5 ms·
> quite likely to be deported (legally) And is that what happened?
by mcphage 2y ago
> quite likely to be deported (legally)
And is that what happened?
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoDon't know.
- mcphage 2y agoSo then what is the relevance of that to this situation?
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoThere are two components to any case - what is the law, and what are the facts. Lots of people were questioning whether this is legal.
- anigbrowl 2y agobut 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.
- spwa4 2y agoBut the law is structured so that the only thing ICE has to do is claim. They can remove visa from anyone without any reason, at their discretion. They also have the power to remove anyone without a green card from US soil, also at their discretion. The only thing that matters is that this person is in the US on a visa, and that ICE wants to do this. That's the law.
- acdha 2y agoIf 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? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
- spwa4 2y agoThis 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)
- acdha 2y agoCan 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. https://fox59.com/news/national-world/ap-us-news/ap-arrest-of-palestinian-activist-stirs-questions-about-protections-for-students-and-green-card-holders/ https://fox59.com/news/national-world/ap-us-news/ap-arrest-o... https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-deportation-green-card-lawyer-arrest-2042137 https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-mahmoud-khal...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoAbsolute nonsense.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoRe-read what I wrote, word for word. 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?
- loeg 2y agoYes.