Most active commenters
  • nashashmi(3)

←back to thread

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA

300 points proberts | 13 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 1.482s | source | bottom

I'll be here for the next 6 hours. As usual, there are countless possible topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with but as much as possible I'd like to focus on the recent changes and potential changes in U.S. immigration law, policy, and practice. Please remember that I am limited in providing legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll try to do the same in my responses. Thank you!
Show context
fuzztail ◴[14 Mar 25 14:56 UTC] No.43363226[source]▶
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?
replies(7): >>43363243 #>>43363333 #>>43363705 #>>43363935 #>>43365810 #>>43368434 #>>43369456 #
SV_BubbleTime[dead post] ◴[14 Mar 25 14:58 UTC] No.43363243[source]▶
[flagged]
1. orionsbelt ◴[14 Mar 25 15:36 UTC] No.43363650[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>43363785 #>>43364563 #
2. darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 15:48 UTC] No.43363785[source]▶
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.

3. paxys ◴[14 Mar 25 16:47 UTC] No.43364424[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43365478 #
4. Matticus_Rex ◴[14 Mar 25 16:57 UTC] No.43364563[source]▶
Expressing support for Hamas is also protected speech, and that's not controversial in terms of 1A law/jurisprudence.
5. xrd ◴[14 Mar 25 17:24 UTC] No.43364844[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>43367184 #
6. jlawson ◴[14 Mar 25 18:14 UTC] No.43365478[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>43365551 #
7. nashashmi ◴[14 Mar 25 18:21 UTC] No.43365551{3}[source]▶
There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.
replies(2): >>43366011 #>>43366078 #
8. notavalleyman ◴[14 Mar 25 18:59 UTC] No.43366011{4}[source]▶
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?
replies(1): >>43368849 #
9. darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 19:07 UTC] No.43366078{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43368872 #
10. derektank ◴[14 Mar 25 20:52 UTC] No.43367184{3}[source]▶
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-s...

replies(1): >>43367901 #
11. text0404 ◴[14 Mar 25 22:20 UTC] No.43367901{4}[source]▶
> 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.

12. nashashmi ◴[15 Mar 25 00:40 UTC] No.43368849{5}[source]▶
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

13. nashashmi ◴[15 Mar 25 00:43 UTC] No.43368872{5}[source]▶
Yes thanks for the correction.