Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> The argument seems to be that the government can unilaterally revoke a green card based on an affiliation with a foreign terrorist organization, but the proof of that -- beyond a subjective ideological designation -- is flimsy at best. Will almost certainly end up with a landmark SCOTUS case. ChatGPT-aided relevant cases: Bridges v. Wixon, Kleindienst v. Mandel + Trump v. Hawaii (is national security here a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason"?), Holder v. HLP (what constitutes "material support"?) Assume that the argument will be on national security / executive branch has ability to deport any non-citizen and will shy away from anything 1A or due process; conversely, his lawyers will lean into the Bridges argument (which worked then). https://warpcast.com/dmarans/0xd8575ae3
1 reply
0 recast
10 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Aside: it's incredible how much better analysis ChatGPT can provide than the average NYT article on something legal. prompt: "Analyze the constitutional arguments both for and against the following situation, citing relevant case law to support each position. [paste text of the article]"
2 replies
0 recast
8 reactions
ryan
@ryanrodenbaugh.eth
I asked grok to steelman: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Section 212(a)(3)(B), green card holders can be deemed deportable if they engage in or endorse terrorist activity, even without a criminal conviction
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
ryan
@ryanrodenbaugh.eth
Assuming this is correct then I guess the question comes down to this guy doing something beyond just campus protests. Was he actually endorsing terrorist activity? These actions feel like they kind of rhyme with how the left used the legal system to attack their political enemies.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions