[grahamgooch]

Isn’t the green card risk based on a couple of items in the green card process

The visa process and the person’s assertions to those visa questions

For example - did you every x? And the required answer is No

Let’s assume the person did commit X but answers No

Years go by and the person gets a green card.

The underlying assertion was a lie - therefore the whole stream of events later becomes questionable.

The second situation is a new item being added. For example consider the hypothetical scenario that

When the applicant filled out his forms - greenpeace was legit. And the applicant was a greenpeace member.

Years later the applicant becomes a green card holder.

Now years later. The govt classifies greenpeace a terror org.

Is the green card holder under threat?

[Natsu]

You should read the actual questions on an I-485, they don't rely on declarations that any given organization is "terrorist" or anything like that.

Now, I think you're right that the statements are only required to be true at the time they were made. That said, if I can get you to look at the I-485 which one fills out to get a green card, and focus on the questions in Item Numbers 43.b. - 43.e, which cover what is essentially material support for a terrorist org, you will see that all of them relate to the group's actions. You can read the questions yourself here on p. 16 of the PDF for an I-485:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-4...

So the only way the truth of someone's statements could change over time would be if the groups they had given material support to (e.g. money or recruitment) had only engaged in things like assassination, kidnapping, hijacking, sabotage, destroying people or property with weapons or dangerous devices, etc. after the person had already turned in their I-485 form.

This isn't very likely to be the case for various Palestine-related organizations that are doing armed resistance, since that armed resistance has been going on for a very long time now. But I suppose it's hypothetically possible in the abstract, and I presume one would argue this at an immigration hearing, since they have to establish immigration "fraud" and parts of that depend on what you knew and when you knew it.

[grahamgooch]

Good points.

Thanks for sharing the link. Yikes! It looks like all of part 9 is in play. Ie one had better be absolutely truthful - or self decline, who would ever do that?

Also, the problem with the legal definition of “a disqualification requirement” is it can be vague and subject to change.

Would I be correct in saying that a strict adherence to USA law is mandatory?

[Natsu]

IANAL, but if you've read all of the questions, they include some incredibly broad things like the one about having ever committed a crime, even if not charged, convicted, etc. that you can find on the I-485.

I've heard it said by lawyers that you're not qualified to know whether or not you've committed a federal crime and some of those are quite broad - see this illustration for a few ideas in that vein: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008 - but even then, one "out" is that my understanding is that you have to actually commit fraud here.

So maybe if you violated some incredibly broad provision, but were never charged or convicted and literally didn't even know it was a law, you could defend yourself by pointing that out and arguing that because of that, you haven't committed actual "fraud" even if your answer was wrong.

But in general, yes, you should be honest on all the forms and engage with a legal professional if you're ever in trouble. I've heard that this area of law is all that well tested, so we'll have to see what the courts do with it. In fact, we suffered some significant delays in our immigration journey due to being honest, but I don't regret that one bit.

[gunian]

or just party in miami once and blow your brains out ;)