9 ms·

> who claimed they were acting on a state department order to revoke his green card, according to his attorney I thought green cards can only be revoked in rat

• sour-taste 2y ago
  It says it in the title, he's Palestinian. Nevermind that it's likely illegal, we don't live in a world where that matters any more.
  • easytiger 2y ago
    The title does not say that
    • sour-taste 2y ago
      You're right updated
  • matthewdgreen 2y ago
    To be very clear, we do live in a world where the distinction between legal and illegal, right and wrong, matters. And we will always live in that world. Not to pick a fight with you. It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you.
    • RIMR 2y ago
      What the difference? Legal vs. Illegal only matters if it is enforced. If it isn't being enforced, then there is no meaningful distinction between legal and illegal. You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people, than the people need to abandon rule of law laws to resist their government. If we keep pretending that the rules matter to us while the government doesn't even pretend that the rules matter to them, we will be destroyed.
      • adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
        > You acknowledge that this distinction doesn't matter to our government, so why pretend that the distinction matters? We should be screaming from the rooftop that it doesn't, because it's important to understand that right now. We should be screaming from the rooftops that it does (or else).
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If the government has no interest in the rule of law to attack its people We got here in part due to this brand of lazy nihilism. Courts are restraining Trump. It takes time. But they’re doing it, all the way up to SCOTUS. Trump remains popular, but it’s slowly eroding. Want to know what nukes all of that? A couple of idiots going out on a joy riot.
        • 9283409232 2y ago
          Trump being popular is insane in itself.
          • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
            People take time to admit they fucked up. And the effects of his policies haven’t yet manifested widely for the people who support him.
            • hayst4ck 2y ago
              That assumes that people exist within a shared reality influenced by facts, but people aren't connected to reality and aren't influenced by facts. We can see that with vaccinations. The system that divorces people from reality is social media, so as long as social media is pumping un-reality into people's lives, I think you're being rather optimistic. What's happening right now is directly empowering social media oligarchs, so they have absolutely no reason to stop. The foundation of their power is un-reality. Hope is not a strategy.
              • 2y ago
    • hayst4ck 2y ago
      That's also incorrect in a certain way. All societies exist on a "law" to "rule" spectrum, what determines whether you have law or rule is who the final arbiters of justice are. If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society. If those with power are the final arbiters of justice, then you live in a society with rules, not laws. The absence of law is rule by those who are most powerful. The explicit purpose of law is to prevent arbitrary wielding of power. With this understanding he's correct, because law is an entirely self fulfilling prophecy. If GP does not wish to enforce the rule of law himself, then there is no law. The preamble of the declaration of independence states this idea more eloquently. The person you are responding to doesn't feel any personal responsibility for protecting a law based government, and if everyone feels that way, whoever has the most power gets their way, because who is going to stop them, who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society No, this is mob rule. > who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power? This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1]. The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will. [1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record-low-poll-2040978 https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record... [2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf
        • hayst4ck 2y ago
          > No, this is mob rule. I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible. Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army. You should answer a few questions: (1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights? (2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society? (3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law? (4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?
    • tgma 2y ago
      > It obviously does not matter to the people running this administration, I agree with you. How is it so obvious? What is an example where they broke a law and they continued to do so after courts ruled otherwise? There have been a number of cases that were judicially reversed both in Trump 1.0 and 2.0. They may have non-traditional interpretations of the law, but to say they don't care about laws at all is filed under TDS. Obviously they do as it dictates the boundaries and therefore their tactics.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• easytiger 2y ago
  Making statements in support of or in support of the actions of a proscribed terrorist group.
  • the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
    And that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen?
    • easytiger 2y ago
      I would hope so
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > that is enough to revoke a green card of someone married to a US citizen? If he’s organising support for a terrorist organisation or October 17th [EDIT: 7th], yes. If he’s just voicing support for Palestinian rights, it shouldn’t be.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • jsheard 2y ago
    What statements did they make in support of Hamas or their actions? Forgive me for not taking that claim at face value given that literally any pro-Palestinian speech, no matter how measured, tends to get conflated with support for terrorism and/or anti-semitism. Even something as benign as wearing a keffiyeh in solidarity, which the ADLs CEO likened to wearing a swastika.
    • azernik 2y ago
      The closest to it is that the organization he represented supported resistance "by any means, including armed resistance" immediately after 7.10.23. But AFAIU they were very careful not to mention Hamas, positively or negatively.
  • 2y ago
• danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Supporting a terrorist organization is legal grounds. Section 237 of the INA.
  • heartbreak 2y ago
    Which judge ruled on his case? I can’t seem to find it.
    • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      It's not based on legal precedent, it's right in the code. It was part of the "Immigration and Nationality Act", which most people refer to as "INA".
      • azernik 2y ago
        You still need a judge to rule that he in fact broke the law. (Specifically an immigration judge.)
        • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
          Misread "his" for "this". He's only just been detained, I don't imagine a hearing has happened that fast.
          • heartbreak 2y ago
            Then he still has green card status.
    • latentcall 2y ago
      They didn’t. No ruling exists. This dude was just black bagged.
• tgma 2y ago
  Since the administration specifically brought up "Department of State" as one of the entities that helped with the effort, my guess is the action is founded on this specific statue, not the "terrorist support" piece in particular, despite the latter being the widespread speculation: 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i) "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable" This provision basically lets Secretary of State to deport any alien he deems in the future might post a threat to foreign policy. It does not appear to be a difficult standard to justify either and gives Secretary of State broad leeways in deportation of all aliens, including LPRs. That said, I am not sure it even technically constitutes "revocation" of green card. They seem to be able to simply deport you with a green card without needing the procedural burden of revocation. All the other provisions outlined for cancelation seem to involve DHS (incl. USCIS) and Attorney General to cancels one's green card, and would not really be in purview of Dept. of State.
  • Aeolun 2y ago
    If that is that statute Trump is deporting him over, that’s both hilarious and extremely sad at the same time. I doubt there is any single person in US history that has been more damaging to foreign relations.
    • tgma 2y ago
      > ...damaging to foreign relations The statue talks about Foreign Policy, not foreign relations. Foreign Policy is set by the executive branch, so almost by definition he cannot be against his own foreign policy. It could be a President's foreign policy to sever ties with some allies, for example, if it is in the benefit of the American people as he sees it.