Across all four cases, the pattern is identical. The state correctly notes it has the sovereign authority to expel foreign nationals. Critics correctly note that authority is conditioned on lawful process, individualised review where feasible, and non-discriminatory application. Both statements are true at the same time, which is exactly why “you have no right to tell us how to manage our borders” and “this is a human rights violation” talk past each other rather than engage.
...
The states on the receiving end of criticism in these cases have a genuine interest in reframing the dispute as sovereignty versus foreign meddling, because that framing is much easier to win than the process argument underneath it.
