Posted on 10/12/2025 12:13:30 PM PDT by Twotone
On Tuesday, the second anniversary of the horrific Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that claimed 1,200 lives, terrorist sympathizers took to the streets to declare that the violence was not “enough.”
“We did not act enough! We did not act enough. Repeat after me, ‘We did not act enough.’ If we acted enough, the headline behind me would read, ‘Gaza has been liberated,’” one man yelled. “So our work is not done. We will show up, stronger than we did the first Oct. 7. Louder than we did the first Oct. 7 to make it clear that we are not going anywhere. We will keep fighting until Palestine is free, from the river to the sea, within our lifetime.”
That scene played out, not on the other side of the world, but in the streets of Manhattan.
Other demonstrators cheering Hamas’ rule in Gaza have chanted, “Death to America” in U.S. cities. Some of these people violently cheering for Islam are on student visas, like the infamous Mahmoud Khalil, but others have been granted citizenship by a country to which they clearly have no allegiance.
Texas Rep. Chip Roy says the Islamic ideology that underpins these calls for violence is “incompatible” with American society. Roy introduced legislation on Wednesday entitled: “Preserving A Sharia-Free America Act,” according to a copy of the legislation obtained exclusively by The Federalist.
The legislation would prevent foreign nationals who adhere to Sharia Law from entering or remaining in the United States.
“Any alien in the United States found to be an adherent of Sharia law by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, or Attorney General shall have any immigration benefit, immigration relief, or visa revoked, be considered inadmissible or deportable, and shall be removed from the United States,” the legislation reads in part.
The legislation would permit the revocation of immigration benefits and ensure that any foreign national who lied about his adherence to such belief system would be considered inadmissible or deportable and be removed.
The legislation would also create a provision that states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any determination made by the aforementioned Department heads under this Act shall be final and shall not be subject to review by any court.”
In a statement to The Federalist, Roy said: “America is facing an existential threat — the spread of Sharia Law. From Texas to every state in the union, instances of Sharia Law adherents have threatened the American way of life, seeking to replace our legal system and Constitution with an incompatible ideology that diminishes the rights of women, children, and individuals of different faiths.”
“America’s immigration system must be fortified to counter the importation of Sharia adherents — the preservation of our constitutional republic and its people depend on it,” Roy continued.
Barring foreign nationals who adhere to Sharia law acknowledges what too many in Washington are scared to confront — not every ideology is compatible with liberty, and not every culture is compatible with participation in American society.
Seems unconstitutional unfortunately
Apparently, Roy has yet to read and understand the United States Constitution. He’s becoming Lindsey Graham stupid.
“...Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
I vehemently disagree that this is unconstitutional and am not going to debate the patently obvious fundamentals here.
The ‘stupid’ is lawful entry of enemies of the US Constitution, regardless of where the stupid originates.
Y’all forget we have the second amendment.
If “Sharia law” threatens my life I’ll kill it in self defense.
When my grandfather took his OATH of Citizenship in 1945. He had to SWEAR that he had NO allegiance to any other potentate, King, Government of any thing on Earth. Seems that the person who insists on practicing Sharia Law has his FACE sat towards MECCA and will NEVER uphold the U.S. Constitution of FREEDOM OF RELIGION. I think this would be a good stipulation... Return them to the country that they swear allegiance.
I disagree. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Islam may be a religion, but it has an ideology that makes it a danger to every OTHER religion. It requires submission - not only from its own adherents but from “infidels.” It is not compatible with a free, modern society.
If someone decided to bring back the Aztec religion, & demanded the right to sacrifice a baby on its altar, would we allow that? No. That religion would have to be banned.
The same with Islam.
Sharia law is a civil law not a religious matter.
Such a bill, based on Sharia, would be unconstitutional on its face.
Why waste our time with this kind of crap? These kinds of things make the right look EXACTLY like what the Dems call us.
Sharia law is not a religion.
It is rules based on a religion.
Like Mormonism and multiple wives.
Only if you want a prison term.
“Unconstitutional”——?
Not to me,Friend.
If they will not live by our Constitution, they forfeit any rights under our Constitution.
So, not unconstitutional fortunately.
Foreigners are supplicants.
Citizens are not.
Islam similarly is not a religion.
It’s a murderous ideology.
The Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact.
Correct, see Key case: Reynolds v. United States (1879).
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
Adherents of Sharia Law seek to overturn the Constitution. They would not allow “free exercise of religion” to anyone else. Hence, they are not parties to the Constitution and are therefore undue of its protections.
How would I get a prison term for defending myself from a cult, that is attacking me, and violating my constitutional rights?
Especially in rural America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.