> The specific features of the constitutional guarantees of political freedom, due process, and equal protection further support their extension to foreign nationals living in the United States.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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-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... - 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.
Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.
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.
No.
One of the major distinctions being – CBP cannot deny a green card holder to enter the country. They can try pressure tactics to 'convince' the person to 'voluntarily' give up their green card but, if they don't sign anything, they will still be let in. If there's something off about their case, they may be referred to an immigration judge, which is the only way to revoke a green card (barring some fraud detected by USCIS).
Contrast that with visas. They are entirely at immigration discretion and can be canceled at any time, including at the port of entry, for any reason. Visas which grant work authorization still have the SSN restricted and it's tied to whatever authorization the person has. A green card holder can remove the SSN restriction and their SSN is exactly the same as a citizen.
Really, the main differences are that a citizen can hold some offices a LPR cannot, the ability to vote, and no requirement to renew anything. And, most importantly, no residency requirements for a citizen.
As you point out, naturalization is more difficult to remove, but green cards aren't that easy either.
For eg. Some green card holders live overseas. They are required to visit here periodically to keep status alive.
I know of cases where their green cards were revoked
The "basic US presence" requirement of green cards has always been present in the validity clause alongside the 5-10year expiry date, and not committing immigration fraud and other basic requirements to maintain green card -- a comical number of European green card holders gloss over/forget this clause every year, that is made explicit to them upon receiving the card and proceed to forfeit their green cards by not entering the US for over a year -- that is not a revocation (implies a subjective decision made by an official), it is a lapse of validity (implies some pre-stated condition was fulfilled).
Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.
But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.
I think most non legally inclined people (like me) would say CBP yanked my GC.
Your point being that - nope, they just enforced the law.
Right?
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.
My understanding is a US citizen could promote a terrorist organization like Al Queda and that would not be a crime (if no imminent threat) as it’s protected speech.
They could be investigated, but if no crime is committed the won’t be consequences.
If you’re a green card holder you most certainly could have your green card yanked for the same speech.
Green card holders are still immigrants and liable to be removed from the US for a host of reasons that aren’t actual crimes. Heck, “moral turpitude” is a reason for losing your green card, and that includes a whole host of speech that promotes things like war crimes.
"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.
Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.
Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".
For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS
A notable case is Shamima Begum's: born in London, the UK deprived her of British citizenship, claiming that she anyhow had Bangladeshi citizenship (but she hasn't: the Government of Bangladesh said as much). Anyhow, since all of this time she has been in Syria, this is not really a problem for either the UK or Bangladesh.
The courts enthusiastically said “no”.
Croatia gave him a fair trial and found him not guilty. Despite that he can’t ever come back to the U.S.; this situation is analogous to what the protester from Columbia is facing. Basically, USCIS can decide you lied on an application about a crime they think you committed, without actually being convicted of that crime. (Or in the case of Slobodan Mutic, eventually being found not guilty.)
They can also say you did a bad thing after and revoke your green card, although it’s a bit more paperwork to do so and requires a higher up to sign off on it (in this recent case, the Secretary of State himself).
I’m not aware of any country that provides blanket free speech for noncitizens.
The main reason people don’t is because they don’t want to be filing U.S. tax returns the rest of their life if they plan to eventually move back to another country. I have relatives who have made such a decision.
Once you are in, you have the same rights to free speech as any citizen, and the same rights to due process as well. In fact, the only thing they can do to curb your free speech is prove in court that you lied on your application. Which is likely how this case will play out after judges rule on how illegal their attempted action is, but as of yet the government has not provided any evidence of him lying on his application.
Under no circumstances would any thinking person consider that fair.
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.
You also get other benefits too though. If you ever become desolate or need help getting home, embassies can help or provide a loan. If war breaks out or some natural disaster happens, America will come for you. You get the power of our passport. You can still collect benefits like social security.
Pros and cons.
Sort of. The state department will arrange evac, but if it's a charter on a PJ, you'll be on the hook for it and will have to sign a promissory note for it.
Sending in the military is very rare. You'll have better luck with a private security company, but they aren't cheap.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is framed in terms of recognizing independent-existing natural inalienable rights. Citizenship is a complete red herring. The SC has been writing justifications for blatant infringement of natural rights for decades, even before the current neofascist takeover. Take the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, run down them, and try to find one that is actually passing.
Reno v. American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee made it clear that there are no First amendment protections from deportation. This is well established case law for decades now.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/reno-v-adc
This is why talking confidently about things you have absolutely no idea about makes you look foolish.
Pragmatically, yes, Khalil will likely be deported due to having exercised his freedom of speech. This, along with many other current affairs, should be abhorrent to anybody who actually believes in the ideals of individual liberty - regardless of the justifications crafted by the judicial, executive, and fourth estate. And I really don't know what you gain by cheerleading authoritarianism, besides some feeling of smugness of being on the winning team.