President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you can be sympathetic to Hamas' cause without endorsing them. Supporting their cause, but not their actions is possible. It was common to be sympathetic to Irish nationalism but abhor the antics of the IRA. In fact, that ultimately led to the Good Friday Agreement.

I sure hope you can be because otherwise you profiting a belief. If you aren't providing active, orginizational or material support, I don't think that makes you a terrorist.

That makes it impossible to encourage moderates.

"Hitler had some good ideas, he just went too far."

[Northwestcoug]

So different rules for thee but not for me?

Here's a quote for US News and World Report. The same quote is featured in hundreds of articles about the situation. https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-03-27/lawyer-for-turkish-student-at-tufts-university-detained-by-feds-calls-for-government-to-produce-her

It is foolish to wholeheartedly trust a statement from DHS without any details. These are, after all, the people who are rounding up and sending men to El Salvador based on tattoos.

From the article you posted:

Friends and colleagues of Ozturk said she was not closely involved in pro-Palestinian protests that broke out on campuses last spring. Her only known activism, they said, was co-authoring an op-ed in a student newspaper that called on Tufts University to engage with student demands to cut ties with Israel.

“To my knowledge, the only thing I know of that Rumeysa organized was a Thanksgiving potluck,” said Jennifer Hoyden, a close friend who studied with Ozturk at Columbia University’s Teachers College. “There’s a very important distinction between writing a letter supporting the student Senate and taking the kind of action they’re accusing her of, which I’ve seen no evidence of.”

[Shaka]

I think it is, if you are serious about your contention. Not everyone is. There are outliers of course (maximus is apparently online all the time and thinks we all are too).

Some are good at it and some aren't. Maximus generally doesn't back up his claims. He hasn't cited anything but his own outrage in the current debate.

[myboynoah]

Actually, it does.

I guess this is where everyone starts to parse words in the case of this woman. Does "support" mean "endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others" to do the same?" "Support" can mean a lot of things, many of which don't rise to this description. In the case of this woman, what did she do? It appears from above the answer is not much. Under normal circumstances I would expect those in charge to have a robust case file showing how her activity warranted canceling her visa. But with the Trump Team, I expect such a case file doesn't exist and the cancelation is based on fairly flimsy evidence and assumptions (she looks like a terrorist; after all, she's a Muslim). The priority is to ship people out of the country.

[YOhio]

Interesting conversation, fellas. I think concerns about free speech are valid and I don't like the idea that a student is deported because they're pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. But on the stuff I'm really outraged about it's pretty low on the list. One of those play stupid games win stupid prizes kind of things.

Free Press has a good back and forth on this issue, specific to Mahmoud Khalil.

Pro-Deportation argument from Hussein Aboubakr Mansour:

Radical ideology may be tolerated on our campuses, but direct involvement in financing, organizing, or championing violent and murderous insurgencies aimed at destroying our national core should never be.

This is the crucial distinction. Khalil is not being targeted for deportation because he harbors vile personal views. In that case, we would also deport most of the Third World postcolonial “scholars” our universities love and cherish. He is being targeted because his views have manifested in an active, operational context. He stands squarely in the realm of “clear and present danger.”

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained, acting as a spokesperson for a group that destroys property, harasses students and workers, and distributes pro-terror propaganda is “a crime in and of itself. . . . If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.”

American sovereignty includes the right to disinvite those who habitually stoke violence against us. Yes, strong free-speech protections are integral to our national identity. But no tradition—least of all ours—obligates us to retain in our midst someone who actively coordinates support for terrorist organizations devoted to kidnapping and killing.

The line must be drawn somewhere, and Khalil’s conduct places him well on the wrong side of that boundary. If he imagines that “Western civilization” is something to be obliterated, he can do so from outside our borders, without the benefit of American hospitality and legal status. That is the fairest—and frankly, the most American—outcome possible.

Anti-Deportation argument from Eli Lake:

Mahmoud Khalil was a spokesman for CUAD, whose activism is in solidarity with Hamas, the party that initiated the latest war in Gaza in an act of grotesque savagery on October 7. The group took over Hamilton Hall last spring, smashed windows, and held a janitor hostage. It coordinated a tent encampment on the quad that deliberately excluded “Zionists,” and has sought to shout down speakers whose opinions it opposes. To put it mildly, I have no sympathy for Khalil and his comrades. They deserve the belated and harsh penalties Columbia is now imposing on CUAD’s ringleaders.

So it might surprise you that I also think the Trump administration’s effort to deport Khalil, who is a permanent legal resident of the United States, sets a horrifying precedent for free speech in America.

This is because the government’s rationale for deporting him is not that he committed property crimes. It’s not that he provided material support to Hamas. Nor is it that he coordinated his or CUAD’s activities directly with Hamas.

The reason Khalil is being deported is because of his speech.

[Maximus]

If it did Trump would have to issue loads more pardons for his core supporters. The Unite the Right types.

well I guess JL only thinks it applies to people from the middle east

[Maximus]

"Hitler had some good ideas, he just went too far."

this is pretty extremely ignorant of palestinians. youre accusing anyone anywhere who speaks against israel as being a hamas supporter. surely you see how that is embarrasing.

[frank ryan]

"Hitler had some good ideas, he just went too far."

For fuck's safe Jeff, I don't know how you distorted my words to come up with that. My post was well-intentioned.

That is a reach and a half. But I don't think espousing shitty racist views should be illegal or otherwise we'd have to lock up some right wing luminaries, including some of Trump's inner circle

You can understand that people can want to advocate for Palestinian statehood or against some Israeli's actions without supporting Hamas' murderous' rampage?

[frank ryan]

Interesting conversation, fellas. I think concerns about free speech are valid and I don't like the idea that a student is deported because they're pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. But on the stuff I'm really outraged about it's pretty low on the list. One of those play stupid games win stupid prizes kind of things.

Free Press has a good back and forth on this issue, specific to Mahmoud Khalil.

Pro-Deportation argument from Hussein Aboubakr Mansour:



Anti-Deportation argument from Eli Lake:

This is a terrible idea for Trump to test and wouldn't be good for any administration.

It sets a chilling example. Who is in charge of gatekeeping how that distinction is being made?

[myboynoah]

Interesting conversation, fellas. I think concerns about free speech are valid and I don't like the idea that a student is deported because they're pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. But on the stuff I'm really outraged about it's pretty low on the list. One of those play stupid games win stupid prizes kind of things.

lol, so true.

[Maximus]

Interesting conversation, fellas. I think concerns about free speech are valid and I don't like the idea that a student is deported because they're pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. But on the stuff I'm really outraged about it's pretty low on the list. One of those play stupid games win stupid prizes kind of things.

Free Press has a good back and forth on this issue, specific to Mahmoud Khalil.

Pro-Deportation argument from Hussein Aboubakr Mansour:



Anti-Deportation argument from Eli Lake:

you can not deport a legal resident absent a crime. what crime did he commit and why havent the feds charged him?

[Maximus]

lol, so true.

hmm whats the stupid gamehere. writing in the student newspaper

[YOhio]

This is a terrible idea for Trump to test and wouldn't be good for any administration.

It sets a chilling example. Who is in charge of gatekeeping how that distinction is being made?

As Shaka has stated multiple times in this thread, the State Department has sole discretion over issuance and revocation of visas.

[Maximus]

As Shaka has stated multiple times in this thread, the State Department has sole discretion over issuance and revocation of visas.

this isnt a defense. they are picking based on which policies they support. it is irrelevant if they have discretion if they are using said discretion based on personal political beliefs.

technically trump has the sole discretion to do a lot of things you hopefully wouldnt support.

[myboynoah]

hmm whats the stupid gamehere. writing in the student newspaper

IMO, coming to the U.S. and supporting/advocating for/favoring Hamas after the group's horrific actions in Southern Israel. Just stupid.