←back to thread

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

300 points proberts | 2 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.568s | source

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 #
mc32[dead post] ◴[14 Mar 25 15:06 UTC] No.43363333[source]▶
[flagged]
darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 15:11 UTC] No.43363411[source]▶
Green card holders have a right to free speech.
replies(4): >>43364017 #>>43364839 #>>43365360 #>>43369933 #
sigzero ◴[14 Mar 25 18:05 UTC] No.43365360[source]▶
Green cards come with rules to keep. If you break those rules you can and probably will lose your green card and be deported.
replies(2): >>43365519 #>>43366040 #
darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 18:18 UTC] No.43365519[source]▶
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?
replies(3): >>43366029 #>>43366106 #>>43366270 #
1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[14 Mar 25 19:09 UTC] No.43366094[source]▶
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.

2. darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 19:19 UTC] No.43366208[source]▶
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.