4 ms·

> essentially long term visas Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation. Revoking a

> essentially long term visas Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation. Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged. In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.

mc32 2y ago
That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  No. The case for inflated assets was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie. If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.
- kacesensitive 2y ago
  That's a mischaracterization of the case. In New York v. Trump, the charge was falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which is what elevated it to a felony. That isn’t a novel interpretation—New York law has long treated falsification of business records as a misdemeanor unless it’s done to cover up or advance another crime. The prosecution argued that Trump falsified records to hide a campaign finance violation, which is what made it a felony. As for the idea that these laws were "previously unenforced," that's misleading. Falsifying business records has been prosecuted as a felony in New York many times before, including against other executives. What makes this case unique is the high-profile defendant, not some unprecedented application of the law. And the claim that the prosecutor herself engaged in inflating asset prices is a distortion. Letitia James, as AG, pursued civil fraud claims against Trump for devaluing his assets for tax purposes while inflating them for loan applications—something Trump himself admitted to in depositions. That’s not the same as falsifying business records. So no, this isn't some brand-new legal strategy being used against Trump; it's just a matter of finally holding a powerful person accountable under laws that have existed and been applied before.
  - mc32 2y ago
    There are a few NY democratic operatives of some renown in whose opinion the prosecutions were politically motivated. I think the statute of limitations had expired but through manoeuvering they were able to bring charges. That lends credence to that opinion.
    - kacesensitive 2y ago
      Saying the statute of limitations had expired ignores New York’s well-established tolling rule, which pauses the clock when a defendant is out of state—something courts upheld in this case and hundreds of others. The idea that prosecutions are politically motivated based on the opinions of a few operatives doesn’t override the legal basis for the charges, which follow existing precedent on falsifying business records to cover up a crime. If anything, failing to prosecute someone due to their political status would be the real favoritism.
walrus01 2y ago
> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged. CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc). I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.
- nashashmi 2y ago
  Yes, leaving the country for a long time is another way to lose residency. I was focusing more on expulsion.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  In the distant past the US government claimed US Citizens who lived abroad too long lost their citizenship. The courts said, “no.” But the US State Department would still refuse to provide consular services.
  - trollbridge 2y ago
    Some expat US citizens tried to claim this to avoid paying taxes for the U.S. on foreign income. The courts enthusiastically said “no”.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      Isn't it exclusive to the US that you have to pay taxes after having moved abroad, despite living in another country for a long time, having your home address, etc. set there and so forth.
      - pyuser583 2y ago
        North Korea does it too.

mc32 2y ago

That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.

nashashmi 2y ago
No. The case for inflated assets was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie. If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.
kacesensitive 2y ago
That's a mischaracterization of the case. In New York v. Trump, the charge was falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which is what elevated it to a felony. That isn’t a novel interpretation—New York law has long treated falsification of business records as a misdemeanor unless it’s done to cover up or advance another crime. The prosecution argued that Trump falsified records to hide a campaign finance violation, which is what made it a felony. As for the idea that these laws were "previously unenforced," that's misleading. Falsifying business records has been prosecuted as a felony in New York many times before, including against other executives. What makes this case unique is the high-profile defendant, not some unprecedented application of the law. And the claim that the prosecutor herself engaged in inflating asset prices is a distortion. Letitia James, as AG, pursued civil fraud claims against Trump for devaluing his assets for tax purposes while inflating them for loan applications—something Trump himself admitted to in depositions. That’s not the same as falsifying business records. So no, this isn't some brand-new legal strategy being used against Trump; it's just a matter of finally holding a powerful person accountable under laws that have existed and been applied before.
- mc32 2y ago
  There are a few NY democratic operatives of some renown in whose opinion the prosecutions were politically motivated. I think the statute of limitations had expired but through manoeuvering they were able to bring charges. That lends credence to that opinion.
  - kacesensitive 2y ago
    Saying the statute of limitations had expired ignores New York’s well-established tolling rule, which pauses the clock when a defendant is out of state—something courts upheld in this case and hundreds of others. The idea that prosecutions are politically motivated based on the opinions of a few operatives doesn’t override the legal basis for the charges, which follow existing precedent on falsifying business records to cover up a crime. If anything, failing to prosecute someone due to their political status would be the real favoritism.

walrus01 2y ago

> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged. CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc). I would wager that a scenario such as remaining overseas for multiple years is a much more common way for people to lose US PR status through negligence/lack of action than for people to get their PR status revoked through some legal process initiated for treason, terrorism, etc.

nashashmi 2y ago
Yes, leaving the country for a long time is another way to lose residency. I was focusing more on expulsion.
pyuser583 2y ago
In the distant past the US government claimed US Citizens who lived abroad too long lost their citizenship. The courts said, “no.” But the US State Department would still refuse to provide consular services.
- trollbridge 2y ago
  Some expat US citizens tried to claim this to avoid paying taxes for the U.S. on foreign income. The courts enthusiastically said “no”.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    Isn't it exclusive to the US that you have to pay taxes after having moved abroad, despite living in another country for a long time, having your home address, etc. set there and so forth.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      North Korea does it too.