Green Cards and Due Process: The Fragile Security of Lawful Permanent Residency in the U.S.

In the complex world of U.S. immigration law, many believe that holding a green card is the ultimate milestone on the path to American stability and freedom. For many immigrants, becoming a lawful permanent resident (LPR) offers the promise of safety, employment, and long-term opportunity. But a recent case involving a Columbia University graduate student has highlighted a sobering truth: green card holders remain vulnerable to deportation and governmental action—often in ways that may surprise even the most informed residents.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian LPR and student at Columbia, was detained by federal immigration officials earlier this month under circumstances that have drawn widespread attention. According to multiple reports, including an article published by Newsweek, Khalil’s green card was revoked at the direction of the U.S. Department of State, citing concerns that his presence in the country could negatively impact U.S. foreign policy. The revocation and his subsequent detention appear to stem from his alleged participation in pro-Palestinian activism and protest events.

While the details of Khalil’s case are still developing, the legal mechanism that led to his detention is not unprecedented. Under existing immigration law, the federal government maintains broad authority to determine who is admissible to the United States—and who may remain. Although green card holders enjoy many rights similar to U.S. citizens, their status is not constitutionally protected in the same way. They remain subject to a lengthy list of grounds for removal, including criminal convictions, immigration violations, and—in rare but potent cases—perceived national security or foreign policy concerns.

Khalil’s case appears to rely on a rarely invoked provision that allows the government to revoke immigration status if an individual’s continued presence is determined to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” This standard is notably vague and has been criticized for its potential to infringe upon First Amendment rights, particularly when applied to individuals engaged in political expression or protest. Opponents argue that using immigration powers in this way raises constitutional questions, particularly in academic or civil society contexts where freedom of speech is considered sacrosanct.

What does this mean for other green card holders? First, it underscores the importance of understanding that lawful permanent residency is not the same as citizenship. While green card holders are authorized to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely, their status can be revoked if they are found to have violated immigration laws or committed certain offenses. This includes not just criminal activity, but also actions or affiliations that might be viewed—rightly or wrongly—as conflicting with the United States’ national interests.

Second, it demonstrates the value of legal advocacy and preparedness. If you are a lawful permanent resident and become involved in any legal, political, or controversial matters, it is crucial to seek guidance from an experienced immigration attorney. Missteps—even unintentional ones—can trigger removal proceedings and result in detention, loss of status, or even deportation.

Finally, the case raises larger questions about how immigration law intersects with civil liberties. Are green card holders entitled to the same protections as U.S. citizens when it comes to political expression? Should foreign nationals fear reprisal for their speech or associations, even when their actions are peaceful and protected under the Constitution? These are not just legal questions—they are societal ones, and they will only grow more important as immigration continues to define the future of America.

For now, Mahmoud Khalil’s case serves as a powerful reminder that immigration status, no matter how seemingly secure, comes with responsibilities, limitations, and risks. For those navigating the U.S. immigration system, staying informed, cautious, and legally supported is more important than ever.