Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, is your point that she has been here since age 7 so she is above the law?
An ABC report states she was arrested for a sit in (trespassing) at Barnard on March 5, 2024.
She isn’t being sought for her speech but for her action. If you believe that trespassing is not a crime, then I’ve got news for you. I hate that people simply accept media framing (whether Fox News or NYT) and do not think critically.
If you think facing repercussions for trespassing harms free speech, well just wait until you hear about the January 6 rioters. It sucks, but don’t do the crime if you aren’t willing to face the consequences.
She was arrested and then released. That's not grounds for deportation in normal times, certainly not of a permanent resident. There's no "visa" to revoke. This is a HS valedictorian Barnard student sticking up for people getting killed in Gaza.
She was trespassing after her group was warned to leave the private property. Perhaps under the prior regime the issue would not have been pursued to the highest extent of the law, but (a) regime change happened and (b) she is still inside the statute of limitations.
Don’t commit crimes if you are unwilling to face the consequences (whether you’re a J6 rioter or a college kid).
Or is your point that a person can be above the law because she was a high school valedictorian advocating for a favored political cause? Surely you see the problem with that.
Perhaps the right is a cult or cannot be reasoned with. But the “no mercy” crowd sure does care about context all of a sudden.
Well said.
Context matters. Equating college students conducting sit-ins to Jan. 6 rioters breaking into the Capitol, walking around, destroying millions of dollars of public property, pooping on government property, and injuring LEOs is disingenuous. Period.
She was part of a group that was using intentional disruption of the educational process (including seizing of buildings) in order to get the Columbia administration to accede to their political demands (BDS of Israel in protest of the Gaza war). In other words, she was disrupting the constitutional rights of others to achieve her political goals.
I take no issue with her political goals. She has the right to them. But the moment she engaged in a crime for her political goals, regardless of intent or method, she opened herself up to sanction by the state. And given her revocable residency status, her stakes were higher than they were for others.
I think she made the same fundamental mistake the J6 rioters made. Coming out of the BLM protests and property destruction, including at locations like the Portland, Ore. federal court building, I think that most of the J6 rioters on some level thought they would get the same or similar treatment as the BLM rioters. The J6 rioters learned that the state can actually bring the hammer down on your head. Likewise, she probably assumed that she was like other sit-in protestors in the past and would get off with a slap on wrist. But it turns out the state can actually bring a hammer down on your head.
I do think it is rich that the same “no mercy” crowd is now freaking out over this and “context matters.” How very convenient that context matters and leniency should be the goal when you happen to find the accuse politically sympathetic.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
