First Amendment Rights Do Not Extend to Visa Applicants -- Editorial
Western governments should prioritize evaluating the values of foreigners before issuing visas, rather than deporting them later.
TroibNews 
The arrests and deportations of permanent residents and student visa-holders for expressive activities related to the Israel-Hamas conflict mark a troubling moment in American history. The unsettling scenes of masked federal agents making arrests in public, the detention of individuals without communication, and the belligerent justifications from Trump administration officials evoke comparisons more suited to an authoritarian regime than to a democracy.
Rumeysa Ozturk's situation is particularly alarming. A Turkish national and graduate student at Tufts University, Ozturk was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while heading to a friend’s home to break the Ramadan fast. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed that she engaged in “activities in support of Hamas,” although they have not provided specific details. Unlike the thousands of foreign students who have had their visas revoked for serious offenses such as arson and assault, Ozturk has not faced any criminal charges. There is no evidence that she participated in the disruption of university operations—typical grounds for expulsion or visa revocation. Her involvement seems limited to co-authoring an op-ed that criticized her university’s position on the Israel-Hamas war.
In justification of its actions, the Trump administration invokes a 2005 amendment to a long-standing law that allows the Secretary of State to deport anyone whose presence in the U.S. might lead to “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The potential consequences of targeting Ozturk for deportation based solely on her opinions are far more troubling. This environment encourages immigrants and visa holders to remain particularly cautious when discussing anything that may be deemed controversial by the government.
This scenario jeopardizes not only immigrants, many of whom have escaped regimes where deviating from the norm can result in severe consequences, but it also poses a threat to American citizens in a nation where governmental suppression of free expression is becoming increasingly common.
The arrest and deportation of legal immigrants for their opinions raise significant First Amendment concerns. Conversely, the exclusion of foreigners based on their views does not present the same constitutional issues. Instead of expelling those who legally enter the U.S. to express extremist ideologies, the government should focus more effectively on screening and preventing such individuals from entering.
“Immigration is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone and anyone in the world who wishes to come to the United States,” Barbara Jordan, the first African American woman from the South elected to the U.S. House, stated in 1995. “It is a privilege granted by the people of the United States to those whom we choose to admit.”
Immigration is indeed a privilege, and as Western governments decide who can participate in it, they must consider the beliefs and values of potential new residents. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 900 million adults worldwide would leave their country if given the chance, with nearly 20 percent—about 160 million—looking to settle in the United States. While Western nations have long been sought-after destinations for immigrants, they cannot accommodate everyone who wishes to move. Consequently, various criteria are necessary to distinguish suitable newcomers.
American immigration criteria have shifted significantly over time. The Articles of Confederation barred "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," while the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 specifically targeted Chinese laborers for a decade. The Immigration Act of 1917 excluded numerous groups, including those "likely to become a public charge" and others defined as "idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons," among others.
Today, we condemn past immigration practices that discriminated based on race, disability, or other inherent traits. However, that does not mean discrimination is unjustifiable in other contexts. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as anarchists resorted to terrorism, the U.S. rightly barred them from entry. In 1952, amid the Cold War, Congress enacted legislation declaring that “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party… is inadmissible.” Although this law has its flaws, the intent to restrict entry to foreign communists had merit given the Communist Party's connections to espionage and foreign influences.
Evaluating an applicant's ideology can be as valid a reason for visa denial as factors like criminal history, likelihood of becoming a public charge, or providing misleading information on the application. Fears that increased ideological screening will lead to fascism are misplaced; one only needs to examine the situation in Western Europe. Poor assimilation of migrants from diverse cultural backgrounds has led to terrorism, rising antisemitism, homophobia, and significant political backlash. These dynamics contributed to events like Brexit and the popularity of far-right parties across Europe, which stem from opposition to immigration from Muslim-majority regions.
In light of these challenges, some European nations are already implementing measures to exclude immigrants based on ideological grounds. For instance, the Dutch Participation Declaration Trajectory assesses potential citizens through various scenarios to evaluate their compatibility with local values. An example involves gauging responses to invitations to events that may conflict with individual beliefs, illustrating the need for maintaining pluralism necessary for liberal societies.
The widespread anti-Israel demonstrations following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, indicate that the values some immigrants bring with them can clash sharply with the principles of liberal democracy. This tension is particularly evident in Germany, where the government prioritizes Holocaust memorialization and views Israel's security as a state interest. In response to unsettling public displays of antisemitism in Berlin, the vice chancellor admonished migrant communities, emphasizing the need for dialogue and unequivocal distancing from extremist ideologies.
Liberal societies have not only the right but the responsibility to exclude those who oppose their fundamental values. This principle aligns with the great liberal philosopher Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, which asserts that extending unlimited tolerance to the intolerant will ultimately lead to the destruction of the tolerant. American immigration law mandates that new citizens pledge allegiance to the Constitution, which they promise to "support and defend" during naturalization. This framework could be enhanced with questions similar to those used in the Dutch citizenship exam, focusing on gender equality, the separation of church and state, minority rights, and pluralism. While unconditional support for Israel shouldn’t be an entry requirement, addressing antisemitic beliefs among applicants is essential.
Critics may label these policies as discriminatory; however, if ideologically driven immigration restrictions disproportionately affect Muslims, it highlights the oppressive ideologies present in some Islamic societies—not a flaw of Western tolerance. These societies often harbor beliefs regarding Jews, women's rights, and the rights of sexual minorities that are significantly lagging compared to Western norms. Consequently, policies resulting in a disproportionate impact on specific groups don't inherently imply bigotry; rather, they can underscore the need for judicious immigration practices. Ultimately, Western societies should warmly welcome immigrants who uphold liberal values, particularly those who have faced persecution for doing so.
The recent surge in hostility towards Western civilization, coupled with the glorification of terrorist actions, has been disheartening but also enlightening. Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice and vocal supporter of Zionism, famously remarked that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” The exposure surrounding anti-Israel sentiments on American campuses and in European streets has revealed that many who claim to advocate for Palestine are primarily focused on undermining the existence of Israel. Thanks to the free expression principles allowing such showcases of animosity, elected officials can make informed decisions regarding the immigration policies that may have contributed to these tensions and legislate appropriately.
Adam Young for TROIB News
Rumeysa Ozturk's situation is particularly alarming. A Turkish national and graduate student at Tufts University, Ozturk was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while heading to a friend’s home to break the Ramadan fast. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed that she engaged in “activities in support of Hamas,” although they have not provided specific details. Unlike the thousands of foreign students who have had their visas revoked for serious offenses such as arson and assault, Ozturk has not faced any criminal charges. There is no evidence that she participated in the disruption of university operations—typical grounds for expulsion or visa revocation. Her involvement seems limited to co-authoring an op-ed that criticized her university’s position on the Israel-Hamas war.
In justification of its actions, the Trump administration invokes a 2005 amendment to a long-standing law that allows the Secretary of State to deport anyone whose presence in the U.S. might lead to “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The potential consequences of targeting Ozturk for deportation based solely on her opinions are far more troubling. This environment encourages immigrants and visa holders to remain particularly cautious when discussing anything that may be deemed controversial by the government.
This scenario jeopardizes not only immigrants, many of whom have escaped regimes where deviating from the norm can result in severe consequences, but it also poses a threat to American citizens in a nation where governmental suppression of free expression is becoming increasingly common.
The arrest and deportation of legal immigrants for their opinions raise significant First Amendment concerns. Conversely, the exclusion of foreigners based on their views does not present the same constitutional issues. Instead of expelling those who legally enter the U.S. to express extremist ideologies, the government should focus more effectively on screening and preventing such individuals from entering.
“Immigration is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone and anyone in the world who wishes to come to the United States,” Barbara Jordan, the first African American woman from the South elected to the U.S. House, stated in 1995. “It is a privilege granted by the people of the United States to those whom we choose to admit.”
Immigration is indeed a privilege, and as Western governments decide who can participate in it, they must consider the beliefs and values of potential new residents. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 900 million adults worldwide would leave their country if given the chance, with nearly 20 percent—about 160 million—looking to settle in the United States. While Western nations have long been sought-after destinations for immigrants, they cannot accommodate everyone who wishes to move. Consequently, various criteria are necessary to distinguish suitable newcomers.
American immigration criteria have shifted significantly over time. The Articles of Confederation barred "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," while the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 specifically targeted Chinese laborers for a decade. The Immigration Act of 1917 excluded numerous groups, including those "likely to become a public charge" and others defined as "idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons," among others.
Today, we condemn past immigration practices that discriminated based on race, disability, or other inherent traits. However, that does not mean discrimination is unjustifiable in other contexts. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as anarchists resorted to terrorism, the U.S. rightly barred them from entry. In 1952, amid the Cold War, Congress enacted legislation declaring that “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party… is inadmissible.” Although this law has its flaws, the intent to restrict entry to foreign communists had merit given the Communist Party's connections to espionage and foreign influences.
Evaluating an applicant's ideology can be as valid a reason for visa denial as factors like criminal history, likelihood of becoming a public charge, or providing misleading information on the application. Fears that increased ideological screening will lead to fascism are misplaced; one only needs to examine the situation in Western Europe. Poor assimilation of migrants from diverse cultural backgrounds has led to terrorism, rising antisemitism, homophobia, and significant political backlash. These dynamics contributed to events like Brexit and the popularity of far-right parties across Europe, which stem from opposition to immigration from Muslim-majority regions.
In light of these challenges, some European nations are already implementing measures to exclude immigrants based on ideological grounds. For instance, the Dutch Participation Declaration Trajectory assesses potential citizens through various scenarios to evaluate their compatibility with local values. An example involves gauging responses to invitations to events that may conflict with individual beliefs, illustrating the need for maintaining pluralism necessary for liberal societies.
The widespread anti-Israel demonstrations following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, indicate that the values some immigrants bring with them can clash sharply with the principles of liberal democracy. This tension is particularly evident in Germany, where the government prioritizes Holocaust memorialization and views Israel's security as a state interest. In response to unsettling public displays of antisemitism in Berlin, the vice chancellor admonished migrant communities, emphasizing the need for dialogue and unequivocal distancing from extremist ideologies.
Liberal societies have not only the right but the responsibility to exclude those who oppose their fundamental values. This principle aligns with the great liberal philosopher Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance, which asserts that extending unlimited tolerance to the intolerant will ultimately lead to the destruction of the tolerant. American immigration law mandates that new citizens pledge allegiance to the Constitution, which they promise to "support and defend" during naturalization. This framework could be enhanced with questions similar to those used in the Dutch citizenship exam, focusing on gender equality, the separation of church and state, minority rights, and pluralism. While unconditional support for Israel shouldn’t be an entry requirement, addressing antisemitic beliefs among applicants is essential.
Critics may label these policies as discriminatory; however, if ideologically driven immigration restrictions disproportionately affect Muslims, it highlights the oppressive ideologies present in some Islamic societies—not a flaw of Western tolerance. These societies often harbor beliefs regarding Jews, women's rights, and the rights of sexual minorities that are significantly lagging compared to Western norms. Consequently, policies resulting in a disproportionate impact on specific groups don't inherently imply bigotry; rather, they can underscore the need for judicious immigration practices. Ultimately, Western societies should warmly welcome immigrants who uphold liberal values, particularly those who have faced persecution for doing so.
The recent surge in hostility towards Western civilization, coupled with the glorification of terrorist actions, has been disheartening but also enlightening. Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice and vocal supporter of Zionism, famously remarked that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” The exposure surrounding anti-Israel sentiments on American campuses and in European streets has revealed that many who claim to advocate for Palestine are primarily focused on undermining the existence of Israel. Thanks to the free expression principles allowing such showcases of animosity, elected officials can make informed decisions regarding the immigration policies that may have contributed to these tensions and legislate appropriately.
Adam Young for TROIB News
