Yes, the Government Can Deport Immigrants for Their Speech. That Doesn’t Mean It Should.

A nation built on dissent is now punishing it in the name of security

We are thrilled to announce Gabriel Nadales as FAIR For All’s new Legal Advocacy Coordinator.

In its latest attempt to root out terrorism, the Trump administration has launched a sweeping initiative: screening immigrants’ social media for antisemitism and treating it as a proxy for terrorist ties.

At first glance, this may sound like common sense. Why should a country allow entry to people who openly support terrorist organizations? Keeping Americans safe is a legitimate function of government, and denying entry or deporting those who pose a threat to Americans is a legitimate use of government power.

But when national security becomes a catchall justification, liberties tend to shrink—fast. And this latest crackdown is already sending a chill through the immigrant community. It's easy to see why.

Take Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and legal U.S. resident, arrested for joining pro-Palestinian protests on campus—demonstrations that some argued were antisemitic. Or Tufts PhD candidate Rumeysa Ozturk, now facing deportation for co-authoring an op-ed critical of the university’s ties to Israel.

No one—not even the administration—is suggesting their speech was unlawful. But because they’re not U.S. citizens, the government claims it can hold them to a different standard.

And unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to that argument—at least legally speaking.

The Constitution’s protections don’t always extend fully to foreign nationals. The Supreme Court has said as much for over a century. In 1896, the Court ruled that even undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment. But less than a decade later, it watered that down in U.S. v. Ju Toy, holding that immigration proceedings don't require full judicial trials.

When it comes to the First Amendment, the restrictions are even starker. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), the Court upheld the deportation of immigrants for political speech tied to communism. It’s not hard to imagine a future court leaning on that precedent to justify deporting students over pro-Palestinian activism. This case will undoubtedly be used against all foreign students who show support for any idea which the government determines is contrary to its interests.

I understand the impulse. Many Americans are rightly concerned about foreign influence on campus—and about real threats posed by extremist ideologies. Congress and the White House have wide latitude to protect national security. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

The ripple effects of this approach go far beyond the intended targets. For every Khalil or Ozturk, there are hundreds of immigrants quietly wondering: What can I say in public without jeopardizing my future?

Let’s be clear—Ozturk’s op-ed wasn’t some firebrand screed. It was a thoughtful critique of university investments. But when the government starts defining “problematic” speech however it sees fit, no one is safe.

If I weren’t a U.S. citizen—if I hadn’t taken the oath in 2024 after years of waiting—I might think twice about writing this very piece.

Which brings me to a more uncomfortable point: this climate of fear doesn’t just impact immigrants. It affects naturalized citizens like me. In the 1950s, the government used denaturalization to strip political dissidents of their citizenship. What’s to stop a future administration from trying again?

Even if most cases fail in court, the cost—financial, emotional, and social—falls squarely on those forced to defend themselves. All for speaking out.

Now that I’m a father, this hits differently. I love this country. I chose it. I believe in its promise. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel uneasy watching who gets labeled a threat—and who doesn’t.

This isn’t about fear mongering. I don’t think we’re about to see mass denaturalizations. But the chilling effect is real. And for someone like me—someone who has spent years defending free speech—it hits differently now that I’m a father.

Fear will never be enough to silence me. But most immigrants aren’t activists. They’re students, workers, neighbors—people just trying to live their lives without stepping on a rhetorical landmine.

The U.S. government has the legal authority to monitor and restrict speech by immigrants. But if we start punishing peaceful dissent in the name of security, we’ll lose the very thing we claim to protect: a country where ideas can be debated, not deported. If we start punishing people for peaceful speech, we risk becoming the very thing we claim to stand against.

We can keep America safe without betraying the freedoms that make this country worth defending.

We don’t need to choose between safety and freedom. We just need the courage to defend both.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.