13 activists protesting immigration enforcement arrested at Columbia University

NEW YORK – Police arrested 13 protesters outside Columbia University on Thursday after they allegedly refused to comply with orders to disperse.

A spokesperson for the New York Police Department confirmed the individuals were taken into custody and issued criminal court summonses. Officers reported that the demonstrators blocked campus entrances and refused to leave the area.

Images from the scene showed protesters wearing T-shirts with slogans reading "Refugee Campus Now" and "ICE Out of Schools." The NYPD stated that officers issued multiple dispersal orders before making the arrests.

In a statement, Columbia University officials said the school supports the right to peaceful protest but called the allegations against the institution "inaccurate."

The university clarified that it requires U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to present a judicial warrant to enter non-public areas. Administrators also denied that leadership had ever requested an ICE presence on or near the campus.

The incident follows a period of heightened tension on campus after federal immigration agents arrested former student Mahmoud Khalil in March 2025.

The arrests at Columbia University are far from an isolated incident; they serve as a volatile flashpoint in the broader national conflict over U.S. immigration policy. The emergence of "sanctuary campus" demands reflects a deepening friction between progressive student movements and the hardline immigration enforcement frameworks that gained prominence under the Trump administration.

Major institutions like Columbia find themselves navigating a precarious policy tightrope. They must balance the protection of student speech and assembly against the mandatory requirements of federal law. Columbia’s official stance reveals a calculated attempt to de-escalate: by publicly emphasizing that ICE agents require a judicial warrant to enter campus, the administration is signaling a protective posture toward its community. Simultaneously, by refuting specific activist allegations, the university is attempting to avoid a direct confrontation with federal authorities.

A critical dimension of this unrest is the intersectionality of the protest movements. The case of Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel activist cited in the reporting, underscores how campus resistance is becoming increasingly multi-layered. For these activists, immigration enforcement is not a siloed issue but part of a broader systemic critique that merges domestic civil rights with foreign policy.

The NYPD’s swift intervention—executing arrests immediately after dispersal orders were ignored—signals a diminishing patience among law enforcement for disruptive demonstrations. This tension raises a fundamental question about the legal status of the American university in the modern era: does a campus function as a "sanctuary zone" effectively exempt from federal oversight, or is it subject to the same enforcement mandates as any other jurisdiction? As federal and local authorities tighten their posture, the answer remains contested, ensuring that the campus will remain a primary battleground for U.S. immigration and civil rights policy for the foreseeable future.

The debate surrounding sanctuary campuses and the role of ICE carries significant weight for the Vietnamese-American community, particularly for families navigating the complexities of the U.S. immigration system. From the vibrant hubs of Little Saigon to the local nail salon or phở restaurant, heightened enforcement policies trigger a ripple effect of anxiety that touches everyone from those on TPS to families awaiting F2B visa sponsorships. These concerns are especially acute for international students and those hoping to transition to an H-1B or EB-5 track. While sanctuary policies may offer a layer of protection on campus, the broader climate of uncertainty creates a sense of instability that directly influences where Vietnamese students choose to study and how they envision their futures, all while weighing the vital importance of maintaining remittances to their families back home.