So you are making a bunch of category errors here so let's go through them. We have to differentiate between what actions a University should take vs immigration actions. So let's start with the University: You're dismissing this as just a chat, but anyone who knows how these universities pursue actions related to these actions. The next step is formal complaint, then an investigation where students are regularly denied due process. Of course none of that happens with leaders of CUAD or SJP at Columbia. But this is just for speech outside of school. My personal preference is that Columbia not intervene in pure speech at all, but they have to enforce their own rules equally. Next, is your confusion between speech and actions. Posting opinions that aren't direct threats or individual harassment is one thing, but students in CUAD, SJP etc. have gone way beyond that. They disrupt classes, they set up tents in unauthorized areas, they've threatened Jewish students, they've restricted access to areas on campus, they've taken over school buildings, they've caused tens of thousands in damage via vandalism all over campus, they've assaulted students and staff, and they've even poured cement into toilets to make a building unusable. Those are not speech. And if any other student groups or student activists had done them, they would quickly be suspended or expelled. Columbia has simply ignored most of that with only occasional action, after severe outside pressure, against the worst offenders. They have even had staff join and reward some of that illegitimate behavior. In doing so, they've created a special class that's above the rules. Part of why Columbia has refused to enforce their rules in the instances above is that if they would do so, many of the foreign students participating in that behavior would automatically lose their student visas. Now the immigration part: Students who are disenrolled lose their student visas, but this part if being hindered by Columbia refusing to enforce their own rules. In addition, those who apply for a Visa make a lot of commitments under which that Visa is granted. That includes a comittment not to commit crimes AND a comittment you do not advocate for terrorism or support a terrorist group. The administration's argument is that even if Columbia refuses to enforce their rules in these cases (which should cost them federal funding), that the student visa holders are violating the requirements that come with getting a student visa. Now there is a legitimate argument to make as to due process and whether the admin can prove that in some cases, but that's separate from whether someone who participates in violent mobs and expresses open support for terrorism should be entitled to a Visa.
See Tweet