Fact check: What rights do green card holders have during ICE detention and removal proceedings in 2025?

1. Summary of the results

Green card holders in 2025 face significantly restricted rights during ICE detention and removal proceedings compared to previous years. The analyses reveal several key rights that remain available, though their practical application has been severely limited:

Core Rights Still Available:

• Right to bond hearings: Green card holders can request bond hearings to be released from immigration detention, though access has been recently reduced and individuals must actively request these hearings ^[1]
• Right to individual merits hearings: During removal proceedings, they can present their case to remain in the U.S., including arguments for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or deferred action ^[1]
• Due process rights: Green card holders maintain the right to due process and fair hearings in immigration court, including receiving a Notice to Appear (NTA) and being informed of charges against them ^{[2] [3]}

Significant Restrictions and Enforcement Changes:

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA) signed by President Trump has dramatically expanded immigration detention, increased enforcement funding, and undermined due process protections ^[4]. Since February 2025, over 26,700 individuals have been initiated for removal proceedings, indicating a massive increase in enforcement activity ^[3].

Vulnerable Populations:

Green card holders with any criminal history, even decades-old minor offenses like marijuana possession, face mandatory detention and potential deportation ^[5]. Additionally, those engaging in constitutionally protected speech, particularly pro-Palestinian protests, are being targeted for deportation proceedings ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question doesn't address several critical contextual factors that significantly impact green card holders' rights in 2025:

Government Perspective:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection explicitly states that green card status is "a privilege, not a right" and can be revoked if laws are broken ^[5]. This represents a fundamental shift in how the government views permanent residency, with immigration enforcement agencies benefiting from expanded detention powers and increased funding under the OBBBA ^[4].

Practical Enforcement Reality:

The analyses reveal that due process rights are being systematically undermined through practices like arresting individuals who appear for scheduled court hearings, effectively punishing compliance with legal requirements ^[2]. This creates a catch-22 situation where green card holders risk detention whether they comply with court orders or not.

Free Speech Implications:

Cases like Mahmoud Khalil's detention demonstrate that green card holders can face deportation for constitutionally protected speech, particularly regarding Palestinian solidarity ^[6]. This represents a significant expansion of deportable offenses beyond traditional criminal grounds.

Administrative Changes:

New fees for asylum applications, changes to work permits, and modifications to parole programs create additional barriers that weren't mentioned in the original question ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains implicit assumptions that may not reflect the current reality:

Assumption of Stable Rights Framework:

By asking about "rights" in a straightforward manner, the question assumes that green card holders maintain the same legal protections they historically enjoyed. However, the analyses show that fundamental changes to immigration law and enforcement have occurred in 2025, making this assumption potentially misleading ^{[4] [7]}.

Omission of Enforcement Context:

The question fails to acknowledge the dramatic escalation in immigration enforcement since February 2025, with over 26,700 removal proceedings initiated ^[3]. This context is crucial for understanding how rights are actually exercised in practice.

Missing Historical Comparison:

The question doesn't reference that access to bond hearings has been "recently reduced" ^[1], which would help readers understand that rights are being actively restricted rather than remaining static.

Neutrality Bias:

By framing the question neutrally, it may inadvertently suggest that green card holders' rights remain robust, when the evidence shows systematic erosion of protections through policy changes, increased mandatory detention, and expanded grounds for deportation ^{[4] [6] [5]}.