300 points proberts | 1 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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]▶

>>43363056 (OP) #

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]▶

>>43363226 #

[flagged]

darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 15:11 UTC] No.43363411[source]▶

>>43363333 #

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]▶

>>43363411 #

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 #

hn_throwaway_99 ◴[14 Mar 25 19:03 UTC] No.43366040[source]▶

>>43365360 #

"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 #

kevin_thibedeau ◴[14 Mar 25 19:13 UTC] No.43366141[source]▶

>>43366040 #

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 #

darksaints ◴[14 Mar 25 19:27 UTC] No.43366279[source]▶

>>43366141 #

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 #

worik ◴[14 Mar 25 20:40 UTC] No.43367054[source]▶

>>43366279 #

> 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.

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