Our Border Security and Public Safety come first
The Floridant/10300875

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Floridant -- In a time when Americans are demanding stronger action on border security and public safety, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick's recent votes in Congress have raised serious concerns. Her repeated opposition to common-sense legislation—including the Laken Riley Act (H.R. 29), the Border Reinforcement Act (H.R. 30), and the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Women Act (H.R. 35)—begs the question: What exactly is she trying to accomplish?

Let's be clear about what's at stake. These bills were not fringe proposals. They were targeted, specific measures designed to protect American lives—especially the most vulnerable—from preventable tragedies. The Laken Riley Act, named after a young nursing student tragically killed by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record, aimed to ensure that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes. Another bill, H.R. 35, sought to mandate the detention and removal of illegal aliens who assault American women.

More on The Floridant

• American Momentum Bank's Alyssondra Haymaker Joins Finance Committee of Glazer Children's Museum
• UK Financial Ltd Announces A Special Board Meeting Today At 4PM: Orders MCAT Lock on CATEX, Adopts ERC-3643 Standard, & Cancels $0.20 MCOIN for $1
• Data Over Drama: Market Trends 2026 to discuss what's next for Florida's real estate market
• Julie Colombino-Billingham Hosts Book Launch & Boutique Benefit for Haiti & Jamaica Recovery
• 6 Holiday Looks That Scream "Old Money" But Cost Less Than Your Christmas Tree

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick voted against them all.

This wasn't a one-off. Her voting record paints a disturbing picture of someone who appears more committed to ideological purity than to the safety of her own constituents. It's one thing to advocate for immigration reform or compassion at the border. But when that advocacy turns into blanket opposition to laws that would protect American citizens from known, violent offenders, it crosses a line into recklessness.

How can we claim to stand up for women, yet oppose legislation that protects them from known violent individuals who shouldn't be in the country in the first place? How can we look the families of victims like Laken Riley in the eye and say, "We had a chance to do more, but chose not to"?

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick's votes suggest a troubling priority: protecting political narratives over protecting lives.

We should demand immigration policies that are fair, humane, and effective—but that does not mean ignoring the consequences of open-border extremism. Securing the border and ensuring that known criminals are not allowed to roam free is not xenophobia—it's common sense.

More on The Floridant

• From Cheer to Courtroom: The Hidden Legal Risks in Your Holiday Eggnog
• Florida: MEMORANDUM: Flags at Half-Staff in Honor of County Commissioner Maurice Perkins
• Florida: MEMORANDUM: Flags at Half-Staff in Honor of Former Representative J. Bruce Hoffmann
• Stevens Construction wins at the Lee Building Industry Association Industry Awards
• Local muralist captures the spirit of South Seas

To be blunt, the American people are not asking for much. We want our communities to be safe. We want to know that violent criminals—regardless of where they come from—will be held accountable. And we want lawmakers who vote not for party lines or activist applause, but for the people they were elected to serve.

Unfortunately, Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick seems more interested in virtue signaling than in protecting the public.

The question for voters is this: Are we willing to accept this kind of leadership when the consequences are measured in lives lost?
Share your thoughts on my website https://rodjosephforcongress.com