Anonymous wrote:You MAGA really are something else. You swore up and down that there were thousands of hardened South American gang members prowling our streets and murdering pretty girls and yet once push comes to shove, all you have are college students and pediatric cancer patients. Why aren’t you out there catching the violent criminals, huh? Are you too weak, or were you lying all along?

America is starting to see through your BS. Better show them losing their life savings and their SS was worth it or you’re going to get the French treatment.

Anonymous wrote:Minor point in scheme of things, but this kind of thing is causing young men who support Trump some concern. I know several. They think these students should just be left alone and do get the concept the the ability to protest is fundamental in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a BBC link to the story:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70wprgper4o

So, if I’m reading this right, this woman’s “crimes” involve protesting the expulsions of students who were linked to “pro-Palestinian “ protests. So multiple freedom of speech issues stacked on top of each other. This is intended to send a chilling message. People who protest the unfair treatment of other protesters will be severely punished by this administration — even as the DEI/DUI brigade reveal classified secrets while breaking the most basic rules.

Even if the claims she committed no crimes are true-
to have students protesting expulsions of Jew haters, would make it harder for universities to get foreign students.
This is damaging to America's foreign policy.
The Secretary of State has authority to pull visas in this situation.

Is protesting what’s going in Gaza (or the West Bank) considered Jew hating? Just curious where things stands these days as I am out of the loop.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One major difference: due process. The J6 folks were permitted a trial in the justice system. What due process will she be given? It seems this administration is thwarting the immigration system. It sounds like they are summarily deporting people. Oh, and Trump pardoned the J6 folks. One might reasonably assume that means violent protests are ok (and she is not even accused of violence). Or is it ok only when you agree with it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a BBC link to the story:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70wprgper4o

So, if I’m reading this right, this woman’s “crimes” involve protesting the expulsions of students who were linked to “pro-Palestinian “ protests. So multiple freedom of speech issues stacked on top of each other. This is intended to send a chilling message. People who protest the unfair treatment of other protesters will be severely punished by this administration — even as the DEI/DUI brigade reveal classified secrets while breaking the most basic rules.

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.

Anonymous wrote:You MAGA really are something else. You swore up and down that there were thousands of hardened South American gang members prowling our streets and murdering pretty girls and yet once push comes to shove, all you have are college students and pediatric cancer patients. Why aren’t you out there catching the violent criminals, huh? Are you too weak, or were you lying all along?

America is starting to see through your BS. Better show them losing their life savings and their SS was worth it or you’re going to get the French treatment.

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.

You know that those pedo trailer were pardoned, right?

And trespassing doesn’t call for deportation?

This is state sanctioned terrorism meant to suppress free speech.

You know your side wanted absolutely no mercy for the Jan 6 rioters, right?

Kind of sucks now that the other side holds prosecutorial discretion, doesn’t it?

You guys set the rules of engagement. Your side had the chance to show leniency when you were in control. Little late to make the case for it now.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a BBC link to the story:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70wprgper4o

So, if I’m reading this right, this woman’s “crimes” involve protesting the expulsions of students who were linked to “pro-Palestinian “ protests. So multiple freedom of speech issues stacked on top of each other. This is intended to send a chilling message. People who protest the unfair treatment of other protesters will be severely punished by this administration — even as the DEI/DUI brigade reveal classified secrets while breaking the most basic rules.

Even if the claims she committed no crimes are true-
to have students protesting expulsions of Jew haters, would make it harder for universities to get foreign students.
This is damaging to America's foreign policy.
The Secretary of State has authority to pull visas in this situation.

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.