Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lesson here is that non-citizens express their politics at their own risk. They have no absolute rights to say whatever they want, and the government has the absolute right to revoke permission for them to be here. That conduct presently unacceptable to the government has been tolerated in the past has no bearing on whether it can, should, or will be tolerated in the future.

Turkish and Chinese students can go home and say whatever they want to about U.S. or their own country's foreign policies. Their home governments may or may not tolerate them doing so. I suspect they'd be much more circumspect at home than they have been here.

It's disgusting that you're trying to justify this. Everyone has absolute rights. That's what this country was founded on.

We have the right to free speech in the US. You don’t have the right to be free of the consequences. Supporting a terrorist group who not only wants to obliterate Israel but all Jews, is aligned with Iran, which hates the US and is also dedicated to our destruction, and supporting protests that quite literally included the harassment of Jewish students and chants to globalize the intifada, etc, etc isn’t harmless. If I went to Turkey and participated in and supported groups that were anti-Turkish / involved with harassing members of school communities there, I would expect consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lesson here is that non-citizens express their politics at their own risk. They have no absolute rights to say whatever they want, and the government has the absolute right to revoke permission for them to be here. That conduct presently unacceptable to the government has been tolerated in the past has no bearing on whether it can, should, or will be tolerated in the future.

Turkish and Chinese students can go home and say whatever they want to about U.S. or their own country's foreign policies. Their home governments may or may not tolerate them doing so. I suspect they'd be much more circumspect at home than they have been here.

It's disgusting that you're trying to justify this. Everyone has absolute rights. That's what this country was founded on.

Non-citizens do not have absolute rights, simple legal reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hamas does not just want to destroy the Jewish state, but to kill all Jews.

I guess I’ll have to take you at your word because I’m not obsessed with Hamas (or boogeymen of any stripe, I guess).

However, in no part of this world is that purported aim even within a moonshot of being an actual danger, right? In fact, as we’ve all seen just these past two years or so, the body count disparity in this conflict really makes your statement seem silly and probably disingenuous.

Pointedly, members of which group are more at risk of death from members of the other group, based on the actual body count?

Now … do you see why people tend to roll their eyes with these existential threat claims you make to justify the actions of the group you favor?

Take Hamas at their word. It is literally the underpinning of their entire reason for existing. It's in preamble to their charter: Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

Counting bodies is a perverse way to decide which side is just and moral. There is simply no equivalence between a group dedicated to the destruction of the adherents to another religion, and the exercise of defense against that obscene objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lesson here is that non-citizens express their politics at their own risk. They have no absolute rights to say whatever they want, and the government has the absolute right to revoke permission for them to be here. That conduct presently unacceptable to the government has been tolerated in the past has no bearing on whether it can, should, or will be tolerated in the future.

Turkish and Chinese students can go home and say whatever they want to about U.S. or their own country's foreign policies. Their home governments may or may not tolerate them doing so. I suspect they'd be much more circumspect at home than they have been here.

It's disgusting that you're trying to justify this. Everyone has absolute rights. That's what this country was founded on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lesson here is that non-citizens express their politics at their own risk. They have no absolute rights to say whatever they want, and the government has the absolute right to revoke permission for them to be here. That conduct presently unacceptable to the government has been tolerated in the past has no bearing on whether it can, should, or will be tolerated in the future.

Turkish and Chinese students can go home and say whatever they want to about U.S. or their own country's foreign policies. Their home governments may or may not tolerate them doing so. I suspect they'd be much more circumspect at home than they have been here.

It's disgusting that you're trying to justify this. Everyone has absolute rights. That's what this country was founded on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hamas does not just want to destroy the Jewish state, but to kill all Jews.

I guess I’ll have to take you at your word because I’m not obsessed with Hamas (or boogeymen of any stripe, I guess).

However, in no part of this world is that purported aim even within a moonshot of being an actual danger, right? In fact, as we’ve all seen just these past two years or so, the body count disparity in this conflict really makes your statement seem silly and probably disingenuous.

Pointedly, members of which group are more at risk of death from members of the other group, based on the actual body count?

Now … do you see why people tend to roll their eyes with these existential threat claims you make to justify the actions of the group you favor?

Anonymous wrote:The lesson here is that non-citizens express their politics at their own risk. They have no absolute rights to say whatever they want, and the government has the absolute right to revoke permission for them to be here. That conduct presently unacceptable to the government has been tolerated in the past has no bearing on whether it can, should, or will be tolerated in the future.

Turkish and Chinese students can go home and say whatever they want to about U.S. or their own country's foreign policies. Their home governments may or may not tolerate them doing so. I suspect they'd be much more circumspect at home than they have been here.

Anonymous wrote:Hamas does not just want to destroy the Jewish state, but to kill all Jews.

Anonymous wrote:Hamas does not just want to destroy the Jewish state, but to kill all Jews.

Anonymous wrote:Hamas does not just want to destroy the Jewish state, but to kill all Jews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is the reasoning that DHS gave for abducting the student:

"Rumesya Ozturk is a Turkish national and Tufts University graduate student, granted the privilege to be in this country on a visa. DHS and ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. A visa is a privilege not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is commonsense security."

She co-authored an OpEd. That's it. I read it. There is nothing pro-Hamas in it. Hamas is not mentioned at all. The op-ed simply asks the university administration to uphold: "3 out of 4 resolutions [passed by the Tufts Community Union Senate] demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, apologize for University President Sunil Kumar’s statements, disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel." I myself participated in college protests in the 80s asking my university to divest from investments in South Africa, which still had apartheid. That's a crime now?

Also, what's with the reference--twice--to Hamas as "a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans" and "terrorists who kill Americans?" I thought that the mission of Hamas was to destroy the Jewish state (obviously reprehensible and unacceptable). Now, according to DHS, its mission is also to kill Americans?

Hamas killed 40+ Americans on 10/7.

I'm assuming they were dual nationals, not tourists. I happen to be a dual national due to a European parent, so I can relate to dual citizens in Israel, but the way the DHS language is written, it makes it sound like Hamas wants to kill all Americans, not just Israeli Americans/American Israelis.

Well, Hamas is allied with Hezbollah, which definitely does want to kill Americans.

I don’t think the distinction you’re trying to draw is particularly meaningful.