
Common sense but true: Don't let people who hate America move here
I pledge allegiance, to the flag . . .
I heard those strange words for the first time at Riverside Elementary School in 1976, as a First Grader who had just moved to the United States with my family. I learned quickly how to say the words, but it took me much longer to learn what they mean.
Like Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington, I was born English but chose to become an American. I took US history in middle and high school, got a degree in history, and later taught American history to 8th and 11th graders.
But though I knew the names and dates, nothing taught me to love my country like spending half my life outside of it, including 23 years as a US diplomat in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The singularity of American freedom and opportunity is best proven through comparison.
Like many other Americans who came here legally and became citizens, nothing rankles me more than seeing disrespect, ingratitude, and even homicidal violence from some who have been granted the opportunity to come here — or allowed to remain despite coming illegally.
You'd figure the least they could do would be to obey our rules and respect our culture and values.
Watching Columbia University and other supposed elite institutions become hot-beds of radical protest and support for antisemitism and terrorist violence has been painful. It's bad enough when the ill-informed youth are home-grown, but when foreign students here on visas are leading the charge, it's too much to take.
So, we shouldn't – and we don't have to.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent announcement that he will interpret our visa laws to keep out those who would steal our secrets, undermine our democracy, or obstruct our foreign policy abroad, is cheering news.
Law enforcement officials at the scene of the terror attack in Boulder.
AP Photo/David Zalubowski
He's suggesting nothing new – our immigration law already contains many ineligibilities both statutory and discretionary, which he can wield.
All across the developed West, the same crisis is playing out: who gets to decide who comes in, and who stays? Does our citizenship have any value? Do we ask nothing in exchange?
The global Left does not believe in borders. They think anyone, anywhere should be allowed to live where they want. When they get there, the Left believes they should get all the rights of citizens – health care, education, welfare, and even the vote. For them, under no circumstances should a foreigner – invited or not, criminal or not – ever be evicted.
This is a recipe for national suicide, and it's a choice we should reject.
On Sunday, an Egyptian illegal immigrant attempted to kill several American Jews in Boulder, Colorado by burning them alive.
It appears the man entered the US with a tourist visa in 2022, which would have allowed him to come for six months tops. He overstayed, like maybe half a million other foreigners do every year and then claimed asylum so he wouldn't be kicked out. He was given a work permit while he waited years for his immigration case to work through the system.
This kind of 'defensive' asylum claim is the easiest ploy for someone, even with no credible case, to remain here. Millions of aliens are waiting in processing backlogs, most of them with cases that don't qualify. Millions more entered illegally over land and were released by DHS when Joe Biden was president, with the administration encouraging them to all claim asylum.
Soliman is in the country illegally.
AP
As Lora Ries and I argued in a recent Heritage report, it's time we reformed our asylum and refugee process so that it prioritizes American interests, brings in a finite number of people that we can accommodate and assimilate, and ends the farce of mass economic migration based on fraud.
At the same time, the State Department is right to use the wide discretion they already have under immigration law to more carefully screen those coming in on visas, for whatever purpose. Anyone likely to be coming to foment political unrest should be denied — particularly students, who will stay for years. If visitors or students become undesirable after they get here, they should be sent home. Actively working against American basic values or foreign policy should be a negative factor in applications for legal permanent residence.
The process should be real, not a rubber stamp. The bar for citizenship should be the highest of all — requiring not just a basic knowledge of civics, English, and history, but a proven love of this country, or at the very least no evinced hatred for it.
We have enough domestic strife without importing the squabbles of the Middle East and the rest of the world. And though terrorism is the worst case of allowing in, or letting remain, people who harbor ill will towards our country or its people, every week brings examples of Americans robbed, raped, killed by drunk drivers, and even murdered by people who would not have been here if we had properly guarded our borders and enforced our laws.
Just over a year ago, our Heritage Foundation Center for Border Security and Immigration started this visual map showing just a few examples of these preventable crimes. What started as a few spots has turned into a solid mass in some areas – like Massachusetts, whose governor seems to care more about the rights of illegal aliens than her own voters.
No foreign national has a right to a US visa. Once they arrive, each visitor must do what he said he was coming here to do, and obey our laws. Some will learn to value this country enough to want to become Americans. Many of these will find a way, and they are welcome.
But to preserve this unique society so many still want to join, we need to start according our country the singular value it deserves.
Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Doug Ford urges Canada's leader to ramp up tariffs on US
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is pressuring Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney to ramp up tariffs against the United States after President Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum earlier this week. 'I highly recommended to the prime minister directly that we slap another 25 percent on top of our tariffs to equal President Trump's tariffs on our steel,' Ford said during his Wednesday appearance on CNN's 'Situation Room.' 'He has to, he has to start looking around the world at China and other locations that are taking Chinese steel and really stop the flow of steel. That's the problem,' Ford told host Wolf Blitzer. 'Canada is not the problem. Again. We purchased 30 billion, with a 'B,' of steel off the US, and that's going to come to an end real quick.' Trump signed the executive order to hike the tariffs on Tuesday. The measure went into effect on Wednesday and would levy steel and aluminum tariffs on almost all imports to the U.S.. The United Kingdom is exempt as it inked a trade deal with Washington last month. Canada has retaliated against the U.S. previously, slapping a 25 percent reciprocal tariff on U.S. aluminum and steel products. Carney, who met with Trump at the White House in early May, did not express readiness to implement Ford's suggestion. 'We will take some time, not much, some time because we are in intensive discussions right now with the Americans on the trading relationship,' Carney said to reporters on Wednesday, according to Politico. 'Those discussions are progressing. I would note that the American action is a global action. It's not one targeted in Canada, so we will take some time, but not more,' the prime minister said. Ontario is open to imposing its own countermeasures, according to Ford. When asked on Wednesday if willing to bring back the electricity surcharge, he told reporters that 'everything's on the table.' Ontario implemented a 25 percent extra charge on the electricity Canada exports to three U.S. states after Trump threatened to double tariffs on steel and aluminum. Ford eventually spoke to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and later suspended the tax impacting Michigan, New York and Minnesota.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
San Francisco leaders blast Trump for trying to erase gay rights icon Harvey Milk's name from ship
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leaders in San Francisco are blasting the Trump administration for stripping the name of gay rights activist Harvey Milk from a U.S. naval ship, and especially during Pride Month, when people gather to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community. Milk is a revered figure in San Francisco history, a former city supervisor and gay rights advocate who was fatally shot along with Mayor George Moscone in 1978 by disgruntled former supervisor Dan White. Just last month, California marked what would have been Milk's 95th birthday with proclamations heralding his authenticity, kindness and calls for unity. He served for four years in the Navy during the Korean War, before he was forced out for being gay. Milk later moved to San Francisco, where he became one of the first out gay politicians in the world with his election to the Board of Supervisors in 1977. Cleve Jones, a close friend and LGBTQ+ activist, dismissed the renaming as an attempt by the Trump administration to distract the American public from far more serious concerns, including the ongoing war in Gaza and looming cuts to Medicaid and Social Security. "Yes, this is cruel and petty and stupid, and yes, it's an insult to my community," Jones said. 'I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that American families sitting around that proverbial kitchen table this evening are not going to be talking about how much safer they feel now that Harvey's name is going to be taken off that ship.' The Pentagon has not confirmed news of the renaming, a highly rare move, but unnamed officials say the change was laid out in an internal memo. It is in keeping with attempts by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the broader Trump administration to purge all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. A new name has not yet been selected for the USNS Harvey Milk. Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, said in a phone call Wednesday that he and the Harvey Milk Foundation have reached out to the Pentagon, which confirmed there is a proposed name change on the table. 'And our hope is that the recommendation is put aside, but if it's not, it will be a rallying cry not just for our community but for all minority communities,' said Stuart Milk, who is executive chair of the foundation, adding that his uncle always said that gay rights, and those of other marginalized communities, required constant vigilance. 'So I don't think he'd be surprised," Milk said, 'but he'd be calling on us to remain vigilant, to stay active.' Elected officials, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, called the move a shameful attempt to erase the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and an insult to fundamental American values of honoring veterans and those who worked to build a better country. Pelosi and Newsom are both San Francisco Democrats. Newsom took aim at Hegseth, calling the attempt 'A cowardly act from a man desperate to distract us from his inability to lead the Pentagon" on the social platform X. The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights. Sean Penn portrayed Milk in an Oscar-winning 2008 movie depicting his audacious rise in politics and his death by a supervisor who cast the sole "no" vote on his legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. While the renaming attempt is rare, the Biden administration also changed the names of two Navy ships in 2023 as part of the effort to remove Confederate names from U.S. military installations.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Two top Democrats claimed the Republicans' budget reconciliation bill and its proposal to let enhanced Obamacare credits expire will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced findings that an estimated 51,000 Americans could die each year due to Republican-led changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation bill. The national debt — which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors — fell to $36,214,400,664,854.53 as of June 3rd, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. That is down about $1.4 billion from the figure reported the previous day. Wyden called the "stakes" of the 'big, beautiful bill' debate "truly life and death," as a statement from his office read that "a new analysis estimates that more than 51,000 people will die per year as a direct result of the Republican reconciliation bill, and their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits." "Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental healthcare from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly," Wyden said. "This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort," he said, referring to a study he and Sanders asked the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to conduct. Read On The Fox News App Liberals Blame Big Beautiful Bill's Loss On Dying Dems The Democrats employed the Philadelphia college's Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, as well as the Yale School of Public Health's Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. "Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "The Republican reconciliation bill which makes massive cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires is not just bad public policy." "It is not just immoral. It is a death sentence for struggling Americans." "[N]ot only will some of the most vulnerable people throughout our country suffer, but tens of thousands will die. We cannot allow that to happen," Sanders added. Winners, Losers And Grab-bags From House Gop's Narrow Passage Of 'Big, Beautiful Bill' In a copy of the study posted on UPenn's website, economics and health-centric academics found 7.7 million people would be estimated to lose Medicaid or Obamacare coverage by 2034, and 1.38 million "dual-eligible beneficiaries" would find themselves "disenroll[ed]." In a statement, Wyden cited figures of 11,300 deaths from the loss of Medicaid or Obamacare coverage, 18,200 deaths from the loss of Medicaid coverage among low-income beneficiaries and 13,000 deaths of Medicaid enrollees in nursing homes due to the rollback of a "nursing home minimum staffing rule" from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Wyden attributed an additional projected 8,811 deaths per year to the "failure to extend the enhanced [Obamacare] premium tax credits," citing the academics' analysis. Fox News Digital reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., -- who spearheaded the "big, beautiful bill" in the House -- for comment. A representative for UPenn told Fox News Digital the university sent the results of their analysis to Wyden and Sanders in response to a request on the matter. "The estimates of mortality that are contained in the letter were based on peer-review research that was done independently and well before their request," the UPenn representative said. "The senators' request was to take the research results and translate into the estimated number of deaths."Original article source: Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze