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

• AceMQ Unveils Comprehensive Kafka Consulting and Support Services for Real-Time Data Streaming
• 'Sunshine and Storms' giveaway to prepare Southwest Floridians for hurricane season
• Global Court Momentum Builds Against Forced Psychiatry; CCHR Urges U.S. Reform
• Integris Composites Joins Paris Air Show at USA Pavilion
• Cheryl Hines' Trailer PROWLING to Sardinia

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

• Honoring Black History, Culture, and Community in Fall River
• Token-Operated Sake Service Opens at Tobu Nikko Station
• 6-Month Startup Sprint Offers Fast-Track Roadmap to Launch an Online Business in 6 Months
• Real Estate Buyers and Sellers Marry The Home Date The Rate
• The Tipping Point and Adventure at the Edge of Creation Launch

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