4 ms·

Only after a hearing before a judge. The State Department does not have the legal authority to revoke Green Cards.

rexpop 2y ago
Feels like nobody ran an integration test, and we're about to find out that 1st amendment violations are an emergent property of a complex system riddled with accountability sinks.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Have they revoked it? I thought he’s just been arrested. That’s something various police forces within State absolutely can do with probably cause.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  Does it matter if he was 'arrested'? They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest, he's being denied his right to an attorney and are refusing to tell his representation where he is even at.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause. > he's being denied his right to an attorney Source? His attorney is quoted in the article. > refusing to tell his representation where he is even at Source? The article states he’s at “an immigration detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey.” There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest. Those get diluted if folks start making things up about the severity of the situation.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      > Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause. Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest without extreme probable cause.. And nothing they say would rise to that level of arresting someone solely on probable cause because there's no clear imminent threat of violence. They were not able to produce a warrant. > Source? His attorney is quoted in the article. https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ljxt6ftplc2a https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ljxt6... [1] It takes all of five minutes to get the latest update. His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agents-arrest-anti-israel-activist-who-led-protests-columbia-university-campus-months https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agents-arrest-anti-israel-act... (the related Fox News article)
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest Search and arrest, yes. If police see probable cause to arrest from the street, they can arrest. > because there's no clear imminent threat of violence Violence is unnecessary. If you’re caught shoplifting, the cop can arrest you without a warrant even if you weren’t violent. > His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him The tweet is from 9 hours ago. (Who is the source?) The article is newer. We know where he is.
        fzeroracer 2y ago
        > The article is newer. We know where he is. Okay then tell me: Where is he being held? Here's a quote from his attorney: > "Currently, we do not know Mahmoud’s precise whereabouts. Initially, we were informed this morning that he had been transferred to an ICE facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey," Greer added. > "However, when his wife – a U.S. citizen who is eight months’ pregnant and was threatened with arrest as well by the ICE agents last night – tried to visit him there today, she was told he is not detained there."
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    - nkurz 2y ago
      The parallel AP article (https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khali...) says he is no longer in New Jersey and may have been moved to Louisiana. It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept Thank you. This is concerning. I’ll keep an eye out for a statement from the lawyer. It may be that nobody is telling the press while the internet runs with the meme.
    - tgma 2y ago
      > There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest. Unlikely. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy
- azernik 2y ago
  ICE agents told his lawyer (in a phone call while he was being arrested) that it had been revoked
tgma 2y ago
8 U.S.C. §1227 stipulates: Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens So while you may or may not need a hearing to revoke a green card, AG Bondi seems to be able to detain and summarily remove you from the US, without the need to do a hearing to 'revoke your green card' if you fall under that statue. (Note that "immigration judges" are not real courts under judicial branch. They are under AG.)
- otterley 2y ago
  The question of whether the "alien is within one or more of the following classes" should be justiciable. If there were no check on the AG's power to make that determination, then the AG would be able to remove anyone.
  - tgma 2y ago
    The buck stops with AG for the procedural requirements, but you can certainly sue the AG after the decision has been made in (regular) court. For many of those classes the burden of proof is low if AG wants to deport them. Basically if Sec of State deems a non-citizen as bad for foreign policy, that'd be sufficient for removal. To me this sounds like a feature not a bug, for the executive branch at the Secretary level to be able to exclude a non-citizen persona non grata from the privilege of staying in the US. Also precedent exists (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy) that suggests deportation does not violate the First Amendment in these cases.
    - otterley 2y ago
      I think you’re more or less right on the law, but I do think it is sad that activity that would likely be non-punishable as applied to citizens can get you ejected from the country if you’re a non-citizen. There’s not much principle there. Also there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the Harisiades case: first, it was written at the height of the Red Scare, and likely wouldn’t have concluded the same way had it been adjudicated after that ended and the Warren court era began. Second, the Court had to find that the Communist Party advocated for violent overthrow of the country in order to hold their membership as not protected by the First Amendment. Had it not done so, the court might have found that their activity was protected.

Feels like nobody ran an integration test, and we're about to find out that 1st amendment violations are an emergent property of a complex system riddled with accountability sinks.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Have they revoked it? I thought he’s just been arrested. That’s something various police forces within State absolutely can do with probably cause.

fzeroracer 2y ago
Does it matter if he was 'arrested'? They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest, he's being denied his right to an attorney and are refusing to tell his representation where he is even at.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause. > he's being denied his right to an attorney Source? His attorney is quoted in the article. > refusing to tell his representation where he is even at Source? The article states he’s at “an immigration detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey.” There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest. Those get diluted if folks start making things up about the severity of the situation.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    > Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause. Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest without extreme probable cause.. And nothing they say would rise to that level of arresting someone solely on probable cause because there's no clear imminent threat of violence. They were not able to produce a warrant. > Source? His attorney is quoted in the article. https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ljxt6ftplc2a https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ljxt6... [1] It takes all of five minutes to get the latest update. His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agents-arrest-anti-israel-activist-who-led-protests-columbia-university-campus-months https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agents-arrest-anti-israel-act... (the related Fox News article)
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest Search and arrest, yes. If police see probable cause to arrest from the street, they can arrest. > because there's no clear imminent threat of violence Violence is unnecessary. If you’re caught shoplifting, the cop can arrest you without a warrant even if you weren’t violent. > His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him The tweet is from 9 hours ago. (Who is the source?) The article is newer. We know where he is.
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
        > The article is newer. We know where he is. Okay then tell me: Where is he being held? Here's a quote from his attorney: > "Currently, we do not know Mahmoud’s precise whereabouts. Initially, we were informed this morning that he had been transferred to an ICE facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey," Greer added. > "However, when his wife – a U.S. citizen who is eight months’ pregnant and was threatened with arrest as well by the ICE agents last night – tried to visit him there today, she was told he is not detained there."
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  - nkurz 2y ago
    The parallel AP article (https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khali...) says he is no longer in New Jersey and may have been moved to Louisiana. It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept Thank you. This is concerning. I’ll keep an eye out for a statement from the lawyer. It may be that nobody is telling the press while the internet runs with the meme.
  - tgma 2y ago
    > There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest. Unlikely. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy
azernik 2y ago
ICE agents told his lawyer (in a phone call while he was being arrested) that it had been revoked

tgma 2y ago

8 U.S.C. §1227 stipulates: Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens So while you may or may not need a hearing to revoke a green card, AG Bondi seems to be able to detain and summarily remove you from the US, without the need to do a hearing to 'revoke your green card' if you fall under that statue. (Note that "immigration judges" are not real courts under judicial branch. They are under AG.)

otterley 2y ago
The question of whether the "alien is within one or more of the following classes" should be justiciable. If there were no check on the AG's power to make that determination, then the AG would be able to remove anyone.
- tgma 2y ago
  The buck stops with AG for the procedural requirements, but you can certainly sue the AG after the decision has been made in (regular) court. For many of those classes the burden of proof is low if AG wants to deport them. Basically if Sec of State deems a non-citizen as bad for foreign policy, that'd be sufficient for removal. To me this sounds like a feature not a bug, for the executive branch at the Secretary level to be able to exclude a non-citizen persona non grata from the privilege of staying in the US. Also precedent exists (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy) that suggests deportation does not violate the First Amendment in these cases.
  - otterley 2y ago
    I think you’re more or less right on the law, but I do think it is sad that activity that would likely be non-punishable as applied to citizens can get you ejected from the country if you’re a non-citizen. There’s not much principle there. Also there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the Harisiades case: first, it was written at the height of the Red Scare, and likely wouldn’t have concluded the same way had it been adjudicated after that ended and the Warren court era began. Second, the Court had to find that the Communist Party advocated for violent overthrow of the country in order to hold their membership as not protected by the First Amendment. Had it not done so, the court might have found that their activity was protected.