Then how do you know it was only because of an op-ed?
Then how do you know it was only because of an op-ed?
So whatever it is, and it seems not to have been uncovered, the "response" seems unmeasured.
She has the right to protest provided she has committed no crime.
I thought the situation is absolutely nonsensical. Being able to disagree with anyone is part of our social fabric. Once you ban that then wild stuff starts to happen.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition *the Government* for a redress of grievances.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/29/us/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-u...
Alleging that she was part of a larger group that committed crimes... but if that's the case, why didn't they arrest anyone else who was there?
What you can do is take someones VISA on basis of small gathering that you call protest.
I wasn't trying to imply she was merely there, as Rubio is saying they participated. They never said the op-ed was related... so my question is, if the only reasoning is taking part in the protest, then why arrest nobody else who was there?