“In defending its actions, the Trump administration is citing a 2005 amendment to a 73-year-old law giving the secretary of State the power to deport anyone whose continued presence in the United States would have potentially “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Whatever adverse consequences Ozturk may have on American foreign policy, the consequences of her being targeted for deportation based on nothing more than her words are far worse. Now, every immigrant and visa holder, no matter their status, must be especially vigilant when discussing American politics, international affairs — conceivably any subject — in a way that upsets the government.
This is obviously bad for immigrants, many of whom fled societies where expressing an unpopular viewpoint can land one in prison, or worse. But it’s also bad for American citizens, living in a country where the government feels ever more emboldened to clamp down on free expression.
While the arrest and deportation of legal immigrants for expressing opinions has clear First Amendment implications, the exclusion of foreigners on the basis of their statements and beliefs does not. Rather than deporting people who come to this country legally only to espouse extremist views and endorse violence, the U.S. government should do a better job preventing their entry in the first place.”
…
“if a disproportionate number of the people prevented from coming to Europe and the United States as a result of ideologically exclusive immigration policies are Muslim, then that signifies the oppressive orthodoxies of the Islamic world, not Western intolerance. These are societies in which the predominant attitudes regarding Jews, the rights of women, the equality of sexual minorities, liberal democracy and secularism are decades if not centuries behind those of the West.”