17 ms·

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.
  - darksaints 2y ago
    Like most MAGAs, your ability to project false equivalence is unmatched. There were thousands of actual laws, passed by congress, on the books that prohibited the actions of January 6th protesters that were charged. Can you point to a single protestor that was charged that did not unlawfully enter the capitol building? There were thousands of people that were there protesting but never stepped foot in the capitol building. They were not charged. No MAGAts had their right to protest infringed on...they had unlawful entry, criminal tresspass, assault/battery, destruction of property, attempt to disrupt official proceedings, etc. Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime. That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.
- impute 2y ago
  Green card holders can have their GC stripped for committing crimes. If free speech becomes a crime then the GC is at risk. Note - I don't agree with it but I think this is the logic the current administration is using.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    No, the administration is using a clause that allows the Secretary of State to designate a person as a threat to the country and strip their green card. They have explicitly said it is not based on any accusation of crime.
- Natsu 2y ago
  On the I-485, which you file to get a GC, you have to answer several questions like this: > Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States? > NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information > Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e. If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance. That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings. Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call/ https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article: > The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." > "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S." Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    He'll get a hearing in immigration "court", an administrative court where the judge is on the payroll of the agency and very few rights you have in normal courts apply. Just to give one example, these are the same courts that have been putting 3-year-old children on trial without representation and calling that "due process".
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
"Green cards come with rules to keep." The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.
  - darksaints 2y ago
    Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission. Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
    - worik 2y ago
      > Promoting a terrorist organization... is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing. He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.
      - darksaints 2y ago
        I’m well aware. Read my other comments in this thread.
    - blindriver 2y ago
      You need to educate yourself. This is 100% incorrect. It might be legal for a citizen but not a permanent resident. Endorsing terrorism is a question asked on every Green Card and naturalization application, and will get your deported. Until you are a citizen you will lose your green card for endorsing terrorism.

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.
- darksaints 2y ago
  Like most MAGAs, your ability to project false equivalence is unmatched. There were thousands of actual laws, passed by congress, on the books that prohibited the actions of January 6th protesters that were charged. Can you point to a single protestor that was charged that did not unlawfully enter the capitol building? There were thousands of people that were there protesting but never stepped foot in the capitol building. They were not charged. No MAGAts had their right to protest infringed on...they had unlawful entry, criminal tresspass, assault/battery, destruction of property, attempt to disrupt official proceedings, etc. Mahmoud Khalil has broken no laws, at least according to the accusations of the government. He hasn't even demonstrated support for Hamas...and it wouldn't be illegal even if he did. All he has done is said something that some people don't like. That is not a crime. That's why this is egregious, where J6 protest convictions are completely logical and morally consistent.
impute 2y ago
Green card holders can have their GC stripped for committing crimes. If free speech becomes a crime then the GC is at risk. Note - I don't agree with it but I think this is the logic the current administration is using.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  No, the administration is using a clause that allows the Secretary of State to designate a person as a threat to the country and strip their green card. They have explicitly said it is not based on any accusation of crime.
Natsu 2y ago
On the I-485, which you file to get a GC, you have to answer several questions like this: > Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States? > NOTE: If you answered "Yes" to any part of Item Numbers 42.a. - 45., explain what you did, including the dates and location of the circumstances, or what you intend to do in the space provided in Part 14. Additional Information > Recruited members or asked for money or things of value for a group or organization that did any of the activities described in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e. If you say 'yes' to these, you probably aren't getting a GC. If you falsely say 'no' to these, you may have committed fraud. The reference to Item Numbers 43.b - 43.e can be found by reading the I-485 - https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4... - but to save you time, it seems to apply to any group doing armed resistance. That said, mere speech supporting Palestine is, as you say, legal. I also think that it had to be false at the time the statement was made, not something he only did afterwards. But if they can show that a person lied on these questions or any of the other several dozen questions in the application, they can accuse them of obtaining the GC fraudulently and go into removal proceedings. Reading between the lines, this is what I believe is happening to Khalil based on statements given in articles like - https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call/ https://reason.com/2025/03/13/mahmoud-khalil-is-an-easy-call... - compare the questions I quoted to their stated justifications in that article: > The official said that Khalil is a "threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." > "The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law," said the official. "He was mobilizing support for Hamas and spreading antisemitism in a way that is contrary to the foreign policy of the U.S." Now, I'm not exactly sure exactly how removal proceedings work, but from what I've read, it seems likely that he'll get some kind of hearing. Hopefully, this gets adjudicated properly, promptly and fairly in a way that respects his first amendment rights, though it is concerning that someone can just be held in detainment waiting for all this.
- int_19h 2y ago
  He'll get a hearing in immigration "court", an administrative court where the judge is on the payroll of the agency and very few rights you have in normal courts apply. Just to give one example, these are the same courts that have been putting 3-year-old children on trial without representation and calling that "due process".

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

"Green cards come with rules to keep." The whole issue is that the current administration has determined that they are the sole arbiter of those "rules", and they can detain and attempt to deport green card holders without any due process.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.
- darksaints 2y ago
  Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission. Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
  - worik 2y ago
    > Promoting a terrorist organization... is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing. He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.
    - darksaints 2y ago
      I’m well aware. Read my other comments in this thread.
  - blindriver 2y ago
    You need to educate yourself. This is 100% incorrect. It might be legal for a citizen but not a permanent resident. Endorsing terrorism is a question asked on every Green Card and naturalization application, and will get your deported. Until you are a citizen you will lose your green card for endorsing terrorism.