9 ms·

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,

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?

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
[flagged]
- darksaints 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - orionsbelt 2y ago
    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.
    - darksaints 2y ago
      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.
    - Matticus_Rex 2y ago
      Expressing support for Hamas is also protected speech, and that's not controversial in terms of 1A law/jurisprudence.
  - paxys 2y ago
    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.
    - jlawson 2y ago
      This is easy to say when it's someone you like, not so much when it's someone you don't. Do you also think a foreigner should be allowed to openly advocate for Nazism while on a green card, without consequence?
      - nashashmi 2y ago
        There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.
        notavalleyman 2y ago
        Sorry if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I was curious and tried to search for this and wasn't successful, can you give more details?
        nashashmi 2y ago
        https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportability-when-legal-us-residents-can-be-removed.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportabilit... Look up the line on nazis. On second look, The word advocacy is wrong. It is nazi persecution
        darksaints 2y ago
        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.
  - derektank 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - xrd 2y ago
      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?
      - derektank 2y ago
        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. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-student-journalist-mahmoud-khalil-00226729 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-s...
        text0404 2y ago
        > 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 2y ago
[flagged]
- darksaints 2y ago
  Green card holders have a right to free speech.
  - MVissers 2y ago
    Doesn't seem that this administration think they do. Pro free speech my ass.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Those rights have been evidently eroded and discarded as of recently
  - sigzero 2y ago
    Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.
    - darksaints 2y ago
      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?
      - mc32 2y ago
        [flagged]
        hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        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.
walrus01 2y ago
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.
- ggernov 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - walrus01 2y ago
    You are absolutely incorrect. 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. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-9/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-fir... https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-ta... 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. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download Further reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick-reference-and-best-practices-guide https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick...
proberts 2y ago
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.
- rayiner 2y ago
  To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter.... 8 USC 1451(a): > 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).
  - grahamgooch 2y ago
    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?
efitz 2y ago
[flagged]
- whatshisface 2y ago
  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."
yes_really 2y ago
[flagged]
- ixtli 2y ago
  Zionist and other far right twitter accounts being bandied about as an argument for the detention of someone exercising free speech rights.
  - yes_really 2y ago
    LOL, how the hell are these accounts "far right"? And how do the accounts invalidate the video evidence and screenshots published on the posts?
    - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      One of them is Andy Ngo, and you're asking how they're "far right?"
      - yes_really 2y ago
        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 https://x.com/canarymission and https://x.com/CampusJewHate 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"?
        aprilthird2021 2y ago
        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.
Danjoe4 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ignotus02 2y ago
  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.
- knd775 2y ago
  This is not true. They have been quite clear that Mahmoud Khalil has not been accused of a crime.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > These green card holders are being deported for committing crimes. No, they are officially being deported for being a foreign policy problem without being accused of any crime. And the specific source of the foreign policy problem is the political content of their speech.
- attentive 2y ago
  AFAIK he wasn't charged with a crime but it isn't required for deportation. Check out these articles explaining https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right-to-immigrate-dont-be-absurd https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right... https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not-a-get-out-of-deportation-free-card https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not...
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  get ur brain worms checked out

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

[flagged]

darksaints 2y ago
[flagged]
- orionsbelt 2y ago
  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.
  - darksaints 2y ago
    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.
  - Matticus_Rex 2y ago
    Expressing support for Hamas is also protected speech, and that's not controversial in terms of 1A law/jurisprudence.
- paxys 2y ago
  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.
  - jlawson 2y ago
    This is easy to say when it's someone you like, not so much when it's someone you don't. Do you also think a foreigner should be allowed to openly advocate for Nazism while on a green card, without consequence?
    - nashashmi 2y ago
      There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.
      - notavalleyman 2y ago
        Sorry if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I was curious and tried to search for this and wasn't successful, can you give more details?
        nashashmi 2y ago
        https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportability-when-legal-us-residents-can-be-removed.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportabilit... Look up the line on nazis. On second look, The word advocacy is wrong. It is nazi persecution
      - darksaints 2y ago
        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.
- derektank 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - xrd 2y ago
    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?
    - derektank 2y ago
      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. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-student-journalist-mahmoud-khalil-00226729 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/13/columbia-s...
      - text0404 2y ago
        > 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mc32 2y ago

[flagged]

darksaints 2y ago
Green card holders have a right to free speech.
- MVissers 2y ago
  Doesn't seem that this administration think they do. Pro free speech my ass.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Those rights have been evidently eroded and discarded as of recently
- sigzero 2y ago
  Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.
  - darksaints 2y ago
    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?
    - mc32 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        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.

walrus01 2y ago

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.

ggernov 2y ago
[flagged]
- walrus01 2y ago
  You are absolutely incorrect. 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. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-9/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-fir... https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-ta... 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. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download Further reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick-reference-and-best-practices-guide https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick...

proberts 2y ago

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.

rayiner 2y ago
To be clear, the statutory standards for denaturalization are quite expansive: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter.... 8 USC 1451(a): > 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).
- grahamgooch 2y ago
  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?

efitz 2y ago

[flagged]

whatshisface 2y ago
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."

yes_really 2y ago

[flagged]

ixtli 2y ago
Zionist and other far right twitter accounts being bandied about as an argument for the detention of someone exercising free speech rights.
- yes_really 2y ago
  LOL, how the hell are these accounts "far right"? And how do the accounts invalidate the video evidence and screenshots published on the posts?
  - brendoelfrendo 2y ago
    One of them is Andy Ngo, and you're asking how they're "far right?"
    - yes_really 2y ago
      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 https://x.com/canarymission and https://x.com/CampusJewHate 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"?
      - aprilthird2021 2y ago
        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.

Danjoe4 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ignotus02 2y ago
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.
knd775 2y ago
This is not true. They have been quite clear that Mahmoud Khalil has not been accused of a crime.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> These green card holders are being deported for committing crimes. No, they are officially being deported for being a foreign policy problem without being accused of any crime. And the specific source of the foreign policy problem is the political content of their speech.
attentive 2y ago
AFAIK he wasn't charged with a crime but it isn't required for deportation. Check out these articles explaining https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right-to-immigrate-dont-be-absurd https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-free-speech-right... https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not-a-get-out-of-deportation-free-card https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/a-green-card-is-not...
greenie_beans 2y ago
get ur brain worms checked out