Do immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens?

Do immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens under international human rights law?

Prabhash Ranjan: 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. Article 19(2) specifically guarantees the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information across borders through various media. However, Article 19(3) qualifies this right by imposing special duties and permitting states to impose restrictions when necessary to safeguard national security or public order. Additionally, other provisions of the ICCPR explicitly prohibit war propaganda and the advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites violence.

While international law affords immigrants the same right to protest as citizens, the extent of this right depends on the host country’s domestic legal framework. Some states enforce stricter regulations, whereas liberal democracies may adopt a more permissive stance.

To what extent do foreign policy and national security considerations constrain immigrants’ right to peaceful protest?

Happymon Jacob: The application of international human rights law is deeply influenced by domestic politics. The critical question is what happens when international legal norms and expectations collide with national political realities. For instance, in the U.S., a long-standing tradition of free speech has created a global expectation that Americans will consistently uphold this right. However, instances where American actions diverge from these expectations expose a disconnect between historical tradition and contemporary reality. This phenomenon is not unique to the U.S.— across Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe, non-citizens often do not enjoy the same degree of free speech as citizens. Moreover, the ability to exercise free speech or participate in peaceful protests frequently depends on an individual’s legal status — whether they are a natural-born citizen, a permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant. The social contract that binds a government to its citizens does not necessarily extend to non-citizens in the same way, further entangling the legal and political framework governing these rights.

Does the crackdown on protesting foreign students in the U.S. violate First Amendment rights?

Prabhash Ranjan: The Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 authorises the denial of entry and deportation of non-citizens who endorse or support terrorist activities or organisations. President Trump’s executive order, issued in January directing federal agencies to combat antisemitism on campuses, is rooted in this law. Thus, its issuance does not exceed constitutional authority. However, the critical question is whether the order itself is constitutional.

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. However, it remains uncertain whether non-citizens enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection as citizens when facing deportation proceedings. This is where Happymon’s argument becomes relevant — each case must be evaluated based on the individual’s legal status. For instance, a green card holder would have stronger legal protections than someone on a student visa. Historically, during the Cold War, legal aliens in the U.S. were deported for their affiliation with the Communist Party. While the U.S. legal system has since become more robust, past precedents highlight the enduring legal complexities surrounding such deportations.

The Trump administration has revoked nearly $400 million in grants for Columbia University. Do you think this could deter foreign students from studying in the U.S.?

Happymon Jacob: I don’t believe measures such as these will significantly influence the decisions of international students, including those from India, to study in the U.S. Only a small fraction of Indian students are likely to engage in such protests, making it an unlikely deterrent. However, a more pressing concern is whether reductions in university funding could ultimately discourage international talent from enrolling in American institutions. If that happens, it could pose a serious challenge for a nation that relies on immigration-driven innovation and expertise.

U.S. immigration judges operate within the Department of Justice, where the Attorney General has the authority to remove them. Could executive influence compromise the fairness of deportation proceedings?

Prabhash Ranjan: Yes, executive control over immigration judges is deeply problematic. Law and politics are not as divorced as we might wish to believe. While judges are ideally expected to operate in depoliticised courtrooms, the reality is that legal interpretations often unfold within a broader political context. That said, my confidence lies less in individual immigration judges and more in the U.S. judicial system as a whole. At the appellate level, independent review and judicial scrutiny of executive actions can help ensure fairer outcomes. However, for immigrants caught in this system, the process itself can feel like a punishment — perhaps by design.

The Trump administration has reportedly invoked Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the 1952 Act to justify the arrest of Mr. Khalil. It empowers the Secretary of State to deport a foreign national if their “presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”. Is this provision susceptible to a constitutional challenge on grounds of vagueness?

Prabhash Ranjan: Yes, it does. The application of a rarely invoked statute to a Palestinian political activist raises serious due process concerns, potentially amounting to arbitrary enforcement. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that independent advocacy or mere membership in a government-designated terrorist organisation is protected speech under the First Amendment. Criminal liability arises only from providing material support, not from association alone. Thus, for the U.S. government to justify prosecution under this statute, it must present substantial evidence of actual criminal conduct. In Mr. Khalil’s case, the legitimacy of the government’s actions depends on the evidence it has and whether it can demonstrate genuine wrongdoing. If he is merely expressing a viewpoint aligned with a particular group, that remains constitutionally protected speech.

Can this provision be weaponised against those the administration disagrees with?

Happymon Jacob: As Prabhash pointed out, this provision grants the government significant authority, with no clear definition of what constitutes “adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S. Its vague language allows almost anything to fall within its scope, making it highly susceptible to misuse. That said, most countries maintain such sweeping laws, ostensibly reserved for exceptional circumstances. If an administration chooses to exploit them, judicial intervention remains the only real safeguard. Moreover, the invocation of such rarely used provisions is inherently political — how the executive frames an issue dictates the response. Protests perceived as part of routine political discourse will elicit a different reaction than those framed as law-and-order threats or national security risks. Parsing the nuances of such provisions has limited utility, as these laws inherently permit extreme measures in extraordinary situations. However, what qualifies as an “extreme case” is a matter of political interpretation.

Will such incidents erode U.S. soft power and weaken its stature in the global order?

Happymon Jacob: If the U.S. continues on this path, it risks losing the moral authority to advise other nations on their domestic affairs. American soft power will decline, along with its international standing. Such actions could also contribute to the erosion of democratic and liberal values worldwide. Additionally, they will weaken the U.S.’s ability to build coalitions based on shared democratic values. It was always understood that the U.S. leveraged sophisticated moral and liberal arguments to advance its foreign policy — perhaps the mask has now come off.

Prabhash Ranjan: The U.S. has long been perceived — rightly or wrongly — as a nation that upholds the rule of law and champions the freedom of speech and expression. This commitment has played a crucial role in fostering a global culture of liberal values and open discourse. However, if the U.S. begins weaponising laws to target individuals it disfavours, it risks legitimising similar actions by governments worldwide. This would contribute to a more repressive global environment, where political expression becomes increasingly precarious. That said, I still have faith in the U.S. legal system — it remains robust. Whether a single administration can upend it entirely remains to be seen. The unfolding deportation proceedings will be telling.