4 ms·

Don't know.

by danielmarkbruce 2y ago

Don't know.

mcphage 2y ago
So then what is the relevance of that to this situation?
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  There 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 ago
    but 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 ago
      But 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 ago
        If 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 ago
        This 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 ago
        Can 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...
        spwa4 2y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
        acdha 2y ago
        That’s specific to non-immigrant visas - students, diplomats, business travelers, etc. where the visa is time-limited and linked to a particular purpose such as being an employee of an American business or teaching at a college. The best known example on HN is the H1-B visa but there are quite a few others: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf... As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/immigrant-visa-for-spouse.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Absolute nonsense.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Re-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?

Don't know.

mcphage 2y ago

So then what is the relevance of that to this situation?

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
There 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 ago
  but 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 ago
    But 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 ago
      If 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 ago
        This 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 ago
        Can 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...
        spwa4 2y ago
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
        acdha 2y ago
        That’s specific to non-immigrant visas - students, diplomats, business travelers, etc. where the visa is time-limited and linked to a particular purpose such as being an employee of an American business or teaching at a college. The best known example on HN is the H1-B visa but there are quite a few others: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf... As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/immigrant-visa-for-spouse.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat... The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Absolute nonsense.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    Re-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?