If the government determines you to be detrimental to national security, including sympathy to foreign terror groups, that is sufficient grounds

Only after a hearing before a judge. The State Department does not have the legal authority to revoke Green Cards.

Have they revoked it? I thought he’s just been arrested. That’s something various police forces within State absolutely can do with probably cause.

Does it matter if he was 'arrested'? They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest, he's being denied his right to an attorney and are refusing to tell his representation where he is even at.

> They didn't and are not following proper protocol. There was no warrant for his arrest

Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause.

> he's being denied his right to an attorney

Source? His attorney is quoted in the article.

> refusing to tell his representation where he is even at

Source? The article states he’s at “an immigration detention facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey.”

There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest. Those get diluted if folks start making things up about the severity of the situation.

The parallel AP article (https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khali...) says he is no longer in New Jersey and may have been moved to Louisiana. It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept.

> It also says (implies?) that neither his wife nor his lawyer have been in touch with him nor know where he is being kept

Thank you. This is concerning. I’ll keep an eye out for a statement from the lawyer. It may be that nobody is telling the press while the internet runs with the meme.

> Again, police don’t need a warrant with probable cause.

Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest without extreme probable cause.. And nothing they say would rise to that level of arresting someone solely on probable cause because there's no clear imminent threat of violence. They were not able to produce a warrant.

> Source? His attorney is quoted in the article.

https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ljxt6... [1]

It takes all of five minutes to get the latest update. His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him.

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-agents-arrest-anti-israel-act... (the related Fox News article)

> Yes you do. You can not just barge into someones home and perform an illegal search + arrest

Search and arrest, yes. If police see probable cause to arrest from the street, they can arrest.

> because there's no clear imminent threat of violence*

Violence is unnecessary. If you’re caught shoplifting, the cop can arrest you without a warrant even if you weren’t violent.

> His attorney does not know where he's being held and no one is allowed to visit him

The tweet is from 9 hours ago. (Who is the source?)

The article is newer. We know where he is.

> The article is newer. We know where he is.

Okay then tell me: Where is he being held? Here's a quote from his attorney:

> "Currently, we do not know Mahmoud’s precise whereabouts. Initially, we were informed this morning that he had been transferred to an ICE facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey," Greer added.

> "However, when his wife – a U.S. citizen who is eight months’ pregnant and was threatened with arrest as well by the ICE agents last night – tried to visit him there today, she was told he is not detained there."

Where are you getting these quotes? From when?

I literally posted the article in my post that you responded to. Did you not read it before just jumping in to respond that you knew where he was being held?

So it’s the same hours-old quote?

> There are obvious First Amendment and free speech issues with this arrest.

Unlikely. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisiades_v._Shaughnessy

ICE agents told his lawyer (in a phone call while he was being arrested) that it had been revoked

Feels like nobody ran an integration test, and we're about to find out that 1st amendment violations are an emergent property of a complex system riddled with accountability sinks.

8 U.S.C. §1227 stipulates:

Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens

So while you may or may not need a hearing to revoke a green card, AG Bondi seems to be able to detain and summarily remove you from the US, without the need to do a hearing to 'revoke your green card' if you fall under that statue. (Note that "immigration judges" are not real courts under judicial branch. They are under AG.)

The question of whether the "alien is within one or more of the following classes" should be justiciable. If there were no check on the AG's power to make that determination, then the AG would be able to remove anyone.

The buck stops with AG for the procedural requirements, but you can certainly sue the AG after the decision has been made in (regular) court. For many of those classes the burden of proof is low if AG wants to deport them. Basically if Sec of State deems a non-citizen as bad for foreign policy, that'd be sufficient for removal. To me this sounds like a feature not a bug, for the executive branch at the Secretary level to be able to exclude a non-citizen persona non grata from the privilege of staying in the US.

Also precedent exists (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy) that suggests deportation does not violate the First Amendment in these cases.

I think you’re more or less right on the law, but I do think it is sad that activity that would likely be non-punishable as applied to citizens can get you ejected from the country if you’re a non-citizen. There’s not much principle there.

Also there’s a bit of a wrinkle in the Harisiades case: first, it was written at the height of the Red Scare, and likely wouldn’t have concluded the same way had it been adjudicated after that ended and the Warren court era began. Second, the Court had to find that the Communist Party advocated for violent overthrow of the country in order to hold their membership as not protected by the First Amendment. Had it not done so, the court might have found that their activity was protected.

I guess whether it is sad (chilling effect) or exciting (prevents abuse of paradox of tolerance) depends on your perspective on the particular issue, but the principle here is a non-citizen is a non-citizen. They should not get other ideas. There are many legal activities that non-citizens cannot do: namely they cannot engage in work without authorization, for example. LPRs are given more leeway but those are all within the realm of INA itself not constitutionally protected. What INA giveth INA taketh away.

I understand. My point is that, if one of our founding principles is that government overreach should be defended against and thus constrained--a principle that guides our Constitution and is enshrined in the Bill of Rights--it really shouldn't matter whom it's protecting. Fenceposts don't move when a horse tries to get through instead of a cow.

To be fair, the Court did not hold that aliens aren't protected by the Constitution. It avoided the question by holding that the aliens' activities weren't protected, and that Fifth Amendment protections are different (and less stringent) for civil process than for criminal process.

I think the alien is still protected under First Amendment in the sense that you cannot criminally charge him of a crime. It simply has a consequence as outlined in the context of INA, which obviously won't apply to the US Citizens in the first place, just like a US Citizen could lose a public job (Garcetti v. Ceballos).

How do we measure sympathy?

That sounds like a thought crime.