Defense Attorney Josh Kolsrud Sheds Light on the Legal Process Behind College Student Deportations

 

In a recent interview on Phoenix News Now At 8, defense attorney Josh Kolsrud offered his insights into a growing trend: the deportation of college student activists. With tensions running high on campuses around the country, Kolsrud’s analysis provides an important look into how the legal process works when a student’s right to free speech and their immigration status collide.

 

Background and Controversy

The Trump administration has increased efforts to deport international students it alleges have engaged in politically charged activities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for instance, has revoked hundreds of student visas based on claims that participants in pro-Palestinian campus protests pose “potentially serious and adverse foreign policy consequences.” One recent case involved Mohamed Kahila, a legal resident with no criminal record who, after leading protest efforts at Columbia University demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, was detained in Louisiana and now faces deportation proceedings.

 

Kolsrud explains that while international students are afforded first amendment rights—just like any other American resident—the protections attached to a student visa are considerably more limited compared to those held by individuals with green cards or lawful permanent residency. Essentially, the visa itself is granted and can be revoked at the discretion of the State Department. Once a student visa is revoked, the student must enter a removal process that affords them due process rights, which are more rigorous than the internal administrative appeal available when questioning visa status.

 

Legal Ramifications and the Use of 18 USC 241

One of the pivotal moments in this legal landscape came with President Trump’s executive order on January 29th. In this order, the administration invoked a rarely used statute—18 USC 241, which concerns “conspiracy against rights.” According to Kolsrud, this statute is being used to target student protesters who cross the line from protected political speech into behavior that could be construed as intimidation, particularly if they specifically target Jewish students or others who do not align with pro-Palestinian sentiments.

 

While the executive order outlines the government’s strategy, Kolsrud is quick to point out that revoking a visa does not provide unchecked power to deport students at will. Once a visa is revoked, the student then enters a removal process that involves courts and due process protections. In this regard, the legal fight often focuses not on whether the protest itself was acceptable, but on whether the student’s fundamental rights—especially free speech—have been violated.

 

Navigating the Removal Process

Kolsrud described the complexity of the removal process for students whose visas have been revoked. Notably, he clarified that unlike criminal defendants, students facing removal are not entitled to a free attorney. Instead, many nonprofit organizations have stepped in, offering legal assistance free of charge to those caught in the process. His observations draw attention to the uneven playing field these students face, where personal finances can become an obstacle to securing proper legal defense.

 

He also referenced a 1999 Supreme Court case, Janet Reno versus the ADC, which dealt with issues surrounding politically motivated removals. In that case, the Court ruled that it had limited jurisdiction to review claims of targeted political removal. This precedent means that while students might argue that their first amendment rights are being infringed upon, the legal recourse available may be limited to demonstrating that the revocation of their visa directly violated constitutional protections.

 

The Road Ahead

As more campus protests continue to spark political and legal debates, the precedents set in these removal cases will be closely watched by both legal experts and civil rights advocates. Kolsrud’s commentary emphasizes that the law, as it stands, leaves many questions unanswered. The administration’s selective approach to cases—with a focus on those with robust evidence of additional disruptive activities beyond mere political expression—may lead to further legal challenges and an evolving interpretation of students’ rights under immigration law.

 

In conclusion, defense attorney Josh Kolsrud’s insights illuminate the complexities of deportation proceedings for international students engaged in political activism. His explanation of the interplay between student visa revocation, the ensuing removal process, and constitutional protections underscores the importance of a fair legal process that balances governmental authority with the fundamental rights of free speech. As this issue continues to develop, Kolsrud’s analysis serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical challenges inherent in policing political expression on college campuses.