Berlin Moves to Expel Foreign Pro-Palestinian Activists

Deportation Orders Spark Legal Dispute

Four foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian protests in Berlin are facing deportation orders from German authorities. The group includes three European Union citizens—Kasia Wlaszczyk from Poland, Shane O’Brien and Roberta Murray from Ireland—and one American, Cooper Longbottom. None of them have been convicted of any crime. Nevertheless, the Berlin Immigration Office (LEA) has ordered them to leave the country by April 21 or face forced removal and multi-year bans from entering Germany.

All four individuals have filed urgent appeals and lawsuits with the Berlin Administrative Court. Until a decision is made, they are permitted to remain in the country.

Accusations Without Convictions

Authorities claim the activists pose a “present danger to public order and safety.” The allegations against them include resistance to law enforcement during the breakup of demonstrations, severe breach of the peace, insult, and the use of banned slogans and symbols, such as “From the river to the sea.” Some of these are interpreted as extremist under German law.

The primary incident at the center of the case occurred in October 2024, when around 40 masked demonstrators attempted to occupy the administrative offices of the Free University of Berlin (FU). The university reported physical confrontations with staff, damage to equipment and property, and the use of symbols linked to banned groups. While the four accused are said to have taken part in that event, the precise actions of each individual have not been made public.

Internal Disagreement Among Officials

The move to expel the activists has triggered tensions within Berlin’s own institutions. Although the Senate initially pushed for their removal, officials within the LEA expressed concern about the legality of such a step. Under EU freedom of movement laws, EU citizens can only lose residency rights under strict conditions. Deportation without criminal convictions is rare and controversial.

Several LEA department heads reportedly opposed the order. Internal communications reveal doubts about whether the actions of the activists meet the legal threshold of posing a “genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy.” Despite this, the Berlin Senate overruled internal objections, insisting that the security of Israel is part of Germany’s state policy and that participation in certain protests may justify removal.

Accusations of Political Motivation

The legal team representing the activists, led by attorney Alexander Gorski, strongly disputes the justification for the expulsions. Gorski called the actions “politically motivated” and compared them to tactics seen in the United States, where authorities have used immigration status to silence pro-Palestinian voices. He noted that one of his clients, a transgender person from the United States, risks being banned from the entire Schengen Area if deported.

Gorski emphasized that in one of the related cases, the accused was acquitted in court, and that the other charges remain unproven. He argues that the deportation orders represent an extreme response to vague and, in some cases, unsubstantiated accusations.

In a written statement, the four activists claimed the expulsion attempts are part of a broader effort to intimidate the pro-Palestinian movement. They criticized what they described as a repressive use of immigration law to suppress political expression.

Free Speech and State Policy in Conflict

Legal experts have noted that, while German law does allow for the expulsion of foreigners without a conviction, such actions must be proportionate and based on individual conduct that endangers core public interests. The tension between freedom of expression and state security policy—particularly concerning criticism of Israeli government actions—has become increasingly apparent in recent months.

The Berlin Senate has defended its actions by pointing to Germany’s official stance that protecting Israel’s security is a matter of national interest. However, this rationale has drawn criticism from civil rights advocates who argue that it risks conflating political protest with criminal threat.

University Occupation at the Center

The attempted occupation of the FU Berlin’s presidential building remains the most serious incident connected to the four individuals. University officials described the October 17 action as violent. Protesters allegedly used axes to enter the building, damaged office equipment, and sprayed slogans and the red triangle symbol—associated with the Palestinian militant group Hamas—on the building’s facade.

Though approximately 40 people were involved, it remains unclear what specific role each of the accused played in the event. Despite this, their alleged participation in a “coordinated group action” forms the basis for the LEA’s decision.

Legal Path Forward

The administrative court in Berlin has confirmed receipt of all four lawsuits and emergency motions. A ruling could take several weeks. In the meantime, the deportation orders have been suspended. Should the court find the expulsions unjustified, it would likely result in the reinstatement of residency rights for the affected individuals.

As public debate around the issue intensifies, questions are being raised about the proportionality of immigration enforcement in political contexts, especially when no convictions have been secured.