1) There’s a major gap in statutory authority for removal efforts re LPR & Columbia student protester Mahmoud #Khalil, which rely on the “foreign policy” provision of INA, § 1227(a)(4)(C)🧵
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
3) Due to LPRs’ reliance interests & SCOTUS’s warning that removal of LPRs is “equivalent to banishment,” LPRs need clear notice of conduct that makes them removable from the US.
4) The foreign-policy provision, which hinges on the Secretary of State’s ad hoc call re “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” would relegate LPRs to guesswork about preserving their ties to the US
5) Congress’s plan for 1227(a)(4(C), which cross-references sec. 1182(a)(3)(C)(ii) & (iii), expressly requires special care when uncertainty, as in #Khalil case, stems from “beliefs, statements, or associations” otherwise protected by First Amendment
6) The foreign-policy provision, which Congress stated should be used “sparingly,” doesn’t mention LPRs; it therefore lacks the clear notice that courts have required
Comments