Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Green cards cannot be yanked for constitutionally protected speech.
False. PRs do not enjoy all of the same the First Amendment protections that citizens do, especially in the case of Khalil.
I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
301–310 of 527 posts
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> And can only be used when laws are broken, treason is committed, or terrorism is waged. CBP/ICE has a pretty detailed explanation on their website that you can lose permanent resident status by remaining outside of the country for more than one year and failing to retain a bona fide residence and presence in the USA (US job with annual 1040 tax filings, residence, identity documents, etc). I would wager that a scen…
Yes, leaving the country for a long time is another way to lose residency. I was focusing more on expulsion.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canadians may be often unprepared and shocked how aggressive and militarized the southern border is, compared to crossing at northern border land entry points.
It is as bad as it has ever been……… But border patrol has always been a bunch of small dick assholes, all the way back to Obama. My wife and I adopted a child from another country. He was 18 months of age at the time. We flew into LAX. We were exhausted from a long flight. We got to customs. Agents approached us and said that they had a few questions and said that I (the father) needed to collect our bags and they wo…
Now imagine you had no recourse to citizenship and how terrified you would feel. Threatening to call 911 would lead to escalation of crisis rather than its opposite.
Having seen what the US gov't did to Maher Arar 20 years ago, I have never felt comfortable crossing that border since, despite being a white middle class Canadian of no suspect at all. Just place, wrong time, wrong person, and it can go so, so badly, without any recourse.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get to chatting with a CBSA officer (Canadian version of CBP), they'll have plenty of stories for you about Americans who want to drive from WA to Alaska with all of their guns in their car and not declare it, or try to bring all kinds of absolutely ridiculous stuff into the country without declaring it. The people who cross the border on a regular basis, like a dozen times a year or more, know the system and…
In '09, after getting laid off I did a road trip around with provisions for "I could go camping if my road trip took me that way." No fire arms or criminal record.. but I'm getting to that. So, going from Seattle up to Banff by way of the Sumas / Huntington crossing... I went in and was asked for the purpose of my visit ("tourist"), duration of stay ("one to two weeks, no more than two"), for my occupation ("I am cur…
Glad you got to experience Waterton. Many Canadians will eventually go to Banff or Jasper (though it's surprising how many people here in Ontario where I live now have never been west of the province, but almost all have been to the US)... but almost nobody gets to Waterton and it's a jewel that most people don't even know about. Haven't been since I was 14. I lived in Alberta but it was still an 8 hour drive.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.
Sorry if I'm missing your sarcasm, but I was curious and tried to search for this and wasn't successful, can you give more details?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/grounds-deportabilit...
Look up the line on nazis. On second look, The word advocacy is wrong. It is nazi persecution
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I read, the Canadian consulate can't do anything for her. They have her in their system, and she has no rights.
I read that she was scheduled to be released (sent back to Canada) today, but I can't find any more recent news either way.
In a way it's a story only notable because she's middle class and white. These kinds of things happened routinely to people with Arabic or "Muslim" names for a disturbing amount of time after 9/11. Maher Arar being the most famous case.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is actually a law that prohibits advocacy of nazis while on a green card.
Nothing prohibiting advocacy of nazis, from what I can tell, it's for affiliation with nazis. And its an entry/approval requirement, and there is a big difference though between entry/approval requirements and ongoing obligations. The government can deny entry/approval for a myriad of reasons related to unfavorable speech, but they can't infringe on the legal speech of a green card holder. Regardless, the prohibition…
Yes thanks for the correction.
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all respect, everything happening in the US at the moment is "extraordinarily unusual" today. Tomorrow it will be the "new normal".
According to this article, Canada rejected her entry as well. Maybe it's not just the US, but this person actually had a real issue with her visa and her travel plans were not prepared well. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y3yx1jdyo "...when she reached the border [Canada], Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally."
canada cannot deny canadian citizens entry
Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney who does work for YC and startups. AMA
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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 sever…
No. The case for inflated assets was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one.
Business records were filed falsely in the hush money scandal. That resulted in a criminal conviction. 34 counts total, because it was done over eleven transactions, and three filings made for each transaction. It was supposed to be noted and declared as hush money, but because it was labeled legal money, this was a lie.
If you want to argue that it is unfair , I am with you, but the bigger person you are and the bigger your pursuit the bigger your enemy and the more squeaky clean your record has to be. That’s the price of fame and fortune with envy.