Building on systems like E-Verify that rely on large government databases to determine eligibility and employment status, immigration enforcement has now expanded further, with U.S. officials also allowed as of April 9, 2025 to review people’s social media when making decisions about immigration cases.[v] Someone applying for an immigration benefit, like a visa or status change, may be denied if posts attributed to them (with or without substantiation) can be made to seem to support ‘terrorism’ (which includes antifa and a host of other left-leaning political trends), antisemitism (which functionally includes all pro-Palestine speech), or related activity. As U.S. immigration officials have claimed: ““There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” said DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin. “Sec. Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-Semitic violence and terrorism – think again. You are not welcome here.” Under this guidance, USCIS will consider social media content that indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests. This guidance is effective immediately.”[vi] What someone posts online can now directly influence whether their immigration application is approved or denied, which can also affect their life opportunities, as well as relationships between citizens and non-citizens and their ability to work in the States.
These systems go beyond checking documents and instead evaluate people’s behavior—such as social media activity and online presence—to make judgments about whether their intentions or beliefs pose a potential risk for the American State. Programs such as the introduced “Catch and Revoke” use this kind of analysis to determine whether someone, especially an international student, should be allowed to keep their visa. In this case, the “Catch and Revoke” policy monitors international students’ behavior—online activity and political involvement—and then “catches” anything it considers risky or inappropriate and uses that as a reason to cancel their student visa. In practice, it means U.S. officials review factors such as protest participation, social media posts, or public statements on political issues and decide whether that behavior aligns with what the government considers acceptable for a visa holder. If they decide it doesn’t, they can revoke their visa immediately which can lead to detention or deportation.[vii] Supporters frame this as national security, while critics argue it punishes political expression, especially when weaponized against anti-genocide student activists. The main ethical concern, however, is that it can make international students feel like they are constantly being watched and judged, which may discourage them from speaking freely or participating in campus life.
In addition, newer AI tools like Babel X and Palantir ImmigrationOS go further than checking paperwork or the social media of an international student.[viii] For example, both systems can scan social media posts, public websites, news articles, and government records, then link all that information together under one profile. For the Department of Homeland Security: “Babel utilizes AI modules for text detection and translation as well as object and image recognition to provide analysts with possible matches to manually review in a single interface, versus doing multiple manual queries.”[ix] Whereas for Palantir: “404 Media reports that Palantir is developing a tool called Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement (ELITE) for ICE that maps potential deportation targets, generates individuals’ dossiers, and assigns a confidence score to a person’s current address, obtained from HHS and other sources.”[x] These new AI tools shift surveillance into prediction by not only collecting information about a person, but also analyzing to estimate risk, intent, or likelihood of future behavior based on patterns in their data. Instead of simply documenting what someone has done, they begin to treat data points as signals about what a person might do next, turning everyday online activity and records into tools for forecasting behavior.
Growing surveillance on university campuses raises serious concerns about how “safety” is defined and whether it limits students’ ability to think, speak, and grow freely. Although these systems often target non-citizens, their effects extend to the broader campus community, creating a chilling effect where students avoid controversial topics or political engagement out of fear of being monitored. This undermines the university’s role as a space for open inquiry and debate.
In response, the idea of sanctuary universities becomes both protective and transformative, as institutions can limit cooperation with immigration enforcement and restrict data sharing, but they must also go further by addressing the broader culture of surveillance. To remain meaningful, sanctuary must include protecting free expression, supporting dissent, and recognizing that universities actively shape the political conditions of campus life rather than simply enforcing external policies. For instance, in 1971, the city of Berkeley passed one of the first “sanctuary” policies in the United States during the Vietnam War era.[xi] Berkeley’s sanctuary policy offered them support and protection, giving them a safe space to talk, seek help, and express their political views without immediate punishment from the military. What made this moment important is that it connected different struggles—anti-war protest, religious ideas about refuge, and legal ideas about citizenship and rights—and turned them into a real political practice.[xii] Sanctuaries created a space where people who were seen as “outsiders” or “disruptive” could still be treated as part of the political community.[xiii]
If universities are to function as democratic institutions, they must do more than provide access to knowledge or serve economic interests—they must also protect the conditions that make critical thinking, free speech, and collective action possible. This connects to a broader American value of protecting individual rights and democratic participation, where freedom of expression and open debate are seen as central to society. Sanctuary universities offer one pathway forward—not a complete solution, but an important starting point. By reducing their involvement in systems of control and strengthening protections for their communities, universities can better reflect these democratic ideals and preserve spaces for open intellectual and political life. The alternative is a campus where surveillance shapes speech, fear limits participation, and the most vulnerable are pushed to the margins, weakening the very freedoms that democratic education is supposed to uphold.
References
[i]. National Constitutional Center. “Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918) Congress | 1917-1918.” 2026 National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/espionage-act-of-1917-and-sedition-act-of-1918-1917-1918
[ii]. Osborne, William & Orezzoli, Max. “Black nationalism.” EBSCO. 2023. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/black-nationalism
[iii]. National Immigration Forum. “Fact Sheet: E-Verify.” August 14, 2018. https://forumtogether.org/article/fact-sheet-e-verify/
[iv]. National Immigration Forum. “Article: Error Rates in E-Verify.” August 14, 2018. https://forumtogether.org/article/error-rates-in-e-verify/
[v]. USCIS. “DHS to Begin Screening Aliens’ Social Media Activity for Antisemitism.” USCIS. April 9, 2025. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-to-begin-screening-aliens-social-media-activity-for-antisemitism
[vi]. USCIS. “DHS to Begin Screening Aliens’ Social Media Activity for Antisemitism.” USCIS. April 9, 2025. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-to-begin-screening-aliens-social-media-activity-for-antisemitism
[vii]. Halpert, Madeline. “Marco Rubio says US revoked at least 300 foreign students' visas.” BBC. March 27, 2025. Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75720q9d7lo
[viii]. Amnesty International. “USA/Global: Tech made by Palantir and Babel Street pose surveillance threats to pro-Palestine student protestors & migrants.” August 21, 2025. Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/usa-global-tech-made-by-palantir-and-babel-street-pose-surveillance-threats-to-pro-palestine-student-protestors-migrants/
[ix]. Homeland Security. “United States Customs and Border Protection – AI Use Cases: Use Case ID: DHS-185.” Homeland Security DHS.GOV. Last updated February 2, 2026. Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/cbp
[x]. Cox, Joseph. ‘ELITE’: The Palantir App ICE Uses to Find Neighborhoods to Raid.” 404 Media. January 15, 2026. https://www.404media.co/elite-the-palantir-app-ice-uses-to-find-neighborhoods-to-raid/
[xi]. Ridgley, Jennifer. “Refuge, Refusal, and Acts of Holy Contagion: The City as a Sanctuary for Soldiers Resisting the Vietnam War.” Center for Place, Culture and Politics. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. 191-194. https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/894/750
[xii]. Ridgley, Jennifer. “Refuge, Refusal, and Acts of Holy Contagion: The City as a Sanctuary for Soldiers Resisting the Vietnam War.” Center for Place, Culture and Politics. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. 191.
[xiii]. Ridgley, Jennifer. “Refuge, Refusal, and Acts of Holy Contagion: The City as a Sanctuary for Soldiers Resisting the Vietnam War.” Center for Place, Culture and Politics. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. 196 & 198-199.
