Were you expecting them to? They were arrested in order to clear up the area. Not to put them in jail for a month.
Is that happening anywhere on campus?
It means alot more than not being arrested.
Because you don’t like their views is a pretty authoritarian standard to apply.Derec said:
ktla.com
Those who celebrate Hamas and the 10/7 attacks are the ones endorsing religious violence.
That is patently illogical. Everyone who supports religious slayings in any way is endorsing religious violence.
There is a difference between free speech and occupying/camping out and refusing to leave.
Including these "pro-Palestine" (read pro-Hamas) protesters you keep defending.
Chilling for a few hours in a holding cell is not that much of a punishment.
Is it? In previous discussions you were very supportive of universities expelling people they deemed violated their rules. I guess you think that is ok for when it comes to male students wrongfully accused of sexual assault, but when it comes to Hamas-supporters camping out on the quad, you think expelling them is authoritarian.
1. My point was that whether or not they should be prosecuted
And what if it's just off-campus? Should Columbia's hateful speech rules not apply? If they would expel somebody for, e.g., yelling "we are all KKK" and having a sign pointing toward a group of black people that says "next victims", then they should expel these Hamasnik creeps too.
I haven't defended any pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas protesters...
I did not say that. They should be responsible for what they said and did. Do you really think that none of the pro-Hamas creeps were Columbia students? Even if one student group leadership denounces it on X, that does not mean there were no Columbia students doing it.
I still think that was a miscarriage of justice, esp. compared to the lenient sentence Mohammed Noor got. But it also has zero to do with this thread.
When did I say that he had to be Muslim? Please cite.
Not even in your sarcastic post #108?
What do you mean by connections? Membership or support? If latter, vast majority of Gazans supports one of the terror factions. And I do not think letting in large numbers of very hardcore Muslims is good for the West. Just look at how Europe is faring after letting in millions of poorly (if that) vetted Muslim mass migrants from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Syria.
Few people are against all immigration. But I do think immigration should be regulated more than it is now where basically anybody can claim "asylum" and get in.
For good reasons.
Is that the only consideration for immigration? Crime (e.g. MS-13), economics (3rd world migrants driving wages down while putting more pressure on housing) and culture (mass migrants forming parallel societies and refusing to learn English or otherwise integrate).
Not recently at least.
Most people are for some immigration. Most people are against open borders or de-facto open borders.
No. I absolutely do condemn the actions of the current administration and the murderous actions of their closest allies. I hold them partially to blame for the spreading unrest in our nation. But I do not support, and have never supported, Hamas or its actions. I abhor all species of inter-religious violence, and have never taken any other position on the question.
So you want to let half of Gazans into US as long as they are not "most violent miscreants". Merely "violent miscreants" are fine with you? Not to mention those who are not violent themselves but espouse radical Islamist ideology?
And in Dearborn they are yelling "death to America".
Would they? Most Muslim mass migrants prefer rich EU countries because of all the benefits they can get, even if they despise their values and culture. Hell, people are even flooding from Egypt into "Germoney".
