Visa Controversy at Columbia: Indian Student’s Self-Deportation Sparks Debate

Introduction

The intersection of student activism, immigration policy, and national security has stirred intense debate in the United States after the self-deportation of Ranjani Srinivasan, a fifth-year Indian-origin PhD student at Columbia University. Her visa revocation, and the subsequent use of a controversial deportation app, have ignited discussions about freedom of speech, foreign student rights, and the legal consequences of perceived support for terrorist organizations. Public opinion has been sharply divided, with some supporting her removal and others condemning the government’s actions as draconian and politically motivated.

the

Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian PhD candidate at Columbia University, fled to Canada after receiving notice of her visa cancellation and potential arrest. The move follows heightened tensions on U.S. campuses amid growing crackdowns on pro-Palestinian activism, particularly after the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate accused of leading such protests. The U.S. administration is preparing Khalil’s deportation under a federal statute that permits removal if an individual’s presence is considered to pose “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Srinivasan’s student visa was revoked on March 5, allegedly due to her involvement in campus rallies supporting Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Using the CBP One app, developed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, she processed her self-deportation on March 11, a digital feature that allows undocumented individuals or visa violators to express “intent to deport.”

Rishi Kumar, CEO of AI startup EthosAI and a California Democratic Party board member, took a firm stance on social media supporting the visa cancellation. He emphasized that international students must view studying in the U.S. as a privilege, not a right, and should avoid aligning with organizations deemed hostile to national interests. Quoting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s post—which included video footage of Ranjani leaving the U.S.—Kumar reiterated that the U.S. has every right to revoke visas in such cases.

In a later interview with the New York Times, Ranjani claimed she was initially unaware of the reasons behind her visa cancellation, and that her university subsequently withdrew her enrollment without full explanation.

What Undercode Say:

This incident underscores a critical and volatile shift in U.S. immigration enforcement, especially concerning international students involved in political activism. The decision to deport Ranjani Srinivasan, without public trial or transparent process, raises urgent questions about due process, freedom of expression, and racial or political profiling.

Ranjani’s alleged support for Hamas is the central rationale cited for her deportation. But it’s worth questioning how clearly those accusations were substantiated. The ambiguity in such enforcement opens the door to misinterpretation: Does criticism of Israeli policy or support for Palestinian rights automatically equate to supporting terrorism? The lack of distinction can dangerously conflate legitimate protest with national security threats.

From a policy standpoint, the use of the CBP One app introduces an unsettling element—technologizing deportation. While efficient on paper, the ethical implications are murky. What happens to those who don’t “self-deport”? Will the app be weaponized to quietly eliminate dissent without trial? In a democratic society, this sets a worrying precedent.

Rishi Kumar’s reaction reflects a segment of Silicon Valley leadership increasingly wary of political activism among international students. His framing of U.S. education as a “privilege” rather than a right underlines a deep-seated belief that foreign students must toe the line politically or face consequences. This notion dangerously deters legitimate student expression, especially for those from conflict zones who may seek academic asylum or expression.

Meanwhile, the broader response from Homeland Security, including Kristi Noem’s celebratory tone, further polarizes the issue. When state officials cheer the departure of a student based on untried accusations, it normalizes a surveillance state ethos over academic integrity and legal fairness.

We must also recognize the double standard: numerous American students have participated in extreme political movements across history—from anti-war protests to the Black Lives Matter movement—without facing deportation or institutional expulsion. The application of immigration law as a tool for political silencing, particularly aimed at international students, could severely damage the U.S.’s image as a beacon of academic freedom.

Ultimately, the incident is not just about one

🔍 Fact Checker Results:

✅ Ranjani Srinivasan did self-deport using the CBP One app after visa revocation.
✅ U.S. law allows for deportation on foreign policy grounds under the cited provision.
❌ There is no publicly released evidence confirming direct support for Hamas by Ranjani.

📊 Prediction

The U.S. may begin applying similar immigration enforcement tactics more broadly, particularly toward international students involved in activism deemed politically sensitive. As pro-Palestinian protests and campus tensions continue, expect an increase in visa revocations or conditional renewals tied to students’ political activities. This will likely lead to greater legal challenges, international backlash, and a chilling effect on academic freedom among foreign scholars.

References:

Reported By: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.pinterest.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI

Image Source:

Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2

Join Our Cyber World:

💬 Whatsapp | 💬 Telegram