Should immigrants be able to protest like citizens?

• Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian doctoral student at Columbia University, left the U.S. on March 11, 2025, following a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
• Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist, was arrested on March 8 for allegedly supporting a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
• Prabhash Ranjan and Happymon Jacob discussed the question of whether immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens under international human rights law.
• Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enshrines freedom of expression as a fundamental human right, extending to both citizens and immigrants.
• The extent of this right depends on the host country’s domestic legal framework. Some states enforce stricter regulations, while liberal democracies may adopt a more permissive stance.
• The Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 authorizes the denial of entry and deportation of non-citizens who endorse or support terrorist activities or organizations.
• U.S. law extends First Amendment protections to non-citizens, regardless of their immigration status, particularly in matters concerning criminal penalties and law enforcement investigations.
• Happymon’s argument becomes relevant as each case must be evaluated based on the individual’s legal status.

The U.S. Legal System and Deportations: A Historical Perspective

• The U.S. legal system is complex and enduring, with past precedents highlighting the complexities surrounding deportations.
• The Trump administration’s revoked grants for Columbia University raise concerns about deterring foreign students from studying in the U.S.
• The application of a rarely invoked statute to a Palestinian political activist raises serious due process concerns, potentially amounting to arbitrary enforcement.
• The U.S. government must present substantial evidence of actual criminal conduct for prosecution under this statute.
• The Trump administration invoked Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the 1952 Act to justify the arrest of Mr. Khalil, empowering the Secretary of State to deport a foreign national if their presence or activities would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
• The provision grants the government significant authority, with no clear denition of what constitutes “adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.
• The invocation of such rarely used provisions is inherently political, with how the executive frames an issue dictates the response.
• If the U.S. continues on this path, it risks losing the moral authority to advise other nations on their domestic affairs, declining American soft power, and contributing to the erosion of democratic and liberal values worldwide.
• The U.S. has long been perceived as a nation that upholds the rule of law and champions the freedom of speech and expression.
• The unfolding deportation proceedings will be telling, and the repercussions of such actions are yet to be seen.