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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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-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.

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.

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".

I've been made to understand there should be a hearing before an administrative law judge but I don't know much beyond that. I don't think he gets a jury or anything like that, though.