I’ve got to hand it to FIRE — they’ve earned my respect. When the ACLU abandoned free speech and went full-on Marxist activist organization, FIRE stepped up and carried the torch for the First Amendment.
They do outstanding work defending free expression on college campuses, even when it’s unpopular. Sure, sometimes they go a little too far protecting professors who openly romanticize violent revolution — but at least they’re consistent. I’ll take a free speech absolutist any day over the self-righteous censors who want to punish anyone who dares to think independently.
But some people, including FIRE’s executive VP Nico Perrino, are not supportive of a decision by the State Department’s to revoke visas for foreigners who celebrated the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, an American who used his free speech rights to speak his mind.
Perrino argues that pulling their visas amounts to an attack on free speech. I see it differently — I call it basic national hygiene. These aren’t citizens entitled to constitutional protections; they’re guests in our country who openly glorified a political assassination against an American citizen.
Let’s be clear about what’s happening: the State Department is expelling individuals who cheered a political assassination on U.S. soil. Nobody’s arguing that such behavior should be “socially acceptable.” The only debate is over what consequences should apply — and in my view, kicking them out is the bare minimum.
An Argentine national said that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and deserves to burn in hell.
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/4bQoXisHsz
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
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.”
Visa revoked.
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
A German national celebrated Kirk’s death and attempted to justify his murder, writing “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/Hg51ABHUqy
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
.@POTUS and @SecRubio will defend our borders, our culture, and our citizens by enforcing our immigration laws.
Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
When I first saw the news, I didn’t exactly break out the champagne. In the context of a news cycle where President Trump had just secured a cease-fire that freed Israeli hostages, this visa move felt like small potatoes — a solid decision, sure, but not a world-shaker.
Still, it was the right call, a principled act of basic accountability in a time when the left has made moral clarity a rare commodity.
But Perrino didn’t agree:
Come to America. Visit Times Square. Gamble in Las Vegas.
But beware: if you tweet something offensive to those in power, you're getting kicked out.
The land of the free and home of the brave has hate speech codes. https://t.co/d0nDaGAHDy
— Nico Perrino (@NicoPerrino) October 14, 2025
Perrino’s argument is that the First Amendment represents a universal right to free speech, something that should extend beyond American citizenship. And in principle, I get that — it’s an admirable ideal. But where we part ways is on how far the United States is obligated to go in defending that ideal for the entire world.
The U.S. government’s duty is to protect the rights of Americans, not to serve as the global enforcement arm for abstract principles. We’re not called to invade every country or impose our standards of liberty everywhere on earth. That would be a moral fantasy — and a logistical nightmare.
But surely, we can at least guarantee that universal human rights apply to everyone within our borders, right? That seems to be Perrino’s point, and it’s a fair question — one worth considering seriously.
The answer, however, is pretty straightforward: no. It’s not reasonable — or even remotely practical — to expect that the constitutional protections afforded to U.S. citizens automatically apply to every person who happens to set foot on American soil. That idea isn’t just absurd, it’s explicitly contradicted by U.S. immigration law.
The U.S. government exists to defend and promote the rights of American citizens — period. That’s its purpose. And while many people today seem to have forgotten this basic truth, it’s one worth repeating.
The First Amendment gives Americans the right to say just about anything — even to call for the destruction of the U.S. government itself. It protects your right to be offensive, to advocate for communism or fascism, to join the DSA, or even to run for mayor of New York City on a platform that makes your neighbors roll their eyes. You can donate to the candidates you want, criticize the president, and exercise your Second Amendment rights — that’s the deal in a free country.
But foreign nationals are a different story entirely. Visitors to the United States are here at our discretion, not by divine right. They are guests, and their continued presence is conditional. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is 100 percent right to treat them that way and expect that when people are here as guests, they behave as such.
Or they can go home.
