Chip Roy Sparks Heated Congress Moment After Challenging Ilhan Omar s Remarks

And that is the fact that America, Texas, and Western civilization are under attack from within the cheap labor lobby, left-wing NGOs, radical progressive Democrats, Marxists, globalist organizations, the United Nations. They've mobilized a coordinated effort to subvert our security, our immigration system, to harm the American people. Particularly concerning is the threat posed by Islamists who are spreading Sharia law into Texas, who are advancing throughout the country, and who have a stated goal of undermining American life, not assimilating into it. This is a political movement, well-funded, targeted at the American people, Western civilization, our rule of law, the Constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood's own motto is, Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our law, Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Meanwhile, Europe has fallen. London, Paris, mere shells of their former strong self. You watch veterans who fought to defend the United Kingdom in World War II, those still alive, tear up and cry, wondering what it was they fought for. When they watch the radical extension of Islam into the streets of London and throughout the United Kingdom. In France, a majority of young French Muslims put Sharia above their own national laws, and more than a third have sympathy for Islamification. French officials have warned President Macron that Islamists are infiltrating France's Republican institutions. The speech begins with a warning delivered on the House floor, framing contemporary political tensions as part of a broader cultural and ideological struggle. The speaker argues that American institutions, national identity, and Western democratic traditions face internal pressures from political movements, global organizations, and shifting immigration policies. This opening establishes a tone of urgency, presenting immigration and cultural change as interconnected issues affecting national security and social cohesion. Supporters interpret such arguments as calls for vigilance and preservation of national values, while critics view them as politically charged rhetoric reflecting deeper divisions in how Americans interpret globalization and demographic change. In our threat to national cohesion, the authors of the report to Macron identified the Federation of Muslims of France, FMF, as the main French emanation of the historic Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded 100 years ago to promote a return to core Islamic values. They said the FMF controlled 139 places of worship in France, and a further 68 affiliated, and all around 7% of the total. The organization ran some 280 associations. Seven out of 10 French voters would back a ban on the Islamic veil in public because of what's happening in France. In the United Kingdom, Muslims are increasingly turning to Britain's Sharia courts, which are not part of UK law and operate as informal bodies. The number of Sharia courts in Britain has grown to 85 since the first began operating in the country in 1982. Polls have found that 41% of the British public believe that Muslim immigrants have had a negative impact on the United Kingdom. Nearly half think that Muslim women are pressured into wearing the hijab, and almost a third think that Islam promotes violence. As the address continues, the focus turns toward concerns about ideological influence and assimilation. The speaker claims that certain political and religious movements aim not simply to integrate into American society, but to reshape it. References to cultural conflict and ideological expansion are used to emphasize perceived risks associated with immigration policies. These arguments reflect long-standing debates in American history about assimilation, pluralism, and national identity. Throughout different eras, immigration discussions have repeatedly raised similar questions. How should a nation balance openness with cohesion, and what defines shared civic values in an increasingly diverse society? Parallel legal systems are not keys to a thriving society. There must be one rule of law for all of the people. All the way back in 1991, a lot of people won't know this, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a memorandum about North America, detailing a plan for, quote, the enablement of Islam in North America, establishing an effective and stable Islamic movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and works to expand the observant Muslim base. It was a coordinated and specific effort to advance Islam into the United States. Our founders did not envision a nation that remotely resembled today's Muslim world and the radical elements of Sharia. America was founded as a nation grounded in a distinctly Judeo-Christian history and understanding of the human nature. It was the United States, it was Great Britain that led the ending of slavery. The speech expands beyond the United States, pointing to developments in European cities as cautionary examples. London and Paris are described as societies grappling with cultural tensions and debates over integration. References to public opinion polls, legal controversies, and social change are presented to support claims of shifting national identity abroad. By invoking international comparisons, the speaker attempts to situate domestic policy debates within a global narrative about migration and cultural transformation. Observers note that such comparisons often play a powerful role in political messaging, shaping how audiences interpret risks and lessons drawn from foreign policy experiences. John Adams said one great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hinted at the incompatibility of America's republican virtues with the values of Muslim nations after meeting with the Islamic ambassador about the Barbary State's inclination to make war upon nations that did them no wrong after they were a requirement of the Quran. Jefferson's papers in 1786, he wrote, quote, we took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them whenever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners. Attention then turns to legal structures and the concept of parallel systems within democratic societies. The speech argues that unified legal authority is essential for national stability, emphasizing the principle that all citizens should operate under the same rule of law. Historical references and policy discussions are used to reinforce concerns about informal legal frameworks emerging alongside official institutions. Supporters interpret this argument as a defense of constitutional uniformity, while critics caution that complex multicultural societies often require nuanced legal accommodations. The tension highlights an democratic challenge, balancing cultural freedom with institutional consistency. But there's been a quieter one of Islamists leveraging our immigration system and corporate interest to extend and use diversity visas, chain migration, H-1B visas to flood our country with people who don't believe in it and have no intention of assimilating into it. And it is undeniably true after the election of the mayor in New York, Mamdani, with what's going on in Dearborn, with what's going on in Minneapolis, with what we're seeing happen in Texas. Historical documents and quotations from early American leaders are introduced to provide philosophical grounding for the argument. References to figures such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are used to connect modern policy debates with founding era discussions about religion, governance and international relations. By invoking historical writings, the speech attempts to frame contemporary concerns as extensions of long-standing political principles rather than modern partisan disputes. Historians often note that political actors frequently interpret founding texts differently, demonstrating how historical narratives continue to influence present-day debates about constitutional values and national identity. In Dallas, in Houston, what we saw unfold in that there is an attack on the Western way of life and we must stand up and defend it if we're going to be able to pass down a country to our kids and grandkids. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. Returning to modern policy, the Speaker argues that immigration systems can be shaped by economic incentives, corporate interests and visa programs. Specific pathways such as employment visas and family-based migration are presented as mechanisms influencing demographic change. The speech portrays these policies as contributing to cultural transformation when assimilation is perceived as limited. Immigration scholars, however, frequently debate the extent to which integration outcomes depend on policy design, economic opportunity and community engagement. This section illustrates how immigration remains one of the most complex and contested policy areas in contemporary governance.