Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
DHS Employee Voices Pro-Hamas Views on Social Media
How far can an employee of the government go in writing attacks on Israel and Jews or supporting Hamas and the Palestinians?
In a Senate hearing, DHS Secretary Majorkas was called out by Senator Josh Hawley about one of his DHS employees:
After asking about the prospect of revoking visas from foreign students calling for the destruction of Israel and Jewish people, Hawley read one such social media post and asked for Mayorkas’ opinion on the rhetoric.
‘What about people who say things like, on October the seventh, ‘F Israel’ — I’m cleaning up the language here — ‘F Israel, the government and its military, are you ready for your downfall?’ People who say things like, ‘F Israel and any Jew who supports Israel. May your conscience haunt your dreams until your last breath. Palestine will be free one day. F apartheid Israel,’ This is pretty extreme rhetoric, don’t you think?’
Hawley stated that the employee made other pro-Hamas comments, identifying the employee as an asylum and immigration officer. He wondered if her beliefs could influence the decisions she would make in her role.
This situation raises so many questions about government power and free speech—
- Does the government have the right to judge the beliefs of an employee?
- Is the government permitted to penalize an employee, including firing, who states anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and pro-Hamas statements on social media?
- Does the job of the employee and its relationship to the stated beliefs make a difference in punishing the employee?
What if a person voiced anti-Hamas or pro-Israel comments?
Do you side with Senator Hawley?
Published in Immigration
Unfortunately everything is arbitrary…
Except for religious beliefs yes.
It depends on how far they go; however, I am in general going to say yes.
Yes, however it depends on the particular belief some beliefs are completely out of bounds and should be disqualifying for any job in the government.
In this particular case no one who supports a designated terrorist organization should work for DHS. It undermines the already shaky faith the public has or should have in that institution. Anyone that posts something that indicates they probably can’t overcome their biases about religious or ethnic groups probably shouldn’t be working for the government.
More acceptable. Israel is a geostrategic ally of the US and Hamas is a designated terrorist group; however, Let’s say for the sake of argument someone made an anti-Iranian pro-Israel comment. That might depend if the anti-Iranian comment indicated an inability to be able to accept Muslims or Persians in general then they might need to be similarly sanctioned.
So much to unwrap. First, Hamas has been designated by the government as a terrorist organization. So expressions of support for Hamas by a government employee likely violates some government personnel rule even though one retains one’s free speech subject to limits on workplace expression and government resources. Second, if the employee has a security clearance, one would suppose even a private expression of support for a terrorist organization would pique the curiosity of security personnel.
I guess this is the part that makes me nervous. It’s hard to know how “bad” someone would have to be.
Now this is helpful–remembering that they are, in fact, a terrorist organization! I can’t help but wonder if there’d be a difference if a person worked for, say, Dept. of Education and was a secretary.
It is cut and dried to me:
Hamas is a terrorist group who executed a horrific attack.
This person posted not just in support of Hamas, but the attack itself.
No one working for any the government should be supporting that.
I understand that but we would want to empower the government to fire someone who was obviously explicitly calling for terror attacks inside the US. Especially if they worked for DHS. Just like we had a policy of firing communists during the cold war. I would argue that overt antisemitism, racism, as well as anti-christian, or anti-muslim sentiment would also be disqualifying. The US is a pluralistic country. It is not too much to ask that government employees be able to tolerate people different from themselves.
Was that a pro Hamas comment? I didn’t see Hamas mentioned once. Double plus good indeed.
Great post Susan! I have always struggled with this and now with the full onslaught of social media the question is even harder. By the letter of the law what you do on your own time / political views are your own, just don’t bring it to work .
Now there is, at least in DoD, a watch on “radicalism.” Which from my optic this fits neatly into, especially given the place of employment.
I would also wager that if this employee had lashed out against blacks or the LGBT community – it would not be ignored.
And maybe It shouldn’t be (not in anyway implying you are saying it should). Honestly we want people who work for the government to look past peoples differences and focus on the mission. While I don’t think we should be promoting any particular ethnic group or the LGBT agenda, equally not sure how much I want government employees who are hostile to people for their ethnicity or sexual orientation (although here I will say I have a lot of trouble with the T part of that equation and so I am not quite sure where I stand on that.)
Thanks, dajoho. I agree, but wonder who the “watch” will be applied to.
“but the attack itself.” I love that line. Many are comfortable celebrating the butchering of Jews. I knew that Israel would always be judged by impossible standards while Arabs would be excused. But to actually celebrate the the slaughter of innocents took me by surprise.
It clearly mentioned and defended he October 7th massacre of innocent Jews by Hamas. So it was heavily implied.
It’s not her speech than is most concerning. This young lady worked for a year as as spokes-chick for the PLO–a designated terrorist organization–and then somehow got hired–not at the Department of Interior or Department of Commerce–but at the Department of Homeland Security, who then gave Little Miss PLO the job of vetting asylum seekers. Speech, schmeech. What kind of folks has she been letting into our country?
If this is how DHS is run, I say (1) fire her, and (2) disband DHS.
I had no idea, Ray. Thanks you so much for shedding light on her background. DHS is pathetic.
The comment does no such thing. It’s in the OP and in fact in this post as a quote. Read it.
This is
1984 stuffOrwellian.Anyone defending Hamas is pro slaughter.
She is pro slaughter.
Anyone defending anyone this, I’m any way, at any level, is pro slaughter.
All across the west, we see Jew Haters supporting this attack.
And it is telling.
They tear down posters of kidnapped people..
https://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby103023.php
Your insisting that Israel is no better than Hamas shows you are on the side of butchers. Israel has never put babies in ovens and baked them alive.
The people you defend have.
Zafar, you are siding with the worst monsters in history.
Kay. I read it. The quote is “What about people who say things like, on October the seventh, ‘FIsrael’ –” Many Palestinian/Hamas supporters said similar things. Please explain why any of this is Orwellian.
I’m still not seeing support of massacring anybody. ??
100%, it’s been a concern since this type of “continuous monitoring” has be institute. I am certain it will go bad, sooner or later…
To completely dismiss the October 7th attacks is to utterly trivialize the slaughter of innocent Jews. Then to complain about Israeli complaints about the horrific butchery of their citizens is to imply that they sort of deserved it and slaughtering Jews isn’t a big deal which the dialogue clearly indicates.
Does that explain it to you?
It didn’t ADDRESS the 7 October attacks. Are we moving towards compelled speech on this subject?
This is direct quote that talks about the October the seventh attacks. What is hard to understand?
The hang-glider and machine guns will suffice.
I have a tough time squaring this type of speech with the stiff penalties for companies that allow the remarks of others to make people feel unsafe. It’s in the “hostile workplace” laws. These laws look at derogatory remarks about people’s sex, ethnicity, religion, or skin color.
Let us hope there is a lot of pushback across the country when people make remarks like the one quoted.
Obviously, this tests the limits of free speech. These are hard lines to draw.
Stepping back a bit from the current loaded HAMAS-Israel situation, does the government have the right to prohibit an employee’s public speech (e.g., on social media) that clearly violates or is contrary to legitimate agency policy?
What if the speech is advocacy for a political candidate opposing an incumbent president’s re-election? What about a government social worker using a wink and a nod to support welfare fraud?
Advocacy of murder or insurrection (real insurrection, not the J6 kind), could that be prohibited? Advocating Soviet style communism constituted advocacy for the violent overthrow of the existing order, didn’t it?
What about advocating for ending the Viet Nam war in the 60’s contrary to then government policy? What about advocating against lend-lease in the 1939-1940 situation (the NAZI program to exterminate the Jews was unknown in the US at that time)?
I am sure that someone has done a First Amendment analysis of court opinions somewhere. The actual lines are quite complex concerning speech that does not present a clear and present danger of immediate violence (like inciting riot) which I think was the standard.
A thoughtful set of questions, David. It is complicated.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/the-sobchak-principle.php
Supporters of Hamas should lose their jobs.
They support these atrocities.
No it is not. Sorry. Supporting a terror group is a reason not to hire someone. This is not supporting a political candidate. This is supporting people actually cooking babies.
It is clear to me.
Her extreme political views call into doubt her ability to do her job. Hell, they call into doubt her security clearance.