Calls Grow for Deportation of Visa Holders Accused of Threatening Vandalism in the U.S.

Public outrage is mounting after reports surfaced of vandalism across several U.S. cities featuring graffiti reading “Hamas is coming,” a phrase many view as an implicit threat amid heightened global tensions. The incidents have sparked a broader debate over immigration enforcement, public safety, and the responsibilities of non-citizens living in the United States on temporary visas.

Law enforcement officials in multiple jurisdictions are investigating the vandalism, which has appeared on public buildings, private businesses, and residential properties. While authorities have not yet publicly identified suspects, online discussion has intensified around the possibility that some of those responsible may be in the country on student, work, or visitor visas.

Critics argue that if individuals on temporary visas are found responsible for threatening or extremist-related vandalism, they should face immediate legal consequences, including deportation. “A visa is a privilege, not a right,” one former federal immigration official said. “If someone comes to the United States and engages in intimidation, threats, or glorification of violence, they are violating the terms under which they were allowed to be here.”

Supporters of stricter enforcement say the graffiti goes beyond political expression and enters the realm of intimidation. The phrase “Hamas is coming” has been widely interpreted as a reference to the U.S.-designated terrorist organization, particularly alarming given recent global events and heightened concerns over domestic security. Jewish advocacy groups and local community leaders have described the graffiti as deeply unsettling and have called for swift action.

Immigration law allows for the revocation of visas if holders engage in criminal activity or actions deemed a threat to public safety. Legal experts note that vandalism alone can be grounds for visa cancellation if it results in criminal charges, and any connection to extremist messaging could further strengthen the case for removal.

Civil liberties advocates caution, however, against broad assumptions based on immigration status or political speech. They stress that investigations must be evidence-based and that constitutional protections still apply. “We should prosecute crimes, not profile people,” one immigration attorney said. “The focus must remain on individual conduct, not nationality or religion.”

Still, public sentiment appears to be shifting toward a harder line. Many Americans argue that the country has no obligation to host foreign nationals who engage in behavior perceived as threatening or destabilizing. Online calls for deportation have gained traction, particularly among those who see the vandalism as a deliberate attempt to spread fear.

Federal authorities have not confirmed whether visa holders are involved in the incidents, but officials emphasized that any individual—citizen or non-citizen—found responsible will be prosecuted under the law. Immigration consequences, they added, would follow existing legal procedures.

As investigations continue, the controversy underscores a larger national conversation about free expression, public safety, and the expectations placed on those granted the privilege of living in the United States. For many, the message is simple: political disagreements do not excuse intimidation, and threatening rhetoric—especially from non-citizens—will not be tolerated.