Jasmine Crockett No immigration for hamas terrorist act
Executive summary
Rep. Jasmine Crockett has supported resolutions condemning Hamas’s October 7 attack and voted for measures described as “standing with Israel” while also calling for humanitarian aid and a ceasefire; her office issued a statement welcoming an Israel‑Hamas ceasefire/hostage deal on January 18, 2025 [1] [2]. Available sources do not show a direct quote from Crockett saying “No immigration for Hamas terrorist act”; instead, reporting and Crockett’s public materials show a mix of votes backing Israel‑focused resolutions and advocacy for immigrant protections and humanitarian relief [2] [3] [1] [4] [5].
1. The claim and what the record shows
The specific phrase “No immigration for Hamas terrorist act” does not appear in the materials provided; available sources do not mention that exact statement attributable to Crockett (not found in current reporting). What is documented is Crockett’s voting and public positions related to Israel‑Hamas issues: she voted for H.Res.771 (“Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists”) and supported other resolutions condemning Hamas and campus support for terrorist groups, per a legislative scorecard summary [2] [6]. At the same time, her office publicly pushed for humanitarian considerations and supported a ceasefire/hostage release deal in January 2025 [1] [4].
2. Crockett’s positions on Israel‑Hamas: both condemnations and calls for restraint
Multiple sources show Crockett has backed resolutions that explicitly condemn Hamas and express solidarity with Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7; these votes have been cited by critics as evidence of a pro‑Israel tilt [2] [6]. Yet her press statement on the January 18, 2025 ceasefire expressed hope the deal would “bring an end to a chapter of egregious violence” and explicitly acknowledged the many Palestinian civilian deaths in the follow‑on war, signaling a simultaneous focus on humanitarian harm [1]. This split—condemnation of the October 7 attacks coupled with calls for humanitarian relief and ceasefire—explains why different advocacy groups read her record differently [5] [6].
3. Immigration policy record and public messaging
Crockett’s official immigration platform emphasizes updating systems, protecting sensitive locations, transparency in ICE detention, and limiting anonymous raids—positions that favor immigrant protections rather than broad exclusions [3]. There is no provided evidence that her immigration stance includes barring immigrants because of affiliation with foreign terrorist acts; available sources do not mention such a policy proposal (not found in current reporting). Conservative outlets and partisan commentary have framed some of her remarks aggressively [7] [8], but those pieces do not present primary proof of the specific claim you asked about.
4. Criticism from both left and right: motives and agendas
Progressive and Palestinian‑rights groups have criticized Crockett for supporting pro‑Israel resolutions and votes on aid measures during the Israel‑Hamas war, calling her record “poor” on Israel‑Palestine issues [5] [6]. Conversely, right‑wing outlets have seized on selective comments to portray her as extreme on unrelated topics like deportation of “white supremacists,” framing her rhetoric to mobilize conservative readers [7] [8]. Each side advances an interpretive agenda: left critics use her votes to argue she enabled Israeli policy, while right critics use provocative quotes to delegitimize her broader progressive credentials. Those competing motives shape how claims about her positions spread [6] [7].
5. What we can reliably say and what we can’t
Reliable: Crockett voted for H.Res.771 and related resolutions condemning Hamas and has issued statements supporting ceasefire/hostage‑release efforts and raising humanitarian concerns for Gaza [2] [1] [4]. Unreliable or not substantiated in the supplied materials: an explicit policy or public quote from Crockett stating “No immigration for Hamas terrorist act” or advocating a blanket immigration ban tied to that phrasing (not found in current reporting). Social and partisan posts that attribute hardline immigration positions to her appear in the results but do not replace primary-source documentation [7] [8].
If you want, I can: (a) pull and cite the full texts of H.Res.771 and H.Res.798 as recorded in these sources; (b) compile Crockett’s full press releases on immigration and the January 18, 2025 ceasefire statement to compare language; or (c) search for any direct quote matching the exact claim across additional provided sources. Which would you prefer?