Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I'm well-aware of the analogy of the slowly boiled frog, etc. But it's also the slippery-slope fallacy, so... Why are we assuming facts here before we know of them? She is a Turkish national on a student visa. Those folks do NOT (like it or not) have the same rights as citizens. You cannot, for example, support (not saying she's done this, just saying this is the law) an organization designated as an FTO, as a "…
Visa holders have all of what most would consider "foundational rights" as any citizen. They have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc. The government revoking a visa based on categories of behavior which are protected by those foundational rights is appalling.
As a citizen, you can verbally support enemies of the state, but you cannot financially support them.
INA § 237(a)(4)(A): If a visa holder engages in activities that endanger public safety or national security, including endorsing terrorist organizations or inciting violence, they can be deported.
Material Support Clause (INA § 212(a)(3)(B)): Even verbal or symbolic support of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) can count as “material support,” which is grounds for both inadmissibility and deportation.
Overstay or Status Violation: If someone is already skating close to the edge (e.g., questionable employment, status lapse), political speech supporting enemies of the state can provide the cherry on top for ICE to act.
Discretionary Revocation: The U.S. can revoke a visa for virtually any reason, especially if the person’s presence is deemed “contrary to U.S. interests.” That doesn't require proof of a crime—just bureaucratic will.
It's always been like this... But now it's controversial, apparently.