
A visa is a privilege, not a right, says Marco Rubio: Exploring the fine line in US immigration policy
Marco Rubio
In a fiery exchange that sent ripples across both political and academic circles, US Secretary of State
Marco Rubio
told lawmakers this week that "a visa is not a right, it's a privilege," as he defended the mass revocation of student visas. The remark came amid a tense Senate hearing where Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen accused Rubio of trampling on the constitutional rights of
foreign students
protesting US support for Israel.
At the heart of the debate was the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, who was detained after criticizing her campus's stance on Gaza. Despite a federal judge finding no links to extremism or hate speech, her visa was revoked and she was sent to a Louisiana detention center. The episode has reignited long-standing questions: What rights do foreign students actually have in the US? And where does the line between privilege and protection begin—and blur?
Citizens vs. Guests: The Unequal Footing in US Law
While the US Constitution guarantees several core rights to all people on US soil—such as freedom of speech and due process—those protections are not absolute for foreign nationals, especially when immigration or visa status comes into play.
Unlike US citizens, international students on F-1 visas are considered "guests," and their legal presence is conditional and revocable.
The US government can revoke a visa without a trial, often without even informing the visa holder of the specific reason. This is because immigration policy falls under the broad authority of the executive branch, and courts have historically given the government wide latitude to determine who may enter or stay in the country.
Freedom of Speech—But With Consequences
While foreign students technically have the right to
free speech
, that right can be undermined by their immigration status. Secretary Rubio argued that students who participate in what he described as disruptive protests—such as "taking over libraries" or "leading campus crusades"—are abusing their privilege to stay in the country.
Van Hollen, on the other hand, pushed back, saying Rubio's actions were not about public safety but about punishing dissent.
He referenced the McCarthy-era witch hunts, accusing Rubio of using national security as a pretext to silence criticism of US foreign policy.
Due Process Denied? When Constitutional Rights Hit a Wall
One of the more contentious issues raised in the hearing was the question of due process. US citizens cannot be punished or deprived of liberty without it. But for visa holders, immigration enforcement often bypasses full judicial proceedings.
In Ozturk's case, she was arrested by masked agents, held in detention, and stripped of her visa without a criminal charge, prompting outrage among civil liberties advocates. While a judge ordered her release, her visa remains revoked—demonstrating the fragile legal footing that foreign students occupy.
The Fine Line Between Privilege and Rights
Rubio's statement—"a visa is not a right, it's a privilege"—may be legally accurate, but it exposes a deeper philosophical tension. When does a temporary presence in the US grant someone moral or political protection? And if someone lives, studies, and contributes to US society for years, should they still be treated as expendable?
Critics argue that calling visas a privilege allows the government to enforce political conformity among foreign students, effectively creating a two-tier system of justice—one for citizens, and one for everyone else.
Rights vs. Privileges in the US Visa System
Aspect
US Citizens
F-1 Visa Holders / Foreign Students
Legal Status
Permanent and unconditional (citizenship by birth or naturalization)
Temporary and conditional (granted by US government for specific purposes)
Right to Free Speech
Fully protected under First Amendment
Generally protected while in US, but can face visa consequences for expression deemed "disruptive" or against US interests
Right to Due Process
Full due process protections before loss of liberty or rights
Limited; visa revocations often happen without full hearings or appeals
Visa Status
Not applicable (citizens do not need a visa to reside in US)
Privilege, not a right; visa can be revoked at any time, often without court review
Right to Stay in US
Guaranteed; cannot be deported
Conditional; subject to immigration law and administrative discretion
Political Participation
Right to vote, protest, and run for office
No right to vote or run for office; public protests may trigger scrutiny
Protection from Deportation
Full protection unless convicted of serious crimes or renounce citizenship
Can be deported for visa violations, criminal charges, or national security claims
Legal Recourse
Can sue government for rights violations
Very limited ability to challenge deportation or visa revocation in US courts
Ability to Work
Unlimited, with labor protections
Strictly limited; work only under authorized programs like OPT, CPT
Government Benefits
Eligible for federal aid, healthcare programs, unemployment, etc.
Ineligible for most public benefits; F-1 students must be financially self-sufficient
While foreign students have some constitutional protections while on US soil, their ability to stay in the country is a revocable privilege, not a guaranteed right. This makes their free speech and presence inherently vulnerable to political or administrative decisions, especially in contentious times like now.
The Broader Implications for US Higher Education
This crackdown risks sending a chilling message to the global academic community: that the US may no longer be a safe space for intellectual freedom and political expression.
Universities, once seen as sanctuaries for debate, may become surveillance zones for visa enforcement.
As thousands of students from around the world apply to American institutions each year, many are now asking: Is the opportunity to study in the US worth the risk of having your stay revoked for your beliefs?
The Rubio-Van Hollen exchange has illuminated not just a legal distinction but a moral one—between citizenship and conditional presence, between rights that are guaranteed and privileges that can be withdrawn. And as the US walks that blurry line, it raises a larger question for a country that champions freedom: Who gets to speak, and who gets to stay?
Invest in Their Tomorrow, Today: Equip your child with the essential AI skills for a future brimming with possibilities | Join Now
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Political divide widens as Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles
BEDMINSTER, New Jersey, - Republicans and Democrats traded barbs on Sunday after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid massive protests against increasing and divisive immigration raids. "Important to remember that Trump isn't trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said in one of the most direct rebukes. "His movement doesn't believe in democracy or protest - and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it." Democratic Senator Cory Booker condemned Trump for deploying troops without California's approval, warning it would only escalate tensions. On NBC's "Meet the Press" he accused Trump of hypocrisy, and noted the president's inaction on January 6, 2021 when thousands of his supporters raided the U.S. Capitol and his subsequent pardons for those arrested. Footage showed at least a half dozen military-style vehicles and riot shields on Sunday at the federal building in Los Angeles with federal law enforcement firing gas canisters to disperse demonstrators protesting against the ICE crackdown. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Trump sparred over the protests, with Newsom condemning the federal response as an overreach, saying Trump wants "a spectacle," while the president accused Newsom of failing to maintain order. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday defended Trump's decision and said he had no concern about the National Guard deployment, adding, "One of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that in foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy handed." Republican Senator James Lankford said Trump is trying to de-escalate tensions, pointing to scenes of protesters throwing objects at law enforcement. He recalled similar unrest in 2020 in Seattle and Portland, where National Guard backed local law enforcement amid racial justice protests. The protests against the raids have become the latest focal point in a national debate over immigration, protest rights, and the use of federal force in domestic affairs. It also has fueled discussion on the boundaries of presidential power and the public's right to dissent.


India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
What's Trump Hiding? Japan's Game-Changer Jet Faces F-47 Sabotage Plot
New Delhi: Stirring fresh controversy, U.S. President Donald Trump has allegedly put pressure on Japan to abandon its advanced sixth-generation fighter jet program. According to a report by Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun, Trump unexpectedly called Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru and pushed him to consider buying the American F‑47 jet. This is the same Washington that once refused to sell its F‑22 fighter jet to Tokyo, citing its sensitive technology. The world is now racing to develop sixth-generation fighter aircraft. India, Japan, Russia, China, the United States and several European countries are in the race. Japan among them has taken the lead. Through its Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), Japan is working with Italy and the United Kingdom to build a next-gen jet. The country is known for its advanced technology – something even the United States acknowledges. But now, Trump's direct intervention has raised eyebrows. The report says he spoke to Ishiba about his recent Middle East trip. Then, suddenly, he started talking about the F‑47. He praised the aircraft and even told the Japanese prime minister that '47 is a lucky number'. The US president urged Japan to buy the jet. He also praised the F‑22, which Japan had long wanted but was denied. Following this, Trump brought up the F‑55 – a newer and twin-engine version of the F‑35 stealth fighter. He asked Ishiba if he would like to see 'the best fighter jet America has'. 'We will give Japan the best,' he has been quoted by the newspaper as saying. However, it remained unclear what exactly Trump meant. Later, Japanese officials confirmed Trump had simply asked if Japan was interested in buying U.S.-made jets. Reports suggest the United States wants to sell a slightly downgraded version of the F‑47 to close allies. Trump had previously joked that allies call often, wanting the F‑47, and that the United States gives a 10% discount 'because who knows if they will stay allies?' At present, Japan operates the F‑35 and may expand its order. It has also shown interest in the U.S.-made C‑17 Globemaster III transport plane. However, Japan is already developing its own sixth-gen fighter under GCAP. So, Trump's sudden push for the F‑47 has raised suspicion. Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan agreed in 2022 to jointly build a sixth-gen fighter jet using cutting-edge technology. This led to the creation of GCAP. The project is massive, with a budget between $40-50 billion. But it has faced criticism in Japan's parliament due to rising inflation and a shrinking welfare budget. Is U.S. Trying to Undermine GCAP? Some defence analysts believe that the United States wants to disrupt the GCAP. Many European nations are supporting this project. If it succeeds, America could lose buyers for the F‑47. That would hurt the U.S. defence industry and weaken its influence. If Japan chooses the F‑47, the GCAP may lose credibility. But if Japan stays with the GCAP, it could be a diplomatic blow to the United States, especially since Tokyo is seen as a key pillar in the QUAD and the Indo-Pacific strategy. The United States might offer financial incentives and easier deals for the F‑47, but experts warn it could be a short-term gain and a long-term loss. Japan's decision will influence many other nations, including India, which is also developing its own jet under the AMCA project. If Japan sticks with the GCAP, it may inspire India to pursue a more balanced and independent defence strategy.


Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump sends National Guard troops to quell LA immigration protests
US President Donald Trump ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a rare deployment expected Sunday against the state governor's wishes after sometimes-violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. Trump took federal control of California's state military to push soldiers into the country's second-biggest city, a decision deemed "purposefully inflammatory" by California Governor Gavin Newsom and of a kind not seen for decades according to US media. The development came after two days of confrontations during which federal agents fired flash-bang grenades and tear gas toward crowds angry at the arrests of dozens of migrants in a city with a large Latino population. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo "It's up to us to stand up for our people," said a Los Angeles resident whose parents are immigrants, choosing to remain anonymous. "Whether we get hurt, whether they gas us, whatever they're throwing at us. They are never going to stop us. All we have left is our voice," she told AFP as emergency services lights flashed in the distance. Live Events An AFP photographer saw fires and fireworks light up the streets during clashes, while a protester holding a Mexican flag stood in front of a burnt-out car that had been sprayed with a slogan against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. "President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, blaming what she called California's "feckless" Democratic leaders. "The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs." Trump congratulated the National Guard for "a job well done" shortly before midnight on Saturday in a post on Truth Social. However, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said on social media platform X the troops had not yet been deployed, while AFP journalists have so far not seen them on the ground. Trump took a swipe at Bass and Newsom, saying they were "unable to handle the task," drawing a comparison with deadly fires that hit the city in January. The National Guard -- a reserve military -- is frequently used in natural disasters, such as in the aftermath of the LA fires, and occasionally in instances of civil unrest, but almost always with the consent of local politicians. California's governor objected to the president's decision, saying it was "purposefully inflammatory and will escalate tensions." Federal authorities "want a spectacle. Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully," Newsom said on X. Trump's Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to involve nearby regular military forces.