Florida’s seasoned Senator Marco Rubio and distinguished Texas GOP Representative August Pfluger II, a decorated military veteran, recently penned a collaborative thinkpiece addressing an issue of significant concern: the growing influence of pro-Hamas disturbances sweeping our nation. Both individuals made a case for taking decisive steps against non-American citizens who have ostensibly partaken in these disturbing incidents. They assert, with assurance, that our government must show no hesitation in protecting its citizens and, therefore, deporting these individuals if necessary.
While cherishing and protecting our constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, the esteemed lawmakers also stressed its limitations. They reminded their readers that one’s freedom does not extend to shattering peace, violating property rights, or launching unprovoked attacks on others. It is within this context – and with an allusion to the rightful move of disbanding inflammatory protests on college campuses – that they make a profound proposal.
Deporting non-American citizens engaged in such destructive behaviour, according to Rubio and Pfluger, is a logical next step. They assert that already established laws unequivocally discourage terrorists from entering our beloved nation. They pose this rhetorical question, aiming to discern the logic of permitting individuals with potentially dangerous ideologies to step on the home ground they are elected to shield.
Gently challenging the conventional views, they express their belief that our nation is not some universal entity, open to all indiscriminately. The privilege of being here, they argue compellingly, is not a right that can be extended to those who harbor destructive intentions towards our system. It was a remark that aims to stimulate a broader debate around the subject, encouraging a dispassionate examination of who should and should not be welcome within our borders.
Furthermore, Rubio and Pfluger emphasize that being a visitor in the United States does not mean an individual has an unconditional right to remain. The lawmakers eloquently clarify that if a tourist flouts visa conditions, our government indeed has the authority, the power, and the right to send them back to their native lands. This position aligns with the opinion of the U.S. Department of State last year, they note.
While expressing disappointment with the current administration, Rubio and Pfluger make it clear their motivation is not political one-upmanship. They are driven by a genuine concern for the safety of our citizens and the preservation of our national order. Whether reluctance to act stems from fear of backlash, potential litigation, or other considerations, it is largely secondary to them.
The lawmakers are intent on eliminating any legal grey area surrounding the issue of deportation for individuals supporting terrorist groups. Their proposed bill, the Terrorist Inadmissibility Codification Act, seeks to do just this – it explicitly revokes visas of visitors who express support for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Palestine Islamic Jihad.
They stress the significance of bipartisan support for such a critical piece of legislation. According to Rubio and Pfluger, regardless of individuals’ political allegiance, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure individuals celebrating violence against the United States and our allies are not privileged.
Regrettably, the passage of this important legislation has been stalled in Congress due to the dissent of some progressive Democrats. Rubio and Pfluger note this development with concern, pointing out that a substantial number of Democrats seem to disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while an active minority supports Hamas and its allies in Iran.
The senators elaborate further on this concerning trend, alluding to the unfortunate increase of hostility fueled by specific factions within the fringe. These groups have encouraged chanting harmful slogans such as ‘Death to America’ and ‘Burn Tel Aviv to the Ground’. The lawmakers view these actions as a dereliction of duty by US policymakers.
They warn that the larger the foothold these radical factions gain in our society through threats or appeals to political correctness, the larger their influence will become. The lawmakers are confident, however, that empowering our government to deport such disruptive foreign activists will serve as a robust countermeasure.
They cite the words of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director, Christopher Wray, reiterating that the escalating conflict in Gaza has raised the terror threat level within our country. This further underscores why it’s crucial to prioritize American lives and security.
Rubio and Pfluger state unequivocally that our nation has no duty to accommodate supporters of terrorism within its borders. This thought provoking statement aligns with their steadfast belief in our primary duty: the protection of American lives from the constant threats we face.
By putting forth a concluding thought, the lawmakers ask us to consider the strain placed on our valued citizens, specifically those of Jewish descent, who are forced to live in fear due to the threat of antisemitic violence. The idea that we have let things escalate to this point is deemed unacceptable. Rubio and Pfluger argue that we must act decisively and hold foreign offenders accountable, rounding off their considered piece.
