Context: Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian doctoral student at Columbia University, left the U.S. after her visa was revoked, following accusations of being a "pro-Hamas sympathiser." A Palestinian student activist was arrested in the US for allegedly violating residency terms by supporting a U.S.-designated terrorist group.
These incidents have sparked a debate on whether immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Mains: Comparison of U.S. First Amendment with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (freedom of speech and expression), International Human Rights Law.
Do immigrants have the same Right to Protest as citizens under international human rights law?
- According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and is extended to both citizens and immigrants.
- Article 19(2) guarantees the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information across borders through various media.
- Article 19(3) permits 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.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
- ICCPR is a multilateral treaty that commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.
- It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution and entered into force in 1976.
- As of 2024, it has 174 parties (India has signed as well as ratified ICCPR).
- ICCPR forms a part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
- Compliance with the ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Extent of Right to Protest depends upon the Host country
- 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.
- 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.
- Some states enforce stricter regulations, whereas liberal democracies may adopt a more permissive stance.
First Amendment & Immigrant Rights in the U.S
- The First Amendment extends free speech rights to non-citizens, but faces limitations in deportation proceedings. Green card holders have stronger protections than those on temporary visas and past precedents (e.g., Cold War deportations) show how political contexts influence enforcement.
- The US Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 authorises the denial of entry and deportation of non-citizens who endorse or support terrorist activities or organisations.
- It empowers the Secretary of State to deport foreign nationals if their presence/ activities in the US would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
- With no clear definition of what constitutes “adverse foreign policy consequences”, the scope is broad making it highly susceptible to misuse.
- 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.
Impact on U.S. Soft Power & Global Standing
- Decline in US Soft power and global influence. Crackdowns on immigrant protests can damage the U.S.'s image as a proponent of democratic values.
- Such actions could also contribute to the erosion of democratic and liberal values worldwide.
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.