I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigrati…
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.
I am a lawyer and in my opinion your statement is overbroad and inaccurate. A green card holder's 1st Amendment protections are not coequal to a US citizen's 1st Amendment protections because a green card holder is also governed by the relevant US immigration laws, and as the Khalil case demonstrates, the exact boundaries of US immigration law and the 1st Amendment protections for a green card holder are unclear because the case law on this issue is mixed. This has been discussed in several recent articles by 1st Amendment experts (which I do not claim to be, although I know how to read a case and an article that discusses US law). You use the language "engage in terrorist activities" in a way that suggests that if a green card holder does not "engage" the green card holder has the same 1st Amendment protections as a US citizen. My understanding (again as a lawyer but not a 1st Amendment expert) is that this is incorrect because, under the relevant US immigration law provision, a green card holder has free speech protections "unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” (emphasis added). See https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/ which discusses this in much greater detail. Because that provision does not apply to US citizens, your statement implying a green card holder and a US citizen have the same free speech protections under US law is simply incorrect. I've tried to respond politely to you, and have been open about what I see as the ambiguities in the Khalil case and have tried to avoid bringing my personal feelings about the matter into this, but it seems you now want to interject some hostility into the conversation with snide "[s]urely you know" and "even I know that" comments, so our colloquy is over from my perspective.