WASHINGTON (AP) — US revokes visas for 6 foreigners over Charlie Kirk-related speech.

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) October 14, 2025

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

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

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

> .. .. .. I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

"this government' .. baad

overheard on the barricades, earlier, was something like "funk all the '88s"
o-o /* it means Over and Out */

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

---

I feel differently than you do regarding your last statement. Celebrating violence is promoting violence.

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

---

I feel differently than you do regarding your last statement. Celebrating violence is promoting violence.

---

Might want to think about how far you're willing to take that.

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

---

I feel differently than you do regarding your last statement. Celebrating violence is promoting violence.

---

Might want to think about how far you're willing to take that.

---

Say what you really want to say. Why might I want to think about that?

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

---

I feel differently than you do regarding your last statement. Celebrating violence is promoting violence.

---

Might want to think about how far you're willing to take that.

---

Say what you really want to say. Why might I want to think about that?

---

Because it's very easy for any government to call any criticism of a murdered person as "celebrating" that murder. The definition of "promoting violence" should remain a lot narrower, lest you find the broader definition being turned back on you.

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Good, we don't want people in this country who support political assassinations.

---

Where did you see that they supported the assassination?

---

It's implied in the tweet

---

Oh so it's a guess.

---

What other speech about Kirk would get their visa revoked?

---

Dunno, maybe we'll find out.

Even that kind of speech is protected speech, though.

---

Protected but not voiding all consequences

---

Removing people from the country would seem to be an extreme consequence.

---

I don't know what was said but not if they are celebrating or voicing a want for political violence. Visa holders know the government can revoke a visa at its discretion.

---

I doubt that most of these people literally called for violence. More likely they said something that was interpreted by this government as such.

---

They thrashed Charlie Kirk, insulted him and his memory, but did not call for violence. The kind of discourse that is pretty common on this board.

---

As I expected.

If this administration could make it a national requirement to only say nice things about Charlie Kirk, they would.

---

Non-citizens living and working here is a privilege. When a prominent political leader and friend of the president is brutally and publicly assassinated and you publicly celebrate it online, there may be consequences.

---

It's probably legally supported that they can do this. I say it sets a bad precedent to apply American free speech principles differently to citizens vs. non-citizens.

Again, just talking about speech here, not crimes.

---

It is legally supported and I see your point about a bad precedent.

My example: you don't go to your neighbors house for dinner and celebrate their friend who was murdered and expect to get to stay for dessert. Actions have consequences, for all of us

---

Nobody was required to have any of these people over for dinner. They were just living in the same very large country as the rest of us and voiced their opinions. For that they are thrown out.

---

Nobody required you to take his comment literally. It was a good analogy that you purposely are avoiding.

---

My purpose was to show why it's not a good analogy. No one has to personally spend time with any of these people.

The purpose of America is not to only invite people who will always say things you like.

---

Except it is a good apology. They are guests and they promoted political violence.

---

No, I don't think they did.

---

Celebrating is promoting, do you disagree?

---

Not necessarily, no.

I also think that the government needs to be VERY reserved in what it considers "promoting violence." You start stretching that definition far enough and you start trampling on free speech, as I believe is happening here. To me it should only be actionable if you are actually out there telling people to kill other people, stuff like that. Just being happy someone died, though perhaps morally objectionable, is not "promoting violence."

---

I feel differently than you do regarding your last statement. Celebrating violence is promoting violence.

---

Might want to think about how far you're willing to take that.

---

Say what you really want to say. Why might I want to think about that?

---

Because it's very easy for any government to call any criticism of a murdered person as "celebrating" that murder. The definition of "promoting violence" should remain a lot narrower, lest you find the broader definition being turned back on you.

---

Considering I've never celebrated a murder, won't get turned back on me.