Georgetown Fellow taken outside his home in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

Let’s flip around: do you think that the French government should round up and expel an American, legal resident and married to a French Jewish woman for participating in protests in support of Israel even though he was not sentenced or even prosecuted for any crime? Or because his father in law years ago was associated with Kahane’s jewish terrorist organization?

Because somehow only critics of Israel and his war crime-indicted president are rounded up to he expelled, while outstanding guys like the Tate brothers are freed from prosecution in Romania…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the poster who freaks out that any kind of internet moderation is “totalitarian “? She should read this. This is fascism, people.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-deportation-georgetown-graduate-student-00239754

Why are agents wearing masks?

I don't see any masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is your argument that the United States constitution requires the government to be content neutral when it comes to the speech and associations of foreigners on visas? That has never been the law of this country and you are way out on an island if that’s your argument. Your position also destroys thousands of years of understanding of national sovereignty. Your position is rejected by every country on the planet.

Your first amendment argument doesn’t address the issue of the grad student taking over university buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

Let’s flip around: do you think that the French government should round up and expel an American, legal resident and married to a French Jewish woman for participating in protests in support of Israel even though he was not sentenced or even prosecuted for any crime? Or because his father in law years ago was associated with Kahane’s jewish terrorist organization?

Because somehow only critics of Israel and his war crime-indicted president are rounded up to he expelled, while outstanding guys like the Tate brothers are freed from prosecution in Romania…..

The French government would be completely justified and totally within its rights as a sovereign state in taking those steps if it so chose. Just as New Zealand and Australia are well within their rights to bar Candace Owens from entering their respective countries and as I am sure many countries will do in the near future with Musk and Trump.

Whether they SHOULD do that is a decision for their government officials to make.

The Romanians were well within their rights to detain and pursue charges against the Tate brothers.

I’ve answered your question. Will you please answer mine?

[Anonymous]

^I am presuming that France has similar laws with respect to expelling noncitizens as the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is your argument that the United States constitution requires the government to be content neutral when it comes to the speech and associations of foreigners on visas? That has never been the law of this country and you are way out on an island if that’s your argument. Your position also destroys thousands of years of understanding of national sovereignty. Your position is rejected by every country on the planet.

Your first amendment argument doesn’t address the issue of the grad student taking over university buildings.

DP, but if the issue were taking over university buildings, then charge him with a crime and use that. People who are already here enjoy first amendment rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is your argument that the United States constitution requires the government to be content neutral when it comes to the speech and associations of foreigners on visas? That has never been the law of this country and you are way out on an island if that’s your argument. Your position also destroys thousands of years of understanding of national sovereignty. Your position is rejected by every country on the planet.

Your first amendment argument doesn’t address the issue of the grad student taking over university buildings.

DP, but if the issue were taking over university buildings, then charge him with a crime and use that. People who are already here enjoy first amendment rights.

Why make him a burden on the taxpayers? That is just dumb. Revoke his status through the alien enemies act and make him someone else’s problem. Hell, I bet he’d voluntarily relinquish his green card instead of face trial and jail time.

[Anonymous]

Update: Judge rules Badar Khan Suri must have his case heard in Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/06/badar-khan-suri-case-georgetown-fellow-ice-detention/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is your argument that the United States constitution requires the government to be content neutral when it comes to the speech and associations of foreigners on visas? That has never been the law of this country and you are way out on an island if that’s your argument. Your position also destroys thousands of years of understanding of national sovereignty. Your position is rejected by every country on the planet.

Your first amendment argument doesn’t address the issue of the grad student taking over university buildings.

DP, but if the issue were taking over university buildings, then charge him with a crime and use that. People who are already here enjoy first amendment rights.

Why make him a burden on the taxpayers? That is just dumb. Revoke his status through the alien enemies act and make him someone else’s problem. Hell, I bet he’d voluntarily relinquish his green card instead of face trial and jail time.

The Alien Enemies Act would not apply in this situation, and Trump's use of it has already run into trouble, including with a Trump-appointed judge. There is caselaw to back up 1st Amendment rights of lawfully admitted aliens, especially those who have established significant presence in the US. And in the past, policy has been to hold aliens like green card holders accountable for crimes and in the case of felonies deport them after serving their sentence in US prisons. Here, otoh, under Trump felonies are just fine and can get you an ambassadorship, as long as you're on his side.

I have to think at some point SCOTUS may need to rethink its decision that a President's motives cannot be considered when weighing the culpability of his actions as President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

Let’s flip around: do you think that the French government should round up and expel an American, legal resident and married to a French Jewish woman for participating in protests in support of Israel even though he was not sentenced or even prosecuted for any crime? Or because his father in law years ago was associated with Kahane’s jewish terrorist organization?

Because somehow only critics of Israel and his war crime-indicted president are rounded up to he expelled, while outstanding guys like the Tate brothers are freed from prosecution in Romania…..

The French government would be completely justified and totally within its rights as a sovereign state in taking those steps if it so chose. Just as New Zealand and Australia are well within their rights to bar Candace Owens from entering their respective countries and as I am sure many countries will do in the near future with Musk and Trump.

Whether they SHOULD do that is a decision for their government officials to make.

The Romanians were well within their rights to detain and pursue charges against the Tate brothers.

I’ve answered your question. Will you please answer mine?

It's not just a matter of state sovereignty. It's a matter of the sovereignty of law within the particular state, in this case the US.

[Anonymous]

The fact that his father in law once advised a deceased HAMAS leader is no reason to deport this man, much less throw him in prison!

All of these arrests are designed to suppress opposition. They are chilling, and we must fight back for all of our sakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Update: Judge rules Badar Khan Suri must have his case heard in Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/06/badar-khan-suri-case-georgetown-fellow-ice-detention/

This will be a lesson for future non-citizens. Do not speak out against the state of Israel publicly or else be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update: Judge rules Badar Khan Suri must have his case heard in Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/06/badar-khan-suri-case-georgetown-fellow-ice-detention/

This will be a lesson for future non-citizens. Do not speak out against the state of Israel publicly or else be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Listen, I’ve said this before on this forum: when my family immigrated to the US back in 1973, they were told by friends/coworkers “don’t ever, ever talk about Palestine.” This was 52 years ago. I’m glad the truth is finally coming out. Silence is complicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that his father in law once advised a deceased HAMAS leader is no reason to deport this man, much less throw him in prison!

All of these arrests are designed to suppress opposition. They are chilling, and we must fight back for all of our sakes.

+1 Trump’s father-in-law was an official in the Communist Party and he was able to become a citizen via chain migration.