←back to thread

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

300 points proberts | 3 comments | 14 Mar 25 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.748s | 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]
nashashmi ◴[14 Mar 25 18:18 UTC] No.43365512[source]▶
> essentially long term visas

Not visas which are visitation permits. They are non-citizens who live in the United States. This is not visitation.

Revoking a green card is akin to expulsion from the country. And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged.

In the case of the Columbia student, he was accused of terrorism without trial and had his revocation signed single handedly by the Secretary of State. This is a first time for the law to be used.

replies(2): >>43365971 #>>43366310 #
mc32 ◴[14 Mar 25 18:56 UTC] No.43365971[source]▶
That may be the case, but as in NY vs Trump, sometimes laws are used in novel ways, in that case 'falsifying business records' -ie. inflating asset prices; something the prosecutor herself engaged in. Previously, those were normally misdemeanors but were reclassified as felonies. Also, they were not historically prosecuted. So, there is precedent for using previously unenforced laws as well as reclassifying the severity.
replies(2): >>43368934 #>>43373677 #
1. kacesensitive ◴[15 Mar 25 16:52 UTC] No.43373677[source]▶
That's a mischaracterization of the case. In New York v. Trump, the charge was falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which is what elevated it to a felony. That isn’t a novel interpretation—New York law has long treated falsification of business records as a misdemeanor unless it’s done to cover up or advance another crime. The prosecution argued that Trump falsified records to hide a campaign finance violation, which is what made it a felony.

As for the idea that these laws were "previously unenforced," that's misleading. Falsifying business records has been prosecuted as a felony in New York many times before, including against other executives. What makes this case unique is the high-profile defendant, not some unprecedented application of the law.

And the claim that the prosecutor herself engaged in inflating asset prices is a distortion. Letitia James, as AG, pursued civil fraud claims against Trump for devaluing his assets for tax purposes while inflating them for loan applications—something Trump himself admitted to in depositions. That’s not the same as falsifying business records.

So no, this isn't some brand-new legal strategy being used against Trump; it's just a matter of finally holding a powerful person accountable under laws that have existed and been applied before.

replies(1): >>43373896 #
2. mc32 ◴[15 Mar 25 17:24 UTC] No.43373896[source]▶
There are a few NY democratic operatives of some renown in whose opinion the prosecutions were politically motivated. I think the statute of limitations had expired but through manoeuvering they were able to bring charges. That lends credence to that opinion.
replies(1): >>43374254 #
3. kacesensitive ◴[15 Mar 25 18:18 UTC] No.43374254[source]▶
Saying the statute of limitations had expired ignores New York’s well-established tolling rule, which pauses the clock when a defendant is out of state—something courts upheld in this case and hundreds of others. The idea that prosecutions are politically motivated based on the opinions of a few operatives doesn’t override the legal basis for the charges, which follow existing precedent on falsifying business records to cover up a crime. If anything, failing to prosecute someone due to their political status would be the real favoritism.