
Germany Turns to U.S. Playbook: Deportations Target Gaza War Protesters
Berlin's immigration authorities are moving to deport four young foreign residents on allegations related to participation in protests against Israel's war on Gaza, an unprecedented move that raises serious concerns over civil liberties in Germany.
The deportation orders, issued under German migration law, were made amid political pressure and over internal objections from the head of the state of Berlin's immigration agency. The internal strife arose because three of those targeted for deportation are citizens of European Union member states who normally enjoy freedom of movement between E.U. countries.
The orders — issued by the state of Berlin, whose Senate administration oversees immigration enforcement — are set to take effect in less than a month. None of the four has been convicted of any crimes.
The cases are drawing comparisons to the U.S.'s use of deportation orders to suppress social movements. 'If someone is being expelled simply for their political beliefs, that's a massive overreach.'
'What we're seeing here is straight out of the far right's playbook,' said Alexander Gorski, a lawyer representing two of the protesters. 'You can see it in the U.S. and Germany, too: Political dissent is silenced by targeting the migration status of protesters.'
'From a legal perspective, we were alarmed by the reasoning, which reminded us of the case of Mahmoud Khalil,' Gorski said, referring to the Palestinian Columbia University graduate and U.S. permanent resident who was seized from his apartment building on allegations related to campus pro-Palestine activities.
The four people slated for deportation, Cooper Longbottom, Kasia Wlaszczyk, Shane O'Brien, and Roberta Murray, are citizens of, respectively, the U.S., Poland, and in the latter two cases Ireland.
Under German migration law, authorities don't need a criminal conviction to issue a deportation order, said Thomas Oberhäuser, a lawyer and chair of the executive committee on migration law at the German Bar Association. The reasons cited, however, must be proportional to severity of deportation, meaning that factors like whether someone will be separated from their family or lose their business come into play.
'The key question is: How severe is the threat and how proportionate the response?' said Oberhäuser, who is not involved in the case. 'If someone is being expelled simply for their political beliefs, that's a massive overreach.'
Each of the four protesters faces separate allegations from the authorities, all of which are sourced from police files and tied to pro-Palestine actions in Berlin. Some, but not all, of the allegations would correspond to criminal charges in Germany; almost none of them have been brought before a criminal court.
The protests in question include a mass sit-in at the Berlin central train station, a road blockade, and the late-2024 occupation of a building at the Free University Berlin.
Read our complete coverage
The only event that tied the four cases together was the allegation that the protesters participated in the university occupation, which involved property damage, and alleged obstruction of an arrest — a so-called de-arrest aimed at blocking a fellow protesters' detention. None of the protesters are accused of any particular acts of vandalism or the de-arrest at the university. Instead, the deportation order cites the suspicion that they took part in a coordinated group action. (The Free University told The Intercept it had no knowledge of the deportation orders.)
Some of the allegations are minor. Two, for example, are accused of calling a police officer 'fascist' — insulting an officer, which is a crime. Three are accused of demonstrating with groups chanting slogans like 'From the river to the sea, Palestine Will be Free' — which was outlawed last year in Germany — and 'free Palestine.' Authorities also claim all four shouted antisemitic or anti-Israel slogans, though none are specified.
Two are accused of grabbing an officers' or another protesters' arm in an attempt to stop arrests at the train station sit-in.
O'Brien, one of the Irish citizens, is the only one of the four whose deportation order included a charge – the accusation that he called a police officer a 'fascist' – that has been brought before a criminal court in Berlin, where he was acquitted.
All four are accused, without evidence, of supporting Hamas, a group Germany has designated as a terrorist organization. 'What we're seeing are the harshest possible measures available, based on accusations that are extremely vague.'
Three of the four deportation orders explicitly invoke alleged public safety threats and support for Hamas to argue that the protesters are not entitled to their constitutional rights to free expression and assembly in deportation proceedings.
'What we're seeing are the harshest possible measures available, based on accusations that are extremely vague and in part completely unfounded,' said Gorski, the lawyer for two of the protesters.
In an unprecedented move, said Gorski, three of the four deportation orders cite Germany's national pledge to defend Israel – the country's Staatsräson, German for reason of state – as justification.
Oberhäuser, of the Bar Association's immigration committee, said Staatsräson is a principle rather than a meaningful legal category. And a parliamentary body recently argued that there are no legally binding effects of the provision.
The distinction, said Oberhäuser, makes the use of Staatsräson in deportation proceedings legally dubious: 'That's impermissible under constitutional law.'
Internal emails obtained by The Intercept show political pressure behind the scenes to issue the deportation orders, despite objections from Berlin immigration officials.
The battle played out between bureaucrats from the branches of the Senate of Berlin, the state's executive governing body under the authority of Kai Wegner, the mayor, who is in turn elected by the city's parliamentary body.
After the Berlin Senate's Interior Department asked for a signed deportation order, Silke Buhlmann, head of crime prevention and repatriation at the immigration agency, raised objections. 'There are no final criminal convictions to substantiate a sufficiently serious and actual threat.'
In an email, Buhlmann noted her concerns were shared by the immigration agency's top official Engelhard Mazanke.
Buhlmann explicitly warned that the legal basis for revoking the three EU citizens' freedom of movement was insufficient — and that deporting them would be unlawful.
'In coordination with Mr. Mazanke, I inform you that I cannot comply with your directive of December 20, 2024 — to conduct hearings for the individuals listed under a) to c) and subsequently determine loss of freedom of movement — for legal reasons,' Buhlmann wrote, referring to the three citizens of EU states as cases A to C. Buhlmann wrote that, though the police reports 'suggest a potential threat to public order from the individuals concerned, there are no final criminal convictions to substantiate a sufficiently serious and actual threat.'
The internal objection, known as a remonstration, was quickly overruled by Berlin Senate Department official Christian Oestmann, who dismissed the concerns and ordered to proceed with the expulsion orders anyway.
'[F]or these individuals, continued freedom of movement cannot be justified on grounds of public order and safety, regardless of any criminal convictions,' he wrote. 'I therefore request that the hearings be conducted immediately as instructed.'
In a statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson for the Senate Department told The Intercept that the Interior department had authority over the immigration office.
'The Senate Department for the Interior and Sport exercises technical and administrative supervision over the State Office for Immigration,' the spokesperson said. 'As part of this role, it holds the authority to issue directives.'
The Senate declined to comment on the specifics of the cases, citing privacy protections. The immigration agency did not respond to The Intercept's request for comment.
In the end, Mazanke, the top immigration justice official, complied with the directive and signed the order.
In Interviews with The Intercept, the four protesters on the receiving end of the deportation orders declined to discuss the specific allegations levelled against them.
All four have, for the meantime, been ordered to leave Germany by April 21, 2025, or face forcible deportation.
The most severe consequences would be faced by Longbottom, a 27-year-old American student from Seattle, Washington, who would be barred by the order from entering any of the 29 Schengen Zone countries for two years after leaving Germany.
Longbottom, who denied any antisemitism, told The Intercept they have only six months left to complete their master's degree at Berlin's Alice Salomon University studying human rights work.
'Will I be able to finish my Master's program here? Where am I going to live?' Longbottom said. 'All of these questions are very unclear.'
Longbottom, who is trans, lives in Berlin with their partner, an Italian citizen. The prospect of being separated weighs heavily on them.
'I don't have anything to start over with,' they said. 'As a trans person, the idea of going back to the U.S. right now feels really scary.'
Kasia Wlaszczyk, 35, a cultural worker and Polish citizen, said he never imagined this could happen. He emphasized that allegations of antisemitism are predominantly a racist tactic levelled against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in Germany and the deportation orders reflected an increase in the use of the allegation against anyone standing in solidarity with them.
'Germany weaponizes these accusations,' he said.
Wlaszczyk, who is also trans, hasn't lived in Poland since the age of ten.
'If this goes through, it would uproot me from the community I've built here.' he said.
The sense of an impending loss of community was common among the protesters. 'They're being used as guinea pigs.'
'My illusion of Berlin has been shattered by the lack of response to the genocide,' said Shane O'Brien, 29, an Irish citizen. The violent repression of Arab communities in Berlin, he said, left him shaken.
After three years in Berlin, the threat of removal now feels like a rupture to Roberta Murray, 31, who is also Irish.
'My life is here,' they said. 'I'm not making any plans for Ireland. I believe that we will win — and that we'll stay. I don't believe this will hold up in a court.'
Gorski and other attorneys now filed an urgent motion for interim relief alongside a formal appeal challenging the legality of the deportation orders.
He noted that he has worked on similar cases where migration law was used to target pro-Palestinian activists for their speech, but what sets the current four cases apart, he said, is the openness with which Germany's so-called Staatsräson is used to justify expulsions.
'These people's criminal records are clean,' Gorski said. Yet the Berlin government appears to be constructing a narrative of 'imminent danger' to sidestep due process.
Gorski warned that the cases are a test run for broader repression against immigrants and activists in Germany, not just about four protesters.
He said, 'They're being used as guinea pigs.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Milei says Argentina to move Israel embassy to Jerusalem in 2026
Argentine President Javier Milei said Wednesday his country would in 2026 move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the status of which is one of the most delicate issues in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. "I am proud to announce before you that in 2026 we will make effective the move of our embassy to the city of west Jerusalem, as we promised," Milei said in a speech in the Israeli parliament during an official state visit. Argentina's embassy is currently located in Herzliya near the coastal city of Tel Aviv. This is Milei's second visit to Israel since being elected in 2023. His previous trip, in February 2024, was his first official state visit outside of Argentina. During that trip he announced plans to move Argentina's embassy to Jerusalem -- a controversial move that echoed US President Donald Trump's shock 2017 decision to unilaterally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Israel has occupied east Jerusalem since 1967, later annexing it in a move not recognised by the international community. Israel treats the city as its capital, while Palestinians want east Jerusalem to become the capital of a future state. Most foreign embassies to Israel are located in the coastal hub city of Tel Aviv in order to avoid interfering with negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Speaking ahead of Milei's address to parliament on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "the city of Jerusalem will never be divided again." Several countries, including the United States, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo, have moved their embassies to Jerusalem, breaking with international consensus. - 'Stand firm' - In 2017, during his first term as US president, Trump unilaterally recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sparking Palestinian anger and the international community's disapproval. The United States transferred its embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018. Milei, who has professed a deep interest in Judaism and studied Jewish scripture, is one of Israel's staunchest defenders. As Israel faces mounting international pressure over the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza after more than 20 months of war, Milei sought to express his support. "As a nation, we want to stand firm alongside you as you go through these dark days, we will not yield to criticism resulting from cowardice or complicity with barbarism," he said on Tuesday during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog. He also demanded the "unconditional return of the four Argentines still in captivity" in Gaza after Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the war. The Palestinian militant group's attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people on the Israeli side, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures. The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza says the retaliatory Israeli military offensive has killed at least 55,104 people, the majority civilians. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable. Out of 251 taken hostage during the Hamas attack, 54 are still held in Gaza including 32 the Israeli military says are dead. lma-acc/ysm
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US threatens allies: we will retaliate if you attend UN Palestine summit
Donald Trump's administration has threatened allies with consequences if they attend an upcoming UN conference on a possible two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The diplomatic demarche, sent on Tuesday, says countries that take 'anti-Israel actions' following the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to US foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences from Washington, Reuters reported. France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting the gathering next week in New York that aims to lay out the parameters for a roadmap to a Palestinian state, while ensuring Israel's security. 'We are urging governments not to participate in the conference, which we view as counterproductive to ongoing, lifesaving efforts to end the war in Gaza and free hostages,' read the cable. Emmanuel Macron has suggested France could recognise a Palestinian state in Israeli-occupied territory at the conference. French officials say they have been working to avoid a clash with the US, Israel's staunchest major ally. 'The United States opposes any steps that would unilaterally recognise a conjectural Palestinian state, which adds significant legal and political obstacles to the eventual resolution of the conflict and could coerce Israel during a war, thereby supporting its enemies,' the cable read. This week Britain and Canada, also G7 allies of the United States, were joined by other countries in placing sanctions on two Israeli far-Right government ministers to pressure prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring the Gaza war to an end. 'The United States opposes the implied support of the conference for potential actions including boycotts and sanctions on Israel as well as other punitive measures,' the cable read. Israel has repeatedly criticised the conference, saying it rewards Islamist Hamas militants for the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the Gaza war, and it has lobbied France against recognising a Palestinian state. The US State Department and the French foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'