Georgetown Fellow taken outside his home in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Again, where are the pro Palestinian "not gonna vote for Harris because anyone will be better than her" voters now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

Most highly educated people actually support a separate Palestinian state. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be a liberal, which is why MAGA and Mump want to gut education in this country, and deport educated people as much as violent criminals.

It's pretty much what fascists and communists did -- kill off the educated or send them to re-education camps to support nationalist ideology. That's what MAGA and Trump would love to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

Yet to be confirmed. But regardless, guilt by association is not a thing in America.

Let the facts play out. The public does not know what those close connections are and/or whether he took any steps to support Hamas.

Tell it to the professional soccer player who is currently slave labor in an El Salvador gulag right now because Trump and ICE are sloppy AF.

!!! Can you share info?

I think it’s this one. But it’s hard to keep up.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-deported-el-salvador-alien-enemies-act-soccer-logo-tattoo-attorney/story?id=119983892

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is fascism. He is being punished for social media posts critical of Israel and India. That is all he did.

but if a conservative dares to say the N word out loud, even as a joke or quoting somebody else, you probably believe that they should be canceled or worse. the left always accuses others of exactly what they are doing themselves.

Huh? Let's bring the receipts. Who has been deported for saying that? I think I'm going to be waiting a looooong time.

The RWNJs think getting arrested and deported by the government is the same as being criticized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, where are the pro Palestinian "not gonna vote for Harris because anyone will be better than her" voters now?

The people doing this are the pro Israeli people who humiliated Biden and Harris. Like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

Most highly educated people actually support a separate Palestinian state. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be a liberal, which is why MAGA and Mump want to gut education in this country, and deport educated people as much as violent criminals.

It's pretty much what fascists and communists did -- kill off the educated or send them to re-education camps to support nationalist ideology. That's what MAGA and Trump would love to do.

*Newsflash* Support for a Palestinian state does not necessitate support for:

1. Noncitizen grad students that seize control of university buildings and disrupt the education process.

2. Hamas-sympathizing noncitizen doctors.

3. Allegedly Hamas-sympathizing noncitizen teaching fellows with close family ties to Hamas leadership.

Shocker: I too support a Palestinian state yet I don’t want the three above individuals in this county.

Perhaps if you were educated you could understand that people can hold these positions.

[Anonymous]

Whats worse - marrying a woman whose farther is in the Hamas leadership or lying on immigration forms that he isnt a terrorist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

"Marco said so therefore it is . . . "

Is this really what we have disintegrated into? The government is no longer required to support allegations? Fun times are coming!

The Secretary of State can make a representation that someone will be harmful to US foreign policy.
Having students creating a climate of hate on campus against Jews, and occupying buildings, is not good for getting foreign students to come to America for studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

"Marco said so therefore it is . . . "

Is this really what we have disintegrated into? The government is no longer required to support allegations? Fun times are coming!

The Secretary of State can make a representation that someone will be harmful to US foreign policy.
Having students creating a climate of hate on campus against Jews, and occupying buildings, is not good for getting foreign students to come to America for studies.

Oh, please. President Musk did a Nazi salute at a GOP function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

"Marco said so therefore it is . . . "

Is this really what we have disintegrated into? The government is no longer required to support allegations? Fun times are coming!

The Secretary of State can make a representation that someone will be harmful to US foreign policy.
Having students creating a climate of hate on campus against Jews, and occupying buildings, is not good for getting foreign students to come to America for studies.

“Climate of hate.” Oh my goodness. Zionists really can’t tell the difference between anti-semitism and completely valid criticism of a foreign government. My favorite is when they attack fellow Jews of being anti-Semitic for not supporting genocide. Ya’ll lost the thread a lonnnng time ago. If you’re not prepared to live in a country who values freedom of speech, then maybe you should make your way “home”.

[Anonymous]

This is straight up abduction!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

Fair enough that the Columbia guy is a green card holder (I forgot that part). He’s also the one who engaged in the most egregious behavior.

But, just to be clear, is it your position that a green card holder who takes over university buildings leading to a long disruption of the educational process (which happens to be highly subsidized by the US tax payer) should not face consequences, including to his legal status within the country?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that some of you actually seem to be defending or excusing the behavior or taking issue with the fact that the guy is losing his legal status to be in the country.

I thought the Biden DOJ and then the courts were heavy handed with the J6 rioters, but I also blamed the rioters for being stupid enough to put themselves in that position. But it seems to me like a lot of people who were on a “no mercy” crusade against the J6 rioters (who were citizens!!!) can’t stomach the idea of a noncitizen facing consequences for his actions. This is truly wild to me.