- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On Trump and the First Amendment.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:37 am to TBoy
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:37 am to TBoy
Conditional vs. Permanent: Some green cards are conditional (e.g., those obtained through marriage or investment), typically valid for 2 years. Holders must apply to remove these conditions (e.g., via Form I-751 for marriage-based green cards) to obtain a 10-year permanent green card.
Renewal: Unconditional green cards are usually valid for 10 years and must be renewed, but the status of permanent residency itself doesn’t expire unless revoked or abandoned.
Responsibilities: Green card holders must maintain their residency by not abandoning it (e.g., living outside the U.S. for too long, typically more than 6 months without proper documentation like a reentry permit) and by obeying U.S. laws. Failure to do so can lead to the loss of permanent resident status.
Rights: As permanent residents, green card holders have many rights, such as the ability to work, own property, and access certain benefits, but they cannot vote in federal elections or hold certain public offices, which are reserved for U.S. citizens.
So, in short, yes, green card holders have the right to permanent residence in the U.S., but that right comes with conditions and obligations to maintain it.
Renewal: Unconditional green cards are usually valid for 10 years and must be renewed, but the status of permanent residency itself doesn’t expire unless revoked or abandoned.
Responsibilities: Green card holders must maintain their residency by not abandoning it (e.g., living outside the U.S. for too long, typically more than 6 months without proper documentation like a reentry permit) and by obeying U.S. laws. Failure to do so can lead to the loss of permanent resident status.
Rights: As permanent residents, green card holders have many rights, such as the ability to work, own property, and access certain benefits, but they cannot vote in federal elections or hold certain public offices, which are reserved for U.S. citizens.
So, in short, yes, green card holders have the right to permanent residence in the U.S., but that right comes with conditions and obligations to maintain it.
1
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:38 am to monsterballads
mahmoud only has a green card because he married a citizen. it's conditional.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:38 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
He was one of them. He was a leader and vocal loudmouth
That is all I am asking. Just curious if you think being a leader of such a movement/protest that did the things I mentioned, - denied kids the ability to go to class, etc. - is rightfully subject to deportation.
Assume also that there is no evidence he has expressed fealty to Hamas, didn't express anti-American sentiment, etc. Simply that he was one of the leaders of this movement.
Not a gotcha question either - just curious, because I have some sympathy with your view on free speech.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:40 am to Bunk Moreland
uh, Glenn
It wasnt his "free speech" it was his "criminal acts" as a foreign terrorist thats getting him deported
It wasnt his "free speech" it was his "criminal acts" as a foreign terrorist thats getting him deported
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:41 am to monsterballads
What is the difference between a conditional green card vs permanent green card in this context? Is there a higher standard of removal for a permanent green card holder?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:42 am to Pandy Fackler
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:52 am to JimEverett
quote:
That is all I am asking. Just curious if you think being a leader of such a movement/protest that did the things I mentioned, - denied kids the ability to go to class, etc. - is rightfully subject to deportation.
Assume also that there is no evidence he has expressed fealty to Hamas, didn't express anti-American sentiment, etc. Simply that he was one of the leaders of this movement. Not a gotcha question either - just curious, because I have some sympathy with your view on free speech.
Maybe. As a layman though, the question(s) I would ask are what did he know about these abusive actions, is there evidence he condoned it, and if he did know, did he make an effort to discourge it?
I couch this next point by saying this...Yes, I know he's not an American citizen. With that said, how many individuals on January 6th were in some way held accountable for the actions of a larger group in a protest situation? Knowing protest situations are difficult to control.
To what degree do we hold this guy accountable in a protest situation, knowing that protest situations are inherently difficult to control and are aften chaotic?
The only thing I can do as an observer of all this is look at individual actions and I can't find one single individual action that rises to the level of deportation.
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 10:54 am
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:54 am to RobbBobb
quote:
"criminal acts"
Right, just like J6ers who had the book thrown at them.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:54 am to TBoy
quote:
Yes. They have been granted permanent residence under American law.
Wrong. I know green card holders and they know they don't enjoy the permanence of any right to be here if they mess up.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 10:59 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Right, just like J6ers who had the book thrown at them.
Are you agreeing to do unto others as they do unto you?
Or are you saying that the Ray Epps of Columbia Univ shouldnt be charged with inciting a riot? The deportation thingy is just a one-off, because we couldnt depart Ray Epps. But we could have held him accountable
So which is it we treat all riots as J6ers were treated, or we focus on the main instigator, appropriately?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:00 am to RobbBobb
quote:
So which is it we treat all riots as J6ers were treated, or we focus on the main instigator, appropriately?
LOL Uh oh
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:04 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
To what degree do we hold this guy accountable in a protest situation, knowing that protest situations are inherently difficult to control and are aften chaotic?
That’s not the issue. He’s handing out pro terrorist propaganda and openly a member/leader of a pro terror organization that encourages violence.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:06 am to Pandy Fackler
Gotcha - I think that is fair.
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 11:07 am
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:08 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
That's an excellent video clip and you're the first to post a link to a terrorist organization (loose or otherwise) and the clip dovetails with the questions I've been asking. It also confirms much of what we already know in terms of the law.
What we have to wait and see about is what weight do we give his individual actions versus the actions of CUAD.
What we have to wait and see about is what weight do we give his individual actions versus the actions of CUAD.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:18 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
That’s not the issue. He’s handing out pro terrorist propaganda and openly a member/leader of a pro terror organization that encourages violence.
Finer points in all this matter. There's no evidence I can find that he personally did that, and the question I now have is did he have knowledge that during the protests, CUAD was handing out that sort of information? Others won't think that matters but I do.
We'll see what the Government has on all this. I hope they have more than what we've been shown.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:19 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Where did you get THAT understanding? It's not the act of protesting. It's the content of the protesting that is under scrutiny.
When protesting and calling for the killing of American citizens and in support of a terrorist group, that is not allowed by people with a green card.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:27 am to Bunk Moreland
The premise of their question is false. We are not trying to deport a green card holder. You have to actually have a green card to be a green card holder.
He used to have one. The privilege was rescinded. It's time to go on home.
He used to have one. The privilege was rescinded. It's time to go on home.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:29 am to Hangit
quote:
The premise of their question is false. We are not trying to deport a green card holder. You have to actually have a green card to be a green card holder.
He used to have one. The privilege was rescinded. It's time to go on home.
He has the right to first sit in front of an immigration judge and have his case heard.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:33 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
There's no evidence I can find that he personally did that, and the question I now have is did he have knowledge that during the protests, CUAD was handing out that sort of information? Others won't think that matters but I do.
People won’t think it matters because it doesn’t matter under the immigration law. He doesn’t have to have committed a crime, he doesn’t have to have physically handed out flyers. CUAD publishes flyers supporting terrorist orgs, violence, etc. they have social media posts supporting terrorists orgs, promoting violence.
He hasn’t renounced the rhetoric or information in the flyers on social media. He’s not even making the argument that he doesn’t support the rhetoric. He’s just arguing he can espouse this information under the first amendment.
That’s not what his visa allows. He cannot support a terrorist org under his visa. Plain and simple.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 11:48 am to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
People won’t think it matters because it doesn’t matter under the immigration law. He doesn’t have to have committed a crime, he doesn’t have to have physically handed out flyers. CUAD publishes flyers supporting terrorist orgs, violence, etc. they have social media posts supporting terrorists orgs, promoting violence.
He hasn’t renounced the rhetoric or information in the flyers on social media. He’s not even making the argument that he doesn’t support the rhetoric. He’s just arguing he can espouse this information under the first amendment.
That’s not what his visa allows. He cannot support a terrorist org under his visa. Plain and simple.
Generally speaking, at this point I think everyone knows all that, and again the finer points matter. He came on a visa but was granted permanent US residency, there's a difference and that difference grants him certain rights. We'll know more about all this when both sides sit in front of an immigration judge.
I'd like to know more about the government's legal position on all this and we won't know until all evidence is presented to an immigration judge. And yes I know the threshold for deportation is low, but this new found trust conservatives have in the actions of it's government. I don't share it.
My opinion (and that's all it is) is that at this time, I've seen nothing that rises to the level of deportation.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News