The State Department’s belated decision to consider revoking visas and green cards of Hamas supporters is, at best, an overdue recognition of reality, and at worst, an attempt to put out a fire that should never have been allowed to start. The United States, with no apparent sense of irony, has long maintained an immigration policy at odds with its foreign policy, one so indiscriminate that it has admitted those who openly support a terrorist organization — Hamas — that our own government has officially designated as such. This organization, it bears repeating, is itself funded and armed by Iran, which our government has recognized as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
Thus, we find ourselves in the absurd position of recognizing the necessity of fighting Hamas and its murderous ideology abroad, while welcoming its ideological adherents within our own borders. That this policy of “immigration by Trojan Horse” has persisted is a testament not to our generosity but to our idiocy. The United States has been running an immigration policy that appears blissfully unconcerned with the ideology of those it imports. And now, with Hamas sympathizers already here in troubling numbers, we are left scrambling to correct a mistake that could have been avoided entirely.
A first principle must be restated: the free speech rights of American citizens are, and must remain, absolute. A citizen may say and stand for nearly anything, however odious, and he cannot be exiled for it. His right to remain within the borders of his own country is inviolable. This is the price of a free society, and it is a price worth paying.
A non-citizen, however, occupies an altogether different status. He is not here by right but by invitation. He is, to be blunt, a guest, one who is, whether he recognizes it or not, in a kind of probationary period, subject to the scrutiny of his hosts. A guest who violates the terms of his invitation may be shown the door. This is neither cruel nor capricious; it is the natural prerogative of any sovereign nation concerned with its own survival and that of its hard-fought values.
This is not an affront to free speech, anymore so than is the termination of an employee who bad-mouths his boss. That man has the right say what he pleases, but he has no right to work for that company, which itself retains the right of self-preservation. If he publicly denounces his employer, conducts himself disgracefully, or exhibits views incompatible with his profession, he should not be surprised to find himself unemployed.
A CNN anchor enjoys the same right to free speech as everyone else, but he does not have the right to work for CNN, which is under no obligation to retain one who discredits the network (incidentally, CNN would do well to remember that).
A teacher is at liberty to believe the Earth is flat, but he can hardly demand the right to miseducate his students.
So too with those who seek to enter or remain in this country: they have the right to free speech, but they do not have an inalienable, irrevocable the right to be here. Just as we would not admit one who, before setting foot on American soil, extolled the virtues of Osama bin Laden, pined for a resurgent Third Reich, or expressed enthusiasm for the overthrow of the Republic — not because of what they say, but because what they say demonstrates who they are — neither should we extend continued hospitality to those who reveal such allegiances once inside our borders.
To be clear, in such circumstances it’s not the speech that’s being punished, it’s the character it reveals. A nation has the right — indeed, the duty — to decide who may enter and who may remain, just as universities, and employers, concern themselves with the character of those they admit. And just as we would not grant visas to members of Hamas itself, neither should we extend the privilege of residence to those who celebrate the organization and its acts of terror.
There is, of course, a distinction between holding unpopular views and expressing allegiance to an anti-Sematic organization whose entire raison d’être is the violent destruction of Jews, Israel, and the West. Differing ideas are one thing; active support for a terrorist organization is quite another. It is perfectly reasonable to exclude from our national community those whose sympathies lie with groups that employ suicide bombings and rocket attacks as instruments of diplomacy.
It is worth asking why such an obvious policy must be debated at all. The answer, sadly, is that for too long, American immigration policy has been governed not by prudence but by a sentimental universalism that treats the right to enter the United States as a sort of cosmic entitlement. The result is that we have, for years, admitted those who harbor beliefs entirely at odds with the foundational principles of our society. And now, we are reaping what we have sown.
Be not mistaken: we argue here not against muti-culturalism, but omni-culturalism, the fanciful idea that all cultures are compatible with each other, even when some declare very explicitly their contempt for and commitment to destroy the others, and in particular, their host. It is the duty of a free society to reject such nonsense and remain vigilant in its defense of freedom. But America’s generosity must have its limits, and those limits must begin with a refusal to welcome those whose very presence undermines the safety and stability of the nation. Anything less is not tolerance but folly.
