Most green card holders will tell you they feel like a guest in the country. Getting involved in protests and supporting organizations on the terror list etc seems rather silly...
But it doesn't matter.
Visas can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion. You're absolutely right that visa holders are protected by US laws ... but that doesn't protect them from losing said visa.
Deportation is also at the president's discretion. So the same applies.
But they are definitely protected by US laws. You cannot kill a them. You will get arrested for stealing from them. Even if they're being deported. But the executive ("the president"), ie. ICE, can forcibly remove any visa holder, from US soil, that is perfectly within the law.
In other words, no, you don’t. Talking to reporters is covered by the first amendment. Talking to school officials is covered by the first amendment. Being at a protest is covered by the first amendment. Simply at protest where other people do something illegal is covered by the first amendment, too. Unless there’s evidence that he was personally doing or inciting illegal activity, this should be textbook civil rights law.
> Green cards can be granted or withdrawn at the president's discretion.
Can you provide a citation to that law?
I bet any decent prosecutor can make the case that organizing (and defending) a protest that engages in violence is illegal, including when the organizer cannot be proven to directly participate in the violence.
And, frankly, (my personal moral opinion) that is just not OK to do. If this happens, you walk away. If you don't, there may be consequences.
But if you want to shout that there is no direct proof of this person directly committing violence, well, no, there isn't. Al Capone famously also never hurt a fly (or at least, never convicted for that), in the same manner: he organized violence against people, he did not do it himself.
> Can you provide a citation to that law?
Again, this will be subtle, so if you want to shout "so you CAN'T" again, you'll probably be able to. You will not get any response beyond that. Specifically what is not addressed in my response is the conflict between Federal law and States' law. But here you go:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
TLDR: the secretary of state (and thus the president) can request that a visa be revoked, and that's that. He is not limited in that. Here is the secretary of state announcing his intention to do just that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5185620-rubio-ice-arr...
For a green card holder, apparently a (federal) immigration judge must confirm the decision.
Let them make case rather than contributing your credibility pro bono. That’s why we have courts, and also I feel compelled to note that the courts have tossed out tons and tons of those cases as prosecutorial overreach. Speculation without evidence isn’t going to matter in a fair court, and if we’re at the point where the courts no longer care about laws or evidence I doubt you’d want to be helping them.
If you look at past protests, there’s a pattern where the police arrest many people but ultimately only a few even face trials because even if something is unambiguously illegal like chucking a brick through a window or starting a fire, it’s hard to prove that anyone who isn’t right there approved or helped commit the crime. Going to a protest, joining a chant, waving a sign, or speaking up on behalf of the protest movement doesn’t mean you support violence unless you were specifically calling for violence. None of the links you shared showed him shouting for genocide and even the people who’ve been branding him as anti-Semitic rely on vague, sweeping claims which mostly seem to imply guilt by association. It’s always possible that a trial will show stronger evidence but I think almost all of the reaction here is that there absolutely should be a trial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/immigration-j...
3% complete.
But not for this asshole. Sorry.
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide ...? ”
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/city-news/2024/04/24/i-am-...
https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/30/24145737/columbia-suspend...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68923528
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-stalemate-cont...
https://nypost.com/2024/04/26/us-news/the-extremist-student-...
And if you want to have a fight about technicalities, you're both wrong. He didn't describe himself as either pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian. He described the protests as anti-Israel ...
As anti-Israel's existence, to be exact, not anti-Israel's actions in Gaza or anywhere else.
None of the links you provided substantiate the claim that Khalil spoke out in support of Hamas. Neither that he was an organizer of the protests.
And is that what happened?
It was written because most people here seem to be confused about the law - ie they think even if someone did what they say they are somehow protected. They are not. No one was derided because it was a hypothetical
Legal cases are often considered in this fashion - assume the accusation is correct on the facts about a hypothetical person - what is the law? Else you waste a lot of time and money figuring if someone did something only to realize "ok he did that, but as it happens, that's totally fine!". Once you are certain the claim is actually problematic, then you turn to the facts - did the person in question do it?
They also have the power to remove anyone without a green card from US soil, also at their discretion.
The only thing that matters is that this person is in the US on a visa, and that ICE wants to do this. That's the law.
A lot such laws exist, because there has been a long fight between the federal government and various states about deportation (and of course, it's not just federal vs states, there's also states that want people in other states to get deported, e.g. New York vs Texas)
https://fox59.com/news/national-world/ap-us-news/ap-arrest-o...
https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-mahmoud-khal...
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
As a green card holder, he was covered on the other type (immigrant) which does not assume that you’re intending to leave the country. I don’t know anything about his personal life but as the spouse of an American citizen he should easily have qualified:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrat...
The key thing which separates a green card from a regular visa of either type, and why people tried so hard to get them, is that it offers legal rights such as the ability to sponsor family members for their own permanente residency and, most relevant, legal protections closer to a citizen’s.
Go down to the section on terrorist activities, click the link. That's what the claim is.
They probably invoked very particular section of the law which gives a power to the US Secretary of State to take green card in extraordinary circumstances of danger to the states.
The provisions you keep citing most likely can’t be invoked like this, and must involve immigration courts. It’s much harder for the state to remove permanent residents than visa holders.
You are miles out of your depth.
They didn't "invoke" anything.