> The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

No, the U.S. has the prerogative to pick and choose foreigners who are allowed to immigrate based on categories that would be impermissible for employers. That includes nationality, e.g. our green card quota system, as well as speech and affiliation. The Supreme Court has upheld deporting communists who are foreign nationals: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/.

This is reflected in the statute. Aliens can specifically be excluded for political beliefs and views if the Secretary of State determines that is necessary: "An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." 8 USC 1182(a)(4)(C)(iii).

> personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

What, exactly, about Rumeysa Ozturk's student newspaper contributions[1] could possibly justify the notion that her _residence in America_ is compromising a compelling US foreign policy interest?

The clear purpose of that statute including a long list of properties which would not normally be grounds for exclusion is to set a reasonably high bar for the Secretary of State's 'personal opinion' about a compromising admission. If the intent were to grant a broad, beyond question license to deport Fulbright scholars for _engagement in society_, it would just say they can do whatever the fuck they want and skip the salad.

I think the real argument here is a constitutional one about that statute, not about the statute itself. It is unlikely, though, that the supreme court would reverse its stance here.