The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10 sent shockwaves through the far right. In what seems to have been a panic response, the U.S. State Department moved to immediately revoke the visas of at least six foreign nationals. That decision comes in the wake of a deluge of inflammatory remarks spewed across social media following Kirk’s death. Commentators such as Talia Lavin have linked these comments to a Nazi rally organized on his behalf.
Kirk, a Young America’s Foundation darling, was rightly slammed for his far-right, insane statements and views. In reaction to his death, artists, critics, and commentators mourned and celebrated the death on social media. Tiago Santineli, a Brazilian comedian, claimed that Kirk was “the reason for a Nazi demonstration where they marched in tribute to him,” adding a dismissive remark of “Good riddance!”
The pushback only grew as Santineli followed up with a series of inflammatory and defamatory remarks about Kirk, after his assassination. He suggested that it was unfortunate that Kirk was killed by another right-wing conservative, stating, “If only someone had given Hitler this kind of tracheostomy before he had reached power. It takes a bit of the fun out of it, but it’s still worth it.” Yet, his statements underscore how divisive and polarizing Kirk’s public persona was, and the almost far-right reaction to his death.
Enrique “Kike” Gamarra, a Paraguayan talk show host and civic activist, took to Twitter to condemn Kirk’s killing as well. He noted that Kirk’s passing was a sad story. It didn’t absolve the way he lived his life, ” a move that stoked the already fiery discussions about the event.
The U.S. State Department’s response to this online furor was swift and firm. In doing so, they voiced opposition to sensationalized posts that praised and tried to rationalize Kirk’s murder. They cancelled the visas for people from Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and Paraguay. Those were the same people who’d issued inflammatory comments about Kirk. A notable case involved a German national whose visa was canceled for writing in German that translated to: “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
In the wake of these visa revocations, a number of commentators have condemned the U.S. government’s actions as censorship. Carrie DeCell argued that “visa revocations under these parameters are censorship, plain and simple,” asserting that mere mockery should not be grounds for government action. She emphasized that the First Amendment prohibits such actions based on viewpoint, stating that “the supreme court has been clear that noncitizens have a right to freedom of speech.”
Conor Fitzpatrick condemned the government’s response, asserting that in America, “no one should fear a midnight knock at the door because of their political views.” He did so in order to make the case that sincere disagreement is fundamental to American democracy. He argued that this right must be upheld for all people, regardless of citizenship status.
The U.S. State Department defended its actions by stating, “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.” This tactic increases the appearance of fulfilling the “extreme vetting” campaign promise to visa applicants. It aims to round up and deport whoever can possibly be deemed a threat to national security or public safety.
Kirk’s death and the subsequent reactions have not only spotlighted deep political divisions but prompted discussions on free speech and governmental authority. Together, the searingly different perspectives on Kirk reveal just how difficult it is to understand today’s political landscape. Apparently, some people are just ready to shell out the bucks to send a message.