I adore FIRE, largely because they picked up the baton for free speech when the ACLU dropped it and became full-blown Marxists.
They do great work on college campuses, although I think they go a bit too far in protecting every professor from punishment when they advocate for violent revolution. But better a free speech absolutist than a group that promotes censoring every person for speaking their mind.
Yet, on the issue of the State Department revoking the visas of guests who celebrate violence--and, ironically, celebrate the murder of a US citizen using his free speech rights--Nico Perrino and I have been duking it out a bit on X. Perrino thinks that revoking the visas is an attack on free speech. I consider it hygiene.
First, the issue at hand: the State Department is kicking out a number of visiting foreigners for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. I doubt that Nico and I disagree on the basic idea that doing so should not be socially acceptable, merely on what consequences should attach to this antisocial behavior.
Here is the series of tweets the State Department put out regarding their actions.
An Argentine national said that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and deserves to burn in hell.
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/4bQoXisHsz
A Mexican national said that Kirk “died being a racist, he died being a misogynist” and stated that “there are people who deserve to die. There are people who would make the world better off dead.”
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
Visa revoked.
A German national celebrated Kirk’s death and attempted to justify his murder, writing “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/Hg51ABHUqy
.@POTUS and @SecRubio will defend our borders, our culture, and our citizens by enforcing our immigration laws.
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.
When I saw this, I didn't exactly celebrate--in the context of the news cycle, in which Donald Trump pushed through a cease-fire that brought home Israeli hostages, this seemed small potatoes. A fine move, but hardly monumental.
Perrino didn't see it that way.
America will be impoverished by denying admission to people who want us dead.
— David Strom (@DavidStrom) October 15, 2025
Perrino's view is that the First Amendment is a codification of a universal right to free speech, and in principle, I agree. However, where we differ is the extent to which the United States government is obligated to protect that universal right for the entire world and everybody who resides within it.
Clearly, we have no obligation to invade every country and impose our notion of human rights everywhere and always. That would be quite a burden and likely counterproductive. There are, we all know, practical limits that all human beings face. Few of us manage to follow God's laws perfectly in our own lives; perfecting the world is not in the cards, nor should we try.
I love our free speech principles. But I don't assume that we must import people here to call for our deaths. We have quite enough people who are citizens willing to call for our deaths without importing more.
— David Strom (@DavidStrom) October 15, 2025
But surely we can at least ensure that a universal human right applies to everybody within our borders, right? That, it seems, is Perrino's point, and it is worth pondering.
The answer, I think, is clear: no, it is not right to expect that the protections afforded US citizens apply universally to everybody within the borders of the United States. In fact, the idea is absurd, and it is also codified in US immigration law.
There are things I tolerate in my home from family I do not from guests. It is a very simple concept.
— David Strom (@DavidStrom) October 15, 2025
The US government exists to defend and promote the rights of US citizens. WE all understand--well, many people don't understand, but should--that the First Amendment protects our ability to call for the destruction of the US government. It protects our right to be offensive, to argue for communism or fascism, to become a member of the DSA, and even run for Mayor of New York City. We can donate to candidates of our choice, have other rights such as those provided by the 2nd Amendment, and so on.
Visitors to the United States, on the other hand, are here at our sufferance. They are guests. Visa requirements specifically limit the rights of foreigners in ways that the federal government can't limit those of US citizens, and is very clear on the matter.
Unless you have an inalienable right to be in the US, that makes zero sense.
— David Strom (@DavidStrom) October 15, 2025
There are plenty of US citizens who work tirelessly to destroy the government of the United States. Many are, wrongly, actually underwritten by subsidies provided by the US government to universities and colleges. The author of the Antifa Handbook is a professor at Rutgers, although he has absconded to Europe now that Antifa has been classified a terrorist organization.
Our taxes have helped pay his salary. I disagree that we were obligated to do that, but I agree he has a right to promote Antifa as an idea, if not an organization.
But no citizen of another country can or should have the right to do the same. We need not import revolutionaries from other countries to preach the destruction of the United States government, or other offensive or dangerous ideas. Doing so is a choice, because nobody has an inalienable right to be here.
My understanding is also that the jurisprudence on 2A says it does not apply to foreigners.
— Matthew Lilley (@MattGLilley) October 15, 2025
Booting somebody out of the United States is not a violation of their inalienable free speech rights--they are not being tossed in jail, after all, for their speech. They are being booted from the country, where they have no right to be in the first place. They are guests.
We can kick guests out because they have no right to be here at all--visas are basically a gift, or an act of generosity.
In other words, Perrino is missing the forest for the trees here. A retailer may fire a cashier who insults the customers without violating their free speech rights. A TV station can fire a commentator for praising Hamas for its treatment of hostages (and SHOULD, CNN!). And the US government can kick out foreigners for cheering the death of a US citizen whose only crime is exercising his own free speech rights.
It's simple: if you don't have a right to be someplace, you can be kicked out, even arbitrarily. Nobody's rights are being violated for free speech, because these people have no right to be there in the first place.
That is the difference between US citizens and visa holders. It's simple.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member