Most active commenters
  • blindriver(7)
  • darksaints(5)
  • mindslight(4)
  • aprilthird2021(3)

←back to thread

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

300 points proberts | 22 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 5.409s | 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 #
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 #
1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[14 Mar 25 19:03 UTC] No.43366040[source]▶
"Green cards come with rules to keep."

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.

replies(1): >>43366141 #
2. kevin_thibedeau ◴[14 Mar 25 19:13 UTC] No.43366141[source]▶
Promoting a declared terrorist organization isn't a gray area. Nor is abusing schedule 1 drugs but the felon seems to want his African buddy to slide on that one.
replies(1): >>43366279 #
3. darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 19:27 UTC] No.43366279[source]▶
Promoting a terrorist organization is legal and well within the boundaries of free speech. It's just not cool, not a good look, and should be shamed into submission.

Providing material support to a terrorist organization is where it crosses into criminal territory.

replies(2): >>43367054 #>>43368825 #
4. worik ◴[14 Mar 25 20:40 UTC] No.43367054{3}[source]▶
> Promoting a terrorist organization...

is not what Mahmoud Kahill (sp?) was doing.

He's was protesting the University of Columbia's support of Israel, who were engaged in a wildly homicidal campaign against his kin.

replies(1): >>43367552 #
5. darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 21:35 UTC] No.43367552{4}[source]▶
I’m well aware. Read my other comments in this thread.
6. blindriver ◴[15 Mar 25 00:36 UTC] No.43368825{3}[source]▶
You need to educate yourself. This is 100% incorrect. It might be legal for a citizen but not a permanent resident. Endorsing terrorism is a question asked on every Green Card and naturalization application, and will get your deported. Until you are a citizen you will lose your green card for endorsing terrorism.
replies(2): >>43370258 #>>43373256 #
7. aprilthird2021 ◴[15 Mar 25 05:37 UTC] No.43370258{4}[source]▶
So if a green card holder said "I can see why people support Hamas" should he be expelled? When does just talking about a situation turn into "endorsement" or "support"?
replies(2): >>43372499 #>>43373775 #
8. trollbridge ◴[15 Mar 25 13:46 UTC] No.43372499{5}[source]▶
That’s part of the problem here. The federal government can decide by fiat that you did a bad thing before you applied for a green card and then deport you based on that.

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.

replies(1): >>43375967 #
9. darksaints ◴[15 Mar 25 15:48 UTC] No.43373256{4}[source]▶
Conditions for admissibility are one thing, and you can be denied entry for any thought crime that the government wants to impose.

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.

replies(1): >>43373748 #
10. blindriver ◴[15 Mar 25 17:02 UTC] No.43373748{5}[source]▶
No you do not have the same rights as any citizen. You are wrong. You cannot endorse terrorism. If you come into the US on a visa and say "Death to America!" then you will be deported. This has been the case for decades upon decades and in my opinion it is correct. It's called biting the hand that feeds you and that person is taking a spot from someone else who would be grateful for being in the US.
replies(1): >>43376046 #
11. blindriver ◴[15 Mar 25 17:06 UTC] No.43373775{5}[source]▶
Yes, it's enough to get lawyers involved if you're stupid enough to get caught for talking about terrorism like that when you're on your green card.
replies(1): >>43375697 #
12. aprilthird2021 ◴[15 Mar 25 22:56 UTC] No.43375697{6}[source]▶
That's ridiculous, imo. If we don't understand geopolitics and can't talk about it, what hope do we have of being good at it?
13. aprilthird2021 ◴[15 Mar 25 23:50 UTC] No.43375967{6}[source]▶
We used to be a unique country when it came to free speech. No reason why it shouldn't be provided to noncitizens too, imo. We let our enemies pump news and media into our country because we believe the people actually run the country.
14. darksaints ◴[16 Mar 25 00:12 UTC] No.43376046{6}[source]▶
Your opinion doesn’t matter dude. Decades of jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedent has already conclusively determined that green card holders have the same rights to free speech as citizens. It would take overturning the existing Supreme Court precedent, and destroying the 1st amendment along with it, for that to go away.
replies(1): >>43378065 #
15. blindriver ◴[16 Mar 25 10:53 UTC] No.43378065{7}[source]▶
You are completely wrong. Supreme Court found that aliens do not have full first amendment protection, especially around terrorism.
replies(1): >>43380074 #
16. mindslight ◴[16 Mar 25 16:05 UTC] No.43380074{8}[source]▶
s/Supreme Court found/Subservient Council declared/g

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.

replies(1): >>43381861 #
17. blindriver ◴[16 Mar 25 20:12 UTC] No.43381861{9}[source]▶
Wrong.

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.

replies(1): >>43382686 #
18. mindslight ◴[16 Mar 25 21:44 UTC] No.43382686{10}[source]▶
Nothing in your comment is a logical response to anything in mine. Perhaps you need to take your own advice, especially with text that's right above where you're typing?
replies(1): >>43385102 #
19. blindriver ◴[17 Mar 25 04:05 UTC] No.43385102{11}[source]▶
Probably because you don't understand what I posted. It clearly states that non-citizens do not enjoy First Amendment protections when it comes to deportation, which is exactly what Khalil is going through right now. If you don't understand how this relates, then you need some deep education on what you were posting about.
replies(1): >>43385394 #
20. mindslight ◴[17 Mar 25 05:15 UTC] No.43385394{12}[source]▶
I understand your comments just fine. Rather it seems that you have a comprehension problem. Your link may state that the Supreme Court has declared that non-citizens [etc]. Pointing out that you're holding up this declaration as if it's some unassailable logical conclusion rather than an arguable policy decree is the crux of my comment.
replies(1): >>43389069 #
21. blindriver ◴[17 Mar 25 14:38 UTC] No.43389069{13}[source]▶
Ah, so you don’t understand how the judicial branch works. Okay. Regardless of what you want to believe, non-citizens do not enjoy first amendment rights when it comes to deportation. Period. End of story. You can be against this all you want, but Khalil will be lawfully deported and so will any other non-citizens that engage in endorsing terrorism. This is established case law.
replies(1): >>43390672 #
22. mindslight ◴[17 Mar 25 17:18 UTC] No.43390672{14}[source]▶
I don't know why you keep jumping to characterize disagreement as misunderstanding. Your apparent belief that the courts somehow represent infallible logic rather than merely a different type of policymaking is exactly why I'm making my point. Like, it's a big deal when a new justice gets appointed, right? They're not just interchangeable cogs.

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.