Berlin considers deporting EU citizens over pro-Palestine protests

Berlin immigration authorities have ordered three EU citizens and one US citizen to leave Germany, accusing them of “antisemitism and supporting terrorism” for protesting Israel’s attacks in Gaza.

The four activists—two Irish, one Polish, and one US citizen—claim that authorities in the German capital are “weaponizing immigration law” after being told they must leave the country by April 21 or face deportation, based on accusations such as chanting pro-Palestine slogans.

In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the group said their attempted deportation was part of an effort to “silence pro-Palestine voices and political dissent.” They compared their treatment to that of activists like Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born Columbia University graduate and US green card holder who was detained and threatened with deportation by the Trump administration for participating in pro-Palestine demonstrations.

Alexander Gorski, a criminal and immigration lawyer representing two of the Berlin protesters, said he had not previously seen a deportation case where the concept of Staatsräson (the idea that Israel’s security is a central part of Germany’s national interest) was used as part of the justification for the decisions.

According to the Financial Times, the lawyer stated, “Basically, they are arguing that due to the German Staatsräson, it necessitates the heaviest measure that German immigration law knows. I have never seen such a political statement [as a justification for deportation] before.”

The Berlin Ministry of Interior and Sports, which oversees the city’s immigration office, confirmed that it had informed the four activists that their residence permits had been revoked.

The ministry stated that this decision was linked to protests at the Free University of Berlin in October 2024, during which a “violent, masked group” entered the building, causing “significant property damage, including graffiti.”

While criminal proceedings are ongoing, lawyer Gorski did not specify whether these charges applied to the four individuals ordered to leave the country.

Gorski said that the exact accusations against the four individuals at the time remained unclear, stating, “The police claimed that our clients participated in the attempt to occupy the university. But the police have not handed the file to the public prosecutor’s office. We have not been granted access to the files.”

The Berlin city administration declined to provide further information, citing data protection.

Gorski noted that this was not the first time German authorities had used immigration law as “a means of repression against social movements.” He said he had observed a pattern since Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

Gorski stated that he had encountered over a dozen cases of Palestinians and other Arabs whose refugee status or residency had been revoked due to their participation in pro-Palestine rallies or social media posts deemed to support terrorism.

The Intercept, which first reported the story, stated that two of the four individuals were also accused of holding the arms of police officers or other protesters to prevent arrests during sit-in protests. In other instances, they were accused of chanting slogans such as “Free Palestine” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

Gorski said that these slogans were unfairly interpreted as indirect support for Hamas, which is considered a “terrorist” organization by the US, EU, and Israel.

Only one of the accusations, that 29-year-old Irish citizen Shane O’Brien allegedly called a police officer a “fascist,” went to criminal court. O’Brien was acquitted.

None of the four individuals have any prior convictions. Authorities are basing their decisions, which are being appealed by the protesters, on a provision that allows for the deportation of foreign nationals if they pose a danger to society.

The Berlin city administration stated, “Any criminal convictions will be taken into account in the relevant assessment. However, they do not constitute a prerequisite for the application of appropriate measures.”