Code for - things you don't like. Check.
> No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home.
We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse.
My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you)
But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate."
Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now".
And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements...
I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted".
Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted?
Are you unable to comprehend how those are related?
Do you not care?
Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all?
Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.