Reply to Georgetown Fellow taken outside his home in Arlington

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Georgetown Fellow taken outside his home in Arlington"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There is always more to the story.......

[twitter]https://x.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1902562950130401592[/twitter][/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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?

[/quote]

[b]Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? [/b] 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. [/quote]

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??[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

+ a million
ALL OF THIS.[/quote]

they were heavy handed with the j6 rioters?!!! no. no they werent. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics