State Dept Revokes Visas of People Making Offensive Remarks About Charlie Kirk’s Assassination
“Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed.”
The Trump administration has just revoked six visas from people who were apparently expressing pleasure over the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
People can’t say that they weren’t warned about this. Since March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it extremely clear that the U.S. is no longer going to tolerate disruptions or anti-American shenanigans from visa holders.
FOX News reports:
State Department revokes six visas over offensive Charlie Kirk assassination comments
The State Department on Tuesday said the United States isn’t obligated to take in foreigners who wish harm on Americans, before posting a list of six individuals whose visas were revoked for making vile comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The agency noted that the Trump administration will take action against those celebrating Kirk’s death.
“The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk,” the agency wrote on X. “@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.”
Among those who had their visas revoked were an unnamed Argentine citizen who said Kirk “devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” and deserves to burn in hell.
A South African citizen mocked Americans grieving Kirk, saying “they’re hurt that the racist rally ended in attempted martyrdom” and alleging “he was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash.”
See the Twitter/X posts from the State Department below:
The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.
The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk. Here are just a few examples of aliens who are no longer welcome in the U.S.:
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 14, 2025
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 South African national mocked Americans grieving the loss of Kirk, saying “they’re hurt that the racist rally ended in attempted martyrdom” and alleging “he was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash.”
Visa revoked. pic.twitter.com/0dgiI31bdk
— 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 Brazilian national charged that “Charlie Kirk was the reason for a Nazi rally where they marched in homage to him” and that Kirk “DIED TOO LATE.”
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
A Paraguayan national charged that “Charlie Kirk was a son of a b**** and he died by his own rules.”
Visa revoked.
— 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
The liberal media will likely try to make this all about Charlie Kirk but that’s really not the point. The message being sent by Rubio and the State Department is that we are not going to be gracious hosts to people who celebrate the deaths of Americans. Any Americans.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If you don’t like it here, then you shouldn’t be here.
Period.
Oh, and if you want to publicly assert your politics while here?
You’re not an American, so you can just stifle.
I am an immigrant, and I approve this message.
How did o many visitors become SO entitled? They don’t seem to realize that they are guests of our country and are blatantly ignorant of this.
Most should be sent right back to the sewer pit from which they came, and we need to curtail too many foreign students. The World is jealous of America and it’s laughable that these third worlders have no appreciation for the gift they’ve been given. Their own countries are pitiful but they have no ideas of how to make their own countries better.
We had the best founders in the world and while no country is perfect, the only people who want to destroy America internally are the democrats, who’ve done a pretty good job until Trump.
Who’s laughing now?
We should have a long-term moritorium on any visas except tourist visas and marriages to natives. And an overstay or fraud gets you expelled and blacklisted for life.
See how the world likes being told they can’t come to the place they hate so much.
This!!
“ How did o many visitors become SO entitled?….”
They aren’t entitled. They ~believe~ they are. Big difference. The belief stems from them having been told they are, and the msm having reinforced the idea. It all leads up to a severe case of denial. They that their actions are so noble that only glorious consequences can follow.
Wrong answer. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.
YES!!!!
If you’re a guest, you need to behave as one. Otherwise, GFO.
hey hey you you get off my cloud!
I’m sure a judge somewhere believes they have the final word who can and can’t be here!
Visas are a privilege, not a right.
Indeed they are. So are government grants. And like any other privilege, neither visas nor grants may be revoked as punishment for exercising a constitutional right.
Milhouse hardest hit.
I voted for this too.
a federal judge will overrule Rubio
Indeed one will, and that is correct. He is in deliberate violation of the constitution and of his oath.
Rubio has become as bright as Dorthy’s ruby red slippers
Rubio has rewarded #47’s trust and wisdom, by selecting him as SoS and National Security Advisor. He has been a simply superb SoS. I’m looking forward to Vance and Rubio crushing the Dhimmi-crat clown-apparent, in the 2028 presidential election, in a gigantic landslide victory.
Wow, long overdue and fully justified moral probity and common sense prevail, at #47’s and SoS Rubio’s U.S. State Department.
The vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats would have let these wretched and entitled pukes stay in the U.S. while spewing their anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-U.S. subversive bile and hate.
A visa is at root a qualified grant of permission to enter and temporarily remain in the USA. IOW a visa holder is here at the sufferance of the USA. Much like an invited guest can be required to exit the premises by the owner a visa holder can be required to exit the USA. The bar to remain for duration of the granted visa is very low; don’t lie to obtain the visa by omission or commission, don’t commit crimes and keep within the purpose of the visa for employment, education or tourism. It doesn’t seem very controversial to require these ‘guests’ to refrain from incivility towards their hosts.
And like any other privilege, the government may not impose unconstitutional conditions on it.
“The message being sent by Rubio and the State Department is that we are not going to be gracious hosts to people who celebrate the deaths of Americans. Any Americans.”
If he has any brains, he’ll also cancel the visas of a few troublemakers who celebrate the death of someone other than Charlie Kirk, or else he’s just asking for it.
Remember, all inhabitants, including Indians, of what is now the USA were immigrants coming from somewhere. They adapted to what became the USA LEGAL FOUNDATION – Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These people did NOT get free schooling, subsidized or free housing, free food, VISA cards with a monthly “allowance” etc. ALL of our ancestors who made it here worked, built their respective tribes and THEIR laws – eventually creating our legal system – see paragraph above.
I am an ‘inhabitant’ and I didn’t come from somewhere,. I was born here
Foreigners welcomed into our country act badly and get thrown out. Milhouse hardest hit.
I agree entirely with the sentiment. But what does Legal Insurrection, run by a LAW professor, say about the legality of these visa revocations in view of cases like Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) and Zadvydas v Davis (2001)? Is Mike LaChance arguing for a change in the law?
This continues to be brazenly unconstitutional. A US visa is a privilege, not a right; but it is unconstitutional for the government to revoke it because the holder exercised a constitutional right. This is basic, fundamental law. A government privilege, any government privilege, cannot be revoked as punishment for exercising a constitutional right.
And Rubio continues to ignore the fundamental difference between excluding people who are not yet here, and removing people who are already here. When an alien is in another country there is no question that he has a fundamental human right to express his opinion, but the US constitution doesn’t protect that right. The moment he sets foot in this country the constitution protects all of his rights.
Do non citizens or visa holders have constitutional rights by default? Or are they conditional?
Absolutely. All people have the freedom of speech no matter who or where they are. It’s an inalienable right with which all humans are endowed by their Creator. And the constitution protects the rights of all people who are within its jurisdiction, so the moment someone sets foot in the USA all his rights are protected.
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“Any person” means exactly what it says. Not “any citizen”, or “any lawful resident”, or “any person lawfully present”, but any person whomsoever.
lololol, using ‘unconstitutional’ like a lefty.
Under INA §221(i) and 22 CFR 41.122, consular officers or the Secretary of State can revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in their discretion. [ecfr.gov]
You are the lefty, since you ignore the constitution.
It doesn’t matter what INA or CFR say. Any government action whatsoever against a person because he has exercised a constitutional right is automatically unconstitutional. This is solidly established and uncontroversial law.
In what case/uniververse is the 1st amendment right of free speech inapplicable to immigrants with a visa?
Or even without one. The 1st amendment protects all persons who are within the constitution’s jurisdiction, no matter how they got there.