognised representative body of the Palestinian people, the West Bank is partitioned into areas designated A, B and C. That agreement gives Israel control in area C, the Palestinian Authority control in area A, and B is somewhere in between. Israelis are forbidden to enter area A, by the way. Israel conducts itself in accordance with this agreement signed up to by the PLO.
Anything else is pending further negotiation between the two parties, and perhaps a final status agreement (though I am increasingly pessimistic about the potential for a final status agreement).
So, I absolutely do not think it's "one of the other". It's an extremely rare situation in human history with no specific well-trodden path for how it should be resolved. Israeli prime ministers have offered the Palestinian leadership their own state twice in the 21st century. Both offers were rejected.
The right of conquest, which you are invoking, was ended after WWII, due to the disastrous consequences of its implementation by a group Israel claims to be so against.
None of what you said changes the fact that there are no non-authoritarian, left-wing countries which annex land in war. Russia does it. Azerbaijan does it. Can you give some examples that contradict this? That's what I asked. I didn't ask for a flimsy justification to flaunt international law.
I will also say, though I hope you don't only respond to this and ignore the other parts, as you've done so far, that Israel is a democracy in name only. It has many subjects who have no right to vote who were born in the land Israel controls (The West Bank and Gaza), who have no other citizenship, and who are native to the land stretching back to at least before the founding of Israel. Of course, because Israel wishes to be an state controlled by a specific ethnicity, it cannot allow such people to vote. So how much of a democracy is it really? It's as if we called the US a democracy if it only allowed voting in such a pattern that white people were always the majority, or as if Saudi Arabia transitioned to a democracy but only in such a way that House of Saud members would always be the voting majority. How democratic would that really be?
If you read my post closely you will see I am not invoking any right, nor justifying Israel's occupation of those lands (although I do believe they were justified). I'm merely pointing out that occupation of those lands was carried out under a left-wing non-authoritarian government. If you're saying that occupation of land makes the occupying government by definition right-wing authoritarian then I don't think that's a very useful definition and can't help you further.
I personally don't see why Israel should be required to give influence over its government to a belligerent enemy population who have supported wars of annihilation against it many times. However, many Israelis disagree with me, including past prime ministers. That was why Olmert offered 95% of the West Bank plus Israeli land making it up to 100% to Abu Mazen in 2008. Abu Mazen declined the offer.
Before 1967 the Arab occupants of the West Bank were Jordanian citizens. After 1967 Jordan stripped them of citizenship. Perhaps Jordan is the one denying them democracy? (For what it's worth, the pre-1948 Jewish residents of the West Bank had already been expelled at best and murdered at worst).
> Israel's military operates according to the laws of war
That’s a highly contested claim and I personally don’t believe it. You can prove it to be false without even looking at their actions in Gaza, just the torture of prisoners.
It is not the policy of the Israeli military to torture prisoners. If your point is "The US behaved significantly worse than Israel in Abu Ghraib and I hate the US" then fair enough. I don't really have a response.
It is actually the policy though. There are tons of documented stories of physical and sexual abuse in Israeli prisons, which hold many people without formal charges or a right to any kind of due process. That being said, lots of countries do this. Iran, for example.
Israeli prisons are not run by the military. Holding people without formal charges is called "administrative detention" and also happens in Australia, Brazil, the UK and the US. Perhaps some abuses happen during that process. I wouldn't be surprised. But it's not the policy of Israel to abuse prisoners.
Yeah I could say it's not. Just as it was not US policy to abuse detainees, but Abu Ghraib still happened. Same way it's not Israeli gov't policy, I take that back, but there are still lots of credible Palestinian reports of abuse at the hands of settlers (supported by the army), the army, the jail system, etc.
Then we're broadly in agreement. Some of the settler behaviour is atrocious and enabled by segments of the military.
Did you know, however, that the word "settler" applies to any Jew living beyond the Green Line, generally in places that Jews have lived for millennia before being expelled by Jordan in 1947 (the lucky ones who were not killed where they stood)? Mostly so-called "settlers" just some Jews living in some neighbourhoods, often suburbs of Jerusalem. Mostly.
>They are primarily cultural, education is their main focus
That's...a new one. Are you sure you're talking about the same Hamas, aka the Islamic Resistance Movement? The one that, as of their 2017 charter, declares that "Hamas is a[...]national liberation and resistance movement"?
I'm not here to debate whether or not they're a terrorist organization, I just think it's pretty disingenuous to say that "education is their main focus".
> working to carry out a foreign governments interests against the best interests of the American public IS treason
That sounds even more vague and broad than the definition given in the Constitution. But I'm pretty sure the one in the Constitution is talking about a clear and deliberate shift in allegiance from the United States to another group that is actively engaged in hostilities with the United States.
Do the same people claim that arguing against Israel's interests in Gaza is treason against the US? Because I'm not sure what that makes the US government. Now imagine making this argument against a Russian immigrant criticizing Putin's regime.
You are deliberately ignoring the fact that Hamas, and their supporters chant “death to America” and hold AMERICAN CITIZENS under captivity. This is no the same
Do you have a link to their charge? My understanding is the first Columbia student specifically wasn't charged with commiting a crime intentionally, and instead their Green Card was being revoked at the direction of the Secretary of State.
If they aren't being charged with a crime, I don't know how this could be occuring for any other reason than speech.
Organizing an event that citizens choose to participate in is a clear example of benefitting the US, at least from someone's perspective. Someone who "encouraged," something can't be more guilty than the people who chose to do it - this is really about the rights and the conduct of Columbia students.
It's also important to remember that the government follows the public, not the other way around. The legitimacy of preferences among belligerents in foreign conflicts is determined through the equilibration of public opinion, and it's the end state of the protests and discussions (whatever it is) that legitimizes or overturns the lists, not the other way around.
From the perspective of someone asking about immigration law, this doesn't pose the question "to what degree should I do things that the people around me like," it raises the question, "to what degree does my perception of the preferences of the current administration take precedence, due to personal risk, over what the people around me would like me to do for them."
The comment said "Zionists and other far right twitter accounts", which means at least 2 of the accounts are "far right". Can you explain how https://x.com/canarymission and https://x.com/CampusJewHate are "far right"?
Those accounts document hatred against Jewish people in Columbia and other universities. How on Earth are these accounts "far right"? Can you link to at least one post from either of those accounts that you would characterize as "far right"?
How about this one that says Dick Durban is supporting Hamas because he has advocated for the release of Mahmoud Khalil? Along with all the celebration of DHS arrests on campus and advocating to deport more students, calling Khalil and campus protests terrorism, and proclaiming that support for Palestine is a mastermind plot by Iran to destroy America? I could also accept a description as “extremists out in their own far-crazy that just happen to have identified the left as the enemy and the right as their friend”, but it’s gonna get shortened to “far-right”.
> How about this one that says Dick Durban is supporting Hamas because he has advocated for the release of Mahmoud Khalil?
You made a false statement of fact. The tweet never said that. It reads [1]:
> 1/ Canary Mission is apolitical. We call out antisemitism on all sides and have never had a vested interest in a political party. However, Senator Dick Durbin is testing our principles like never before.
His defense of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Hamas activist, raises serious moral and ethical concerns.
It is troubling that one of our great parties is standing behind a Hamas supporter - a group recognized as a terrorist organization—the same group that perpetrated the massacre of October 7, which included the murder, rape and kidnapping of innocent civilians.
It clearly says that Khalil is a Hamas supporter, not Dick Durban. There's video of Khalil giving a speech defending Hamas' "armed resistance" [2]. Was this a lack of basic reading comprehension or was that a deliberate lie?
He doesn't mention Hamas, and there's no proof available that the man is a pro-Hamas activist. He has never self-claimed any such thing either.
Also, Durbin is not defending his views. They are defending his right to not be disappeared to another state in ICE custody without being charged with any crimes. All of that cannot be labeled anti-Semitism. By this logic, the ACLU was anti-Semitic for its defense of civil liberties in the Skokie case
Because supporting Palestine isn't hating Jews and posting people mugshot style on a website as anti-Semites because they support the Palestinian people right to have a nation and to return to the homes they were kicked out of is far-right. The same way wanting the Ukrainians to be able to go back to Crimea and other Russian-annexed lands is not hatred of Russians. And if a website posted mugshot style bios of Ukraine-supporters in such a way, we'd all know they are far right.
He didn't mention Hamas, or Jews. And what he said is not anything anti-Semitic either. It's also true. Under international law an invasion and occupation of one's land is a justified reason to launch an armed resistance. Like Ukraine did.
You may have wanted him to say, in that clip, "10/7 was justified" but he did not. He is simply saying that any type of amassing of arms will be seen by Israel as terrorism when they have a right to defend themselves. Do you think Palestine has no right to defend itself from Israel?
That distinction doesn't even matter. Someone can stand on Main St and shout "I love Hamas" all day and the government can (well, in theory) do nothing. This freedom applies to everyone on American soil regardless of their immigration status. The fact that people are being targeted and prosecuted by this adminstration is a complete breakdown of free speech and first amendment protections, supported by a republican congress and court system.
Nothing prohibiting advocacy of nazis, from what I can tell, it's for affiliation with nazis. And its an entry/approval requirement, and there is a big difference though between entry/approval requirements and ongoing obligations. The government can deny entry/approval for a myriad of reasons related to unfavorable speech, but they can't infringe on the legal speech of a green card holder.
Regardless, the prohibition for entry/approval is against people who were associated with the nazi party or nazi-allied parties between 1933 and 1945, which is basically obsolete already. Anybody for whom that prohibition applies would be 98+ years old now.
I agree with you, and I don’t know where on that line the Columbia student with a green card that was detained falls, but I will say there were plenty of protestors in the US who were supportive of Hamas. There was a group in Chicago, for example, that adopted the imagery of a hang glider on their protest posters, which were used in the Oct 7 terrorist attacks. So I would not be surprised if he did express support for Hamas, but I of course believe in innocent until proven guilty, and would like the government to have to show evidence of that if true.
The government cannot and will not show evidence of that because they can’t. The guy has actual self-published records of his speech which contradict all of the hysterical hearsay claims that the right is making against him. The current government has no interest in the truth, which is why they moved him to a state where his immigration attorney cannot practice.
Yes, there were and are plenty of protestors that actually support Hamas. Fuck those guys. But automatically claiming that if you support Palestine that you must support Hamas is the exact sort of childish intellectual laziness that leads to and supports actual genocide.
I'm reading this link and don't see that in the post. Is this the correct link?
I do see in there a reference to Kymani James, so I did a search for him. I see that he posted incendiary comments online which he later recanted and were taken out of context when reported on. But, I don't see how your post indicates a connection to Mahmoud Khalil, and even if there was a connection, why this warrants detention and deportation?
Perhaps you didn't read the subsequent tweets? Parts 2 and 3 follow the link I posted and clearly say what they believe.
And I never said it warrants detention and deportation. I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas, and that he does not merely "protest for Palestine". It's well attested in the media that Khalil was a negotiator for the group but I can link a source below.
> I'm just pointing out that Khalil is affiliated with a group that supports Hamas
The article that you linked says he was a negotiator for Columbia pro-Palestine protestors. Painting them as supporters of Hamas is a tired tactic intended to silence anyone who doesn't support Israel's actions.
Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation.
Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.
In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.
> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.
CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc).
I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.
Isn't it exclusive to the US that you have to pay taxes after having moved abroad, despite living in another country for a long time, having your home address, etc. set there and so forth.
Yes but USA lets you write off taxes you've already paid to other countries, up to ~$150k - $200k of income IIRC (might be wrong here on the details).
You also get other benefits too though. If you ever become desolate or need help getting home, embassies can help or provide a loan. If war breaks out or some natural disaster happens, America will come for you. You get the power of our passport. You can still collect benefits like social security.
> If war breaks out or some natural disaster happens, America will come for you.
Sort of. The state department will arrange evac, but if it's a charter on a PJ, you'll be on the hook for it and will have to sign a promissory note for it.
Sending in the military is very rare. You'll have better luck with a private security company, but they aren't cheap.
That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.
No. The case for inflated assets was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.
Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie.
If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.
That's a mischaracterization of the case. In New York v. Trump, the charge was falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which is what elevated it to a felony. That isn’t a novel interpretation—New York law has long treated falsification of business records as a misdemeanor unless it’s done to cover up or advance another crime. The prosecution argued that Trump falsified records to hide a campaign finance violation, which is what made it a felony.
As for the idea that these laws were "previously unenforced," that's misleading. Falsifying business records has been prosecuted as a felony in New York many times before, including against other executives. What makes this case unique is the high-profile defendant, not some unprecedented application of the law.
And the claim that the prosecutor herself engaged in inflating asset prices is a distortion. Letitia James, as AG, pursued civil fraud claims against Trump for devaluing his assets for tax purposes while inflating them for loan applications—something Trump himself admitted to in depositions. That’s not the same as falsifying business records.
So no, this isn't some brand-new legal strategy being used against Trump; it's just a matter of finally holding a powerful person accountable under laws that have existed and been applied before.
There are a few NY democratic operatives of some renown in whose opinion the prosecutions were politically motivated. I think the statute of limitations had expired but through manoeuvering they were able to bring charges. That lends credence to that opinion.
Saying the statute of limitations had expired ignores New York’s well-established tolling rule, which pauses the clock when a defendant is out of state—something courts upheld in this case and hundreds of others. The idea that prosecutions are politically motivated based on the opinions of a few operatives doesn’t override the legal basis for the charges, which follow existing precedent on falsifying business records to cover up a crime. If anything, failing to prosecute someone due to their political status would be the real favoritism.
> The specific features of the constitutional guarantees of political freedom, due process, and equal protection further support their extension to foreign nationals living in the United States.
> Green card holders are essentially long term visas with citizenship grants for good behavior
No.
One of the major distinctions being – CBP cannot deny a green card holder to enter the country. They can try pressure tactics to 'convince' the person to 'voluntarily' give up their green card but, if they don't sign anything, they will still be let in. If there's something off about their case, they may be referred to an immigration judge, which is the only way to revoke a green card (barring some fraud detected by USCIS).
Contrast that with visas. They are entirely at immigration discretion and can be canceled at any time, including at the port of entry, for any reason. Visas which grant work authorization still have the SSN restricted and it's tied to whatever authorization the person has. A green card holder can remove the SSN restriction and their SSN is exactly the same as a citizen.
Really, the main differences are that a citizen can hold some offices a LPR cannot, the ability to vote, and no requirement to renew anything. And, most importantly, no residency requirements for a citizen.
As you point out, naturalization is more difficult to remove, but green cards aren't that easy either.
That is a pre-indicated stipulation of the green card validity, not revocation based on the whim of an evaluating (non-immigration judicial) official -- ie CBP and DHS and ICE cannot (read: should not be able to) revoke green cards.
The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).
Yes. People are generally familiar with rights that can lapse if eligibility is not maintained - consider the right to vote in state elections, which you lose if you fail to maintain residency in that state. Nobody yanked your state voter registration or your eligibility for in-state tuition, you abandoned it.
That is true. What recently happened is that the Supreme court has determined that speech which benefits a foreign terrorist organization constitutes "material support" to that organization, and providing material support to a terrorist organization is a crime which can get a green card revoked.
Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.
But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.
Not a lawyer, but reading from the 2010 decision that I think your citing the first line is.
"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.
Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.
Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".
For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS
My understanding is a US citizen could promote a terrorist organization like Al Queda and that would not be a crime (if no imminent threat) as it’s protected speech.
They could be investigated, but if no crime is committed the won’t be consequences.
If you’re a green card holder you most certainly could have your green card yanked for the same speech.
Green card holders are still immigrants and liable to be removed from the US for a host of reasons that aren’t actual crimes. Heck, “moral turpitude” is a reason for losing your green card, and that includes a whole host of speech that promotes things like war crimes.
Yep. I was acquainted with a green card holder from Serbia who got accused of a war crime. He eventually was stripped of his green card and sent to Croatia to face a trial there. The basis was that he didn’t tick the “I am a war criminal” box on his green card application. He submitted to a plea agreement to be incarcerated for not ticking the box for 2 years and then was deported. (This happened back in 2015 under the Obama administration.)
Croatia gave him a fair trial and found him not guilty. Despite that he can’t ever come back to the U.S.; this situation is analogous to what the protester from Columbia is facing. Basically, USCIS can decide you lied on an application about a crime they think you committed, without actually being convicted of that crime. (Or in the case of Slobodan Mutic, eventually being found not guilty.)
I suppose deporting you to Guantanamo and detaining you there until your country of origin agrees to take you back would be consistent with the current administration's actions.
In theory, I believe the US is signatory to international treaties that say they will not make someone stateless. In practice, it probably depends on whether they can get any other country to accept you as a deportee.
They can also do it while you're abroad, and then it doesn't matter if the other country accepts you or not. The problem is wholly on your shoulders.
A notable case is Shamima Begum's: born in London, the UK deprived her of British citizenship, claiming that she anyhow had Bangladeshi citizenship (but she hasn't: the Government of Bangladesh said as much). Anyhow, since all of this time she has been in Syria, this is not really a problem for either the UK or Bangladesh.
The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.
Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.
Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission.
Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
You need to educate yourself. This is 100% incorrect. It might be legal for a citizen but not a permanent resident. Endorsing terrorism is a question asked on every Green Card and naturalization application, and will get your deported. Until you are a citizen you will lose your green card for endorsing terrorism.
Conditions for admissibility are one thing, and you can be denied entry for any thought crime that the government wants to impose.
Once you are in, you have the same rights to free speech as any citizen, and the same rights to due process as well. In fact, the only thing they can do to curb your free speech is prove in court that you lied on your application. Which is likely how this case will play out after judges rule on how illegal their attempted action is, but as of yet the government has not provided any evidence of him lying on his application.
No you do not have the same rights as any citizen. You are wrong. You cannot endorse terrorism. If you come into the US on a visa and say "Death to America!" then you will be deported. This has been the case for decades upon decades and in my opinion it is correct. It's called biting the hand that feeds you and that person is taking a spot from someone else who would be grateful for being in the US.
Your opinion doesn’t matter dude. Decades of jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedent has already conclusively determined that green card holders have the same rights to free speech as citizens. It would take overturning the existing Supreme Court precedent, and destroying the 1st amendment along with it, for that to go away.
s/Supreme Court found/Subservient Council declared/g
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is framed in terms of recognizing independent-existing natural inalienable rights. Citizenship is a complete red herring. The SC has been writing justifications for blatant infringement of natural rights for decades, even before the current neofascist takeover. Take the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, run down them, and try to find one that is actually passing.
Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now.
Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?
Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.
I understand your comments just fine. Rather it seems that you have a comprehension problem. Your link may state that the Supreme Court has declared that non-citizens [etc]. Pointing out that you're holding up this declaration as if it's some unassailable logical conclusion rather than an arguable policy decree is the crux of my comment.
Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.
I don't know why you keep jumping to characterize disagreement as misunderstanding. Your apparent belief that the courts somehow represent infallible logic rather than merely a different type of policymaking is exactly why I'm making my point. Like, it's a big deal when a new justice gets appointed, right? They're not just interchangeable cogs.
Pragmatically, yes, Khalil will likely be deported due to having exercised his freedom of speech. This, along with many other current affairs, should be abhorrent to anybody who actually believes in the ideals of individual liberty - regardless of the justifications crafted by the judicial, executive, and fourth estate. And I really don't know what you gain by cheerleading authoritarianism, besides some feeling of smugness of being on the winning team.
So if a green card holder said "I can see why people support Hamas" should he be expelled? When does just talking about a situation turn into "endorsement" or "support"?
That’s part of the problem here. The federal government can decide by fiat that you did a bad thing before you applied for a green card and then deport you based on that.
They can also say you did a bad thing after and revoke your green card, although it’s a bit more paperwork to do so and requires a higher up to sign off on it (in this recent case, the Secretary of State himself).
I’m not aware of any country that provides blanket free speech for noncitizens.
We used to be a unique country when it came to free speech. No reason why it shouldn't be provided to noncitizens too, imo. We let our enemies pump news and media into our country because we believe the people actually run the country.
Could you show me where in those rules it says that you're not allowed to support Palestine? Or possibly somewhere in the rules where you forfeit your right to free speech?
On the I-485, which you file to get a GC, you have to answer several questions like this:
> Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States?
> NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information
> Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e.
If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance.
That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings.
Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article:
> The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States."
> "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S."
Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.
He'll get a hearing in immigration "court", an administrative court where the judge is on the payroll of the agency and very few rights you have in normal courts apply. Just to give one example, these are the same courts that have been putting 3-year-old children on trial without representation and calling that "due process".
I've been made to understand there should be a hearing before an administrative law judge but I don't know much beyond that. I don't think he gets a jury or anything like that, though.
January 6th protesters were all arrested with valid warrants and received full due process (until they were all pardoned).
Mahmoud Khalil was arrested solely on the discretion of Marco Rubio (the arresting agents thought they were revoking his visa when he is in fact a green card holder), he has not been criminally charged, he was been provided with little to no contact with his lawyers, as far as I've read he lead protests but there is no evidence he has provided material support to Hamas.
Comparing his situation to the January 6th protestors is the "falsest" of false equivalences.
Like most MAGAs, your ability to project false equivalence is unmatched. There were thousands of actual laws, passed by congress, on the books that prohibited the actions of January 6th protesters that were charged. Can you point to a single protestor that was charged that did not unlawfully enter the capitol building? There were thousands of people that were there protesting but never stepped foot in the capitol building. They were not charged. No MAGAts had their right to protest infringed on...they had unlawful entry, criminal tresspass, assault/battery, destruction of property, attempt to disrupt official proceedings, etc.
Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime.
That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.
No, the administration is using a clause that allows the Secretary of State to designate a person as a threat to the country and strip their green card. They have explicitly said it is not based on any accusation of crime.
GC holders are permanent resident aliens, not naturalized citizens. Yes, thet went through a legal process, but citizenship is further down the road of that process.
Which you can do 3 years after marriage (in the case of Khalifa), and it’s recommended to do so.
The main reason people don’t is because they don’t want to be filing U.S. tax returns the rest of their life if they plan to eventually move back to another country. I have relatives who have made such a decision.
Incorrect. GC holders are not "naturalized US citizens" and still need to apply for full US citizenship with the USCIS when they are eligible to do so.
Nope. Not at all. They put people on a path to citizenship, but they are not yet, till they are sworn in as a citizen. Residency can be revoked for criminal behavior, fraud, among other things.
