AssassinationCharlie KirkDonald TrumpFeaturedMarco RubiosecurityState DepartmentTerrorismVisa

Foreign Nationals ‘Who Wish Death on Americans’ Forfeiting Visas

The State Department on Tuesday announced that it had revoked the visas of several foreign nationals who had celebrated or justified the assassination of Presidential Medal of Freedom laureate Charlie Kirk

“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the agency wrote on the social media platform X.

“The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk,” the department added.

It then listed several instances of the rhetoric that earned the foreign nationals a one-way trip out of the United States.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., praised the moves by the Trump administration in a comment to The Daily Signal.

“An American visa is a privilege. It is neither a right, nor an entitlement. For far too long, far too many have treated it as an entitlement,” he said.

“I’m glad to see the Trump administration taking action to end the visa privileges of individuals who have no business being in our country,” the Missouri lawmaker added.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, concurred.

“The United States of America is under no obligation to play host to foreign nationals who hate our values and revel in political violence,” Lee told The Daily Signal, adding:

The State Department is correct to pull the visas of anyone celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk and promoting hatred. A visa is a privilege, not a right.

One example that the State Department acted on was a social media post from a German foreign national who claimed, “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”

Another response, this one from a Paraguayan national, described Kirk—the founder of the conservative activist group Turning Point USA, who was killed on Sept. 10—as a “son of a b****” who “died by his own rules.”

In a statement to The Daily Signal, State Department principal deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott noted that the rules governing the public remarks of foreign nationals living in the United States differs from the free speech protections guaranteed to American citizens. 

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that aliens do not have the same First Amendment rights as American citizens,” Pigott told The Daily Signal in a statement.

“The United States is under no obligation [emphasis in original] to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk,” he said.

The move is the latest effort by the Trump administration to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act, which empowers the State Department to remove any alien in America who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” 

In a document published on Substack in April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out his intentions in administering the policy.

“Whenever the government catches non-U.S. citizens breaking our laws, we will take action to revoke their status. The time of contemptuously taking advantage of our nation’s generosity ends,” Rubio said.

Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, agreed.

“Foreign nationals are granted U.S. visas under the highest standards, and that privilege ends the moment they promote violence or spew terroristic views against Americans,” Weber said.  

“If you wish death on an American, you don’t belong in America. I commend Secretary Rubio for keeping his word and revoking those visas, just as he promised back in September,” he said.



Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 76