What are the moral and ethical implications of the arrest of Rumeysa Ozturk?

For context, this is a question I answered on Quora

The ethical and legal implication of Trump’s executive order, authorizing revocation of legal status of permanent residents and student visa holders for thought crimes, is that the first amendment somehow does not apply to U.S. jurisdiction, even though this is the only jurisdiction where the first amendment is legally binding, and the government can take civil action against people who say things the government doesn’t like. Ozturk’s supposed infraction of “sympathizing with Hamas”, which is not a crime under U.S. law by the way, and the only evidence submitted against her is her co-authorship of an editorial in a student newspaper last year that mildly criticized Tufts University president for his response to a student government resolution calling for acknowledgment of a genocide in the Gaza strip and divestment from companies tied to Israel. Far from being a jihadist call for global intifada the four co-authors express milquetoast liberal ideals such as affirming ‘the equal dignity and humanity of all people’, ‘the right to self-determination’ and calling on the university president to ‘trust the democratic process’ and stand by the university’s ‘commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression.’ There is nothing in this editorial that even right leaning people like myself would find abhorrent or remotely similar to what jihadists and their sympathizers would say. I’ve read Dabiq magazine; this isn’t even in the same literary universe.

In Ozturk v. Trump, little Marco has argued that the protected speech of international students that “threatens the foreign policy interests of the U.S.” is grounds for arrest, detention and deportation. This is the sort of rationale you would expect third world autocracies to use to arrest journalists and bloggers for speaking out against them: not a first world nation with a long standing tradition of free speech enshrined into law. The original alien enemies act, the law currently used to justify censoring the protected speech of foreign students, was passed by a contingent of authoritarian shitbags called the federalist party who, if you’ll remember, also passed the sedition act that made criticism of then president John Adams illegal and used it to put republican journalists in jail. They did not survive long as a party when they made their counter-revolutionary intentions clear. If the GOP wants to survive as a party after 2028 they would be wise to avoid the path that the federalists took 2 centuries ago.

The broader implication that extends even to U.S. born citizens is that the Trump admin will use unfavorable things anyone says about Israel, American institutions, or the Trump Admin itself as a pretext for civil action against them. We already see this in his executive orders sanctioning law firms he has deemed guilty of crimes and civil rights violations which they have not been tried for and at least one executive order that sanctions a law firm for engaging in pro bono litigation he unilaterally deems ‘detrimental to critical American interests’ i.e. for providing legal representation to detained aliens and hiring Robert Mueller too boot. The sanctions include not only terminating contracts, revoking security clearances and denying the employees of these firms access to federal buildings and federal employment but also terminating the contracts of any companies that do business with these law firms, which is the equivalent of a domestic embargo for engaging in lawful activities that dear leader and his cult don’t like.