VIDEO: A Former INS Senior Special Agent’s take on the “Caravan of Migrants”

On November 15, 2018 I was a guest on The Daily Ledger that is broadcast on the One America News Network.  My segment focused on the so-called “Caravan of Migrants” comprised of thousands of foreign nationals that is headed to the U.S./Mexican border with the apparent goal of enabling the members of the caravan to enter the United States either by running our borders and thus evading the inspection/vetting process conducted at ports of entry or by presenting themselves at ports of entry to make “Credible Fear” applications for asylum in the United States.

Where those applications for asylum are concerned, the majority of aliens who have made such applications never followup on those applications but merely use those applications and the claims of credible fear as a means of gaming the immigration system to head for towns and cities across the United States where so-called Sanctuary Cities shield them from detection by ICE agents and where the lack of ICE agents enable them to hide in plain sight with little fear of being caught or deported.

What is being blithely ignored by the mainstream media and the globalist politicians is that aliens who seek entry into the United States are supposed to apply for and receive visas before they present themselves at ports of entry and apply for admission. The tactic of making credible fear applications at ports of entry is simply a ploy to circumvent the established laws.



TRUMP CONNECTS THE DOTS ON DANGERS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: But the Left attacks him for the picture it creates.

THE THREATS POSED BY THE IMPENDING INVASIONAll Americans need to wake up and pay attention. 

THE IMPENDING ALIEN INVASION: How the Left plays the “compassion card” for destructive ends. 

RELATED VIDEO: Ami Horowitz: The Truth Behind the Caravan.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jorge Aguilar on Unsplash.

California’s Typhus Surge Is Linked to Fleas, Feces, and Bad Economic Policies

There might not be a government-backed solution to Los Angeles’ typhus outbreak, but if the city’s and state’s politicians really want to end homelessness, then repealing zoning and minimum wage laws would be a great start.

Typhus is on the rise in Los Angeles, with its epicenter in downtown, where the city’s sanitation officials are struggling to respond to the nearly two thousand “cleanup requests” they get from locals every month.

Like San Francisco, LA is struggling to clean up city streets of human waste—specifically feces—due to a lack of public restrooms and a growing homeless population.

There was an average of 700 requests in the area in the spring of 2016, but officials now claim they receive about 1,900 cleanup calls per month thanks to the number of growing homeless camps. But the growing homelessness and sanitation nightmares have led to yet another crisis: a rise in flea-borne typhus.

Between July and September, county officials identified at least nine typhus cases that originated in downtown. At least six of the infected were homeless, but central LA isn’t the only place at risk.

Officials in the city of Pasadena, also located in Los Angeles County, claim 20 residents had typhus fever this year. Typhus cases have also been registered in Long Beach and Willowbrook.

As the number of cases continues to rise, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors feels pressured to act. They recently voted on a pilot program to fight the illness in homeless encampments by adding more cleanup efforts, introducing more mobile showers, offering the homeless housing, and distributing hand sanitizer and flea repellent for people and pets.

The crisis, which has already made 64 victims this year alone, has deeper roots. At least, that’s what 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger appears to claim.

“When I drive through parts of my district and I see the living conditions on the street, it reminds me of a third-world country,” Barger said.

Perhaps the fact that California falls behind every single state in the country when it comes to fiscal, regulatory, tax, and economic policies—much like many “third-world” countries—has something to do with the current conditions residents are now forced to grapple with.

As the Cato Institute’s Freedom Index reveals, California’s suffocating regulatory environment has a series of very real and heartbreaking consequences.

When it comes to land-use freedom, for instance, cities like Los Angeles have restrictive rules regarding housing supply and rent control, keeping builders from developing affordable housing and helping to artificially increase the cost of housing across the board.

But bad housing policies are not the only cause of growing homelessness in Los Angeles. The state’s labor laws add insult to injury by making it difficult for employers to help those in need. With high minimum wage laws, no right-to-work policies in place, mandated short-term disability insurance, and prohibiting consensual noncompete agreements, job creation in California is dramatically held back, and the poor and low-skilled are unable to break into the labor market.

In addition, occupational licensing also keeps entrepreneurs from entering the market due to the extensive cost associated with obtaining the mandated training and certification to perform simple services.

With state lawmakers being so eager to get involved in every single affair, from banning straws to keeping residents on a budget from using scooters, it’s hard to see how these rules could be repealed—or at least reformed—anytime soon.

As the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation Jacob G. Hornberger explained, the root causes of homelessness in most major urban centers across the US are both minimum wage laws and zoning, two policies that are not only in effect in California but that have been revamped and strengthened again and again over the years.

With California residents once again helping progressives stay in power in the region, we know these policies are not going anywhere. If anything, they will continue to receive widespread support from the newly-elected governor.

For the time being, there might not be a government-backed solution to Los Angeles’ typhus outbreak, but if the city’s and state’s politicians really want to end homelessness, then repealing zoning and minimum wage laws would be a great start.


Chloe Anagnos

Chloe Anagnos

Chloe Anagnos is a professional writer, digital strategist, and marketer. Although a millennial, she’s never accepted a participation trophy.

EDITORS  NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Presidential Proclamation Addresses Massive Illegal ‘Migrant’ Caravan — A dire national security threat.

The United States is about to be inundated with thousands of foreign nationals heading up through Latin America to the U.S./Mexico border. The media, nearly unanimously, have described them all as “migrants” purportedly fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries in Central America. The President, however, has stated that among them are criminals and individuals from other than Latin America.

President Trump is determined to discourage as many of these individuals from entering the United States illegally as a matter of national security.

As I have noted in previous articles about this “Caravan of Migrants,” talk show hosts and others have blatantly accused the President of being a liar who does not care about poor migrants. Of course, they are blithely ignoring that the President has access to intelligence that is not made available to anyone else.

They have also failed to make any effort to do a bit of research, to determine if perhaps there is evidence that is available in the public domain that would support Trump’s assertions.

My article “Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers Of Illegal Immigration” contains compelling evidence about the potential for Iranian involvement in large-scale human trafficking and hence the potential that they and other adversaries of the United States would be eager to inundate the United States with huge numbers of aliens that would overwhelm the already beleaguered immigration system.

That article and others that I have written recently included evidence that has been furnished by expert witnesses at Congressional hearings and in various reports prepared by experts that Iran has been steadily increasing its influence in Latin America through its client Hezbollah, to partner with Latin American drug trafficking cartels and human traffickers – often one and the same – to send huge quantities of narcotics to the United States along with illegal aliens in order to generate huge amounts of ill-gotten funds and to embed sleeper agents here.

The June 8, 2017 DOJ report Two Men Arrested for Terrorist Activities on Behalf of Hizballah’s Islamic Jihad Organization focused on the arrest and prosecution of two naturalized U.S. citizen “sleeper agents” who had been born in Lebanon. One of the two alleged terrorists was additionally charged with committing naturalization fraud; he purportedly used his ill-gotten U.S. citizenship to apply for a U.S. passport that facilitated his international travel in support of Hezbollah. Both had been conducting preparatory surveillance of military and law enforcement facilities and airports in Michigan and New York.

I addressed the case of two other Iranian sleeper agents in my September 2018 article, “Iranian Agents Charged With Targeting U.S. Locations: Sleeper Agents/Assassins in Our Midst?”

The President has decided to act proactively to head off what could well be a national security / public safety catastrophe in the making.

On November 8, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, jointly announcing with the Department of Homeland Security, that President Trump had issued a proclamation under which the administration would not process asylum applications filed by illegal aliens who had entered the United States without inspection after November 10, 2018, the date that the proclamation went into effect. It would not apply to unaccompanied alien minors nor would it prevent aliens from making an application for Withholding of Removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Withholding of Removal is similar to asylum but imposes a higher burden of proof upon that alien who files for that protection from deportation (removal) and imposes additional restrictions.

The proclamation will expire either 90 days after taking effect or when a safe-country agreement is entered into with Mexico, whichever occurs earlier. Finally, within 90 days of the proclamation taking effect, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are required to provide the President with their recommendations as to whether or not to extend the proclamation.

President Trump’s proclamation is a direct response to the massive numbers of foreign nationals heading to the U.S./Mexican border. Consider the title of the proclamation: Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States.

In recent years massive numbers of illegal aliens have come to exploit the asylum policies of the United States to circumvent the lawful entry process by which aliens enter the United States. They have found in America’s long history and tradition of kindness a weakness that can be easily exploited.

In point of fact, 80% of these applications have reportedly been denied. Furthermore, the administration will continue to accept and process asylum applications that aliens who attempt entry into ports of entry file. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to discourage enormous numbers of aliens who are members of the massive “caravan of migrants” from running our borders, evading the inspections/vetting process at ports of entry and then using fatuous asylum claims as “plan B” for aspiring illegal aliens if apprehended by the Border Patrol. On the other hand, when not stopped by the Border Patrol, these illegal aliens who evaded the inspections process simply head to towns and cities across the United States and hide in plain sight.

The 9/11 Commission describes that effort made by terrorists to “hide in plain sight” as the embedding process that incidentally is made far easier by “sanctuary policies” implemented by mayors and governors of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States, who have utter disdain for America’s borders and immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) even when the aliens in question are convicted felons. Incredibly, they have released aliens who were convicted of committing violent crimes rather than turn them over to ICE for deportation from the United States, all too frequently with tragic but preventable results.

Consider the most recent case highlighted in a November 9, 2018 ICE news release, “Mexican national released from local custody facing murder charges.”

According to that press release, 23 year-old illegal alien Luis Rodrigo Perez, a citizen of Mexico, was being held on domestic violence charges in the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey when ICE issued a detainer that the jail did not honor, releasing Perez into the community without notifying ICE.

After his release from the jail in February of 2018, Perez eventually made his way to Missouri where he has now been charged in a triple murder that recently occurred in Springfield, Missouri.

Business Insider’s article “Trump’s new move to limit asylum challenged in court” noted that the intention of the proclamation was to funnel all of these aliens through ports of entry so that they can be vetted, but the resources at many of the ports are inadequate to handle the workload and aliens are often told to come back days later.

However, all aliens who do show up at ports of entry will, even under the proclamation, be able to file applications for asylum. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to enable DHS to vet every alien and create a record of the entry or attempted entry of each alien.

The only aliens who would potentially be adversely impacted by the proclamation are those who enter without inspection.

Incidentally, as I noted in another of my recent articles, “ACLU Attacks Border Wall And Kate’s Law,” the purpose for the wall on the U.S./Mexican border would not be to stop legitimate commerce or movement of people into the United States but to make certain that all such traffic is also funneled through ports of entry.

For decades, even in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, the immigration system has been chronically underfunded and understaffed so that the only way for the adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to keep up with the avalanche of applications for various immigration benefits, that include granting political asylum and conferring lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship upon aliens, is to approve as many of those applications as possible.

This leads to rampant levels of fraud. As a consequence, terrorists such as the naturalized citizen Iranian sleeper agents I noted earlier, as well as the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon and Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square Bomber,” are a few examples of many where terrorists were granted lawful status and even, in some instances, citizenship not long before they carried out or attempted to carry out deadly terror attacks in the United States.

9/11 and Terrorist Travel is an official report that was prepared by the federal agents and federal attorney who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission. Here is a quote from that report worth considering; it specifically addressed political asylum fraud:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

I wrote about this nexus between immigration fraud and terrorism in my extensive article, “Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.”

Through his proclamation and other initiatives, President Trump is following the dictum by which all sensible people live their lives, “Safety first.” All rational Americans should be grateful for it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Filmmaker Travels with Caravan, Gets Stunning Footage Proving Media’s Lying to Us

EDITORS NOTE: This column and images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Student gov VP faces calls to RESIGN after political Facebook post

  • A student leader at Emporia State University in Kansas faced impeachment and is now facing calls to resign after using the phrase “illegal alien.”
  • The student leader told Campus Reform on Monday that she will not cave in to those demands because she is committed to a “diverse” campus.

A student leader at Emporia State University in Kansas used the phrase “illegal alien” on her personal Facebook page and is now facing a wave of backlash, including calls for her to resign from her student government position.

Prior to Election Day on Nov. 6, Michaela Todd, vice president of the student government a staunch supporter of Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, posted a message of support for her candidate of choice. In it, she described how she believed Kobach was the best choice because of his views on abortion, taxes, and illegal immigration.

“Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens. The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day.”    

“Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens,” Todd wrote. “The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day.”

But the phrase “illegal alien” didn’t sit well with some students, who took screenshots and shared them across social media, calling Todd’s comments “racist” and “ignorant.”

“It has come to our attention that the VP of @EmporiaStateASG has made incredibly hurtful, racist, and, frankly, ignorant remarks,” the Multicultural Greek Council at ESU tweeted Wednesday, adding that Todd “does not represent us and we hope that @EmporiaState takes the measures needed to show us that she does not represent ESU either.”

“I am so disgusted at the fact the VP of @EmporiaStateASG promotes these racist and revolting ideas,” another student tweeted.

And Kayla Gilmore, whose Facebook profile lists her as an Emporia State University alumna who now works for the college, posted on Facebook, calling on student leaders to “hold themselves accountable” and for the administration to “hold them accountable should they fail.”

Following the backlash, Todd told Campus Reform that she edited her post and removed the phrase “illegal alien.”

“After I heard that there were some of my constituents who were upset with what I posted, I edited it and took out the part that had the term in it,” the student leader told Campus Reform. “I left the rest of the post there, though. It was a caption to go along with my updated profile picture, which had a Kobach banner on it, which is why I think people who weren’t my friend on Facebook were able to see it. I didn’t realize that was possible.”

But the backlash didn’t stop there.

The ESU Bulletin student newspaper reported Thursday that the student senate tried but failed to impeach Todd over her remarks. The paper also reported that ASG’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee is now calling for Todd to resign.

In a statement to Campus Reform on Monday, Todd made clear that resigning is not her plan.

“I was apologetic to the students who[m] my post [a]ffected negatively because I never want to inflict pain on others,” she said. “Now, I am still dedicated to representing the ESU students. I am not going to step down because I am committed to creating a diverse campus at ESU, not only in culture but in thought as well.”

Emporia State University did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.


Jon Street


News Editor

Jon Street is a news editor for Campus Reform. Six years ago, Jon cut his reporting teeth fresh out of college as an intern at Media Research Center’s, where he interviewed multiple members of Congress and former presidential candidates. From there, he went on to complete a stint at, where his exclusive, investigative work was picked up or cited by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, National Review, and the Drudge Report, among others. More recently, Jon spent three years as an assistant editor at In his free time, Jon enjoys trying new coffeehouses around the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and traveling back to his home state of Missouri to spend time with his family.


UC Berkeley group disavows own student senator over conservative Christian views

EXCLUSIVE: Berkeley student senator disavowed over Christian beliefs responds to calls to RESIGN

VIDEO: Calif College Republicans’ signs stolen

Cornell lecture to focus on ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ in Trump era

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

If Trump Ended Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, He’d Be Enforcing Existing Law

President Donald Trump’s critics have found something else to rend their garments over: his determination to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” Why, they thunder, it’s unconstitutional. And even if it could be changed, it can’t be by executive order.

They’re wrong on both counts.

That probably comes as a surprise to many Americans, including some who consider themselves Trump supporters. Haven’t we all been told for years that if you’re born here, you’re automatically a U.S. citizen? It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. No matter who your parents are or what their status is, you’re an American. Simple as that.

Or is it? Consider the actual wording: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Seems pretty cut and dry, but check out that crucial clause: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s easy to mumble over it, but we shouldn’t. The Senate included it there for a reason when it passed the amendment in 1868: to make it clear that not everyone born here is automatically a citizen.

Being born here is only half the equation. You also must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The original proposed wording of the amendment did not include that phrase. It was inserted specifically to make it clear that the law did not, in fact, confer citizenship on everyone born here.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and a strong supporter of the Citizenship Clause, noted that Congress intended to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Supreme Court cases decided in the years soon after the amendment’s passage confirm this view.

Moreover, says constitutional scholar Edward Erler:

“It is hard to conclude that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction.”

Notes Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding:

“Few developed nations practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.”

In short, it was wise of Congress to limit the scope of the amendment. And those who misinterpret it are wrong. Trump should be commended for trying to bring current understanding back in line with the original intent of the framers.

That leaves us with the question of whether he would be right to set this issue straight via an executive order. Some people who agree with him on birthright citizenship, such as National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, believe that he shouldn’t. They argue that it should be done by the same body that issued the amendment in the first place: Congress.

In other words, this is a job for Congress, the branch of government that creates our laws, not the executive, which enforces them.

According to McCarthy, a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.”

Granted, but as constitutional scholar Hans von Spakovsky points out, “that assumes the ‘understanding’ is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.”

To put it another way, the president here would not be attempting to make a new law, but to enforce the correct view of an existing law.

Sure, his order would be immediately challenged. Perhaps we’d even wind up with Congress clarifying the original intent of the law.

All the more reason to do it. Fairness demands that we get this issue settled—and soon.

Originally published in The Washington Times


Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.

CNN’S Jim Acosta Butts Heads With The President

After clashing with President Trump during a presidential press conference at the White House Wednesday (Nov 7th), CNN’s Jim Acosta had his press pass suspended “until further notice,” thereby sparking a long standing feud between the President and the main stream media.

The meeting was intended to give the President an opportunity to review Tuesday’s election. He said he was satisfied with the results and hoped to forge a relationship with House Democrats to work on legislation. He then opened the floor for questions from the press.

Acosta was the second person to ask the President a question, involving “the caravan” moving through Mexico to the United States. Here, he challenged the President’s interpretation of “invasion” of the immigrants. The President answered by disagreeing with the reporter’s interpretation. Acosta claimed the President was trying to demonize immigrants by his description which drew the ire of the President who told the reporter to let him do his job. He then turned to another reporter for the next question. Acosta pressed on by beginning to ask a second question regarding the Russian investigation. The President took Acosta to task saying, “I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you work for them. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee (Sanders) is horrible. And the way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.”

As I traveled with the press corps in covering Trump Rallies in Florida, I have had the opportunity to watch Acosta work first-hand. It seems to me, he is more interested in his own personal agenda than anything else. He relishes being the center of attention which is why, I believe, he asks questions unlike other reporters. This confrontation with the President is not the first as he has cultivated a combative relationship with Mr. Trump.

Let us not forget, after a confrontation with Trump supporters at a rally in Tampa earlier this year, where he was shouted down by the audience, Acosta said he felt threatened and suggested children shouldn’t be allowed to attend Trump rallies, as the people are allegedly dangerous. This is what initiated his claim that the President was at war with the press.

CNN naturally came to their employee’s defense following Wednesday’s controversy by stating, “This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better. Jim Acosta has our full support.”

They also called Trump’s attacks on the media as “un-American,” thereby fueling the fire of division.

A couple things come to mind after watching this on television. First, I didn’t hear one intelligent question to the President from an American “journalist.” Here you have the Commander-in-Chief where you can ask a question of substance regarding government policies on such things as the economy, trade, foreign relations, health care, prescription drugs (which the President is discussing with Democrats), the federal bench, military matters, immigration reform, etc. Instead, they are preoccupied baiting the President with trivialities designed to make him look bad, not good. He, of course, would have none of it, and snapped back at the questioners now and then. I found it particularly amusing when he said, “That’s the best you’ve got?” or “That’s a question?”

In other words, the President completely understands the game the press is playing with him and is appalled by the low IQ questions and inflammatory accusations they make. This has forced him to become even more no-nonsense than before, which is why he butted heads with Acosta. Frankly, I’m surprised he hadn’t taken them all to task earlier. I suspect we will continue to see more changes in the relationship with the press following the election.

This brings up my second point, participation as a member of the press at the White House is a privilege, not a right. There is no legislation stating the press has access rights. As I’ve mentioned before, it was around President Theodore Roosevelt’s time when the administration allowed members of the press on the grounds of the White House. The press has as much right to the White House, as they do to the President’s taxes, which is zilch.

So, as a guest, the press should behave with more civility at the President’s home, as opposed to becoming obnoxious. In a way this reminds of when you have a guest at your house who perhaps has had too much to drink or has offended someone. Usually, the host asks him to leave and calls him a cab. Jim Acosta’s taxi arrived yesterday.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Exit Signs: Poll Warns Dems to Back off Social Issues

In the last 48 hours, there’s been a lot of speculation about what motivated voters to give back control of the House to Democrats. But based on exit polling, we can tell you one thing: it isn’t their radical social policy. Some Americans may be frustrated by GOP leaders or at odds with Donald Trump, but their positions on life, religious liberty, and sexuality are still light years more conservative than the party they just handed half of Congress to.

In a new FRC-commissioned McLaughlin & Associates survey, 1,000 Americans were asked their thoughts on a wide variety of issues — including some that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already promised the House will address. The answers we got (which, interestingly, included more people who voted for Democrats on Tuesday than Republicans) might surprise you. When heartland Democrats tried to explain that Hillary Clinton lost because it seemed like she cared “more about bathrooms than jobs,” the party should have listened. Today, those same people are sending the same message – and it’ll be interesting to see if the extremists under Pelosi’s control pay attention.

When they were asked if they approved or disapproved of “government forcing schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations opening showers, changing facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms designated for women and girls to biological males and vice versa,” the answer couldn’t be clearer. Sixty percent said they opposed the bathroom policies of Barack Obama and other liberals, compared to just 24 percent who approved. That’s a 36-point gap on an issue that Pelosi has already promised to force on Americans in the new Congress. The Equality Act, the most radical piece of LGBT legislation ever introduced, is about to become a top 10 priority of the Democratic House.

As recently as this year, the Democrats’ own base pleaded with them to stop pushing their transgender agenda and get back to the work of real governing. “You’re killing us” was the headline. “The Democratic brand,” Illinois State Rep. Jerry Costello told Politico, “is hugely damaged, and it’s going to take a while to bring it back. Democrats in southern Illinois have been more identified by [transgender] bathrooms than by putting people back to work.” That seems destined to continue, based on the agenda of House Democrats.

Along those same lines, the majority of people don’t want the federal government to redefine sex to include “gender identity.” That’s especially significant now, as President Trump considers rolling back Obama’s overreach on that very issue. Asked if they wanted to “allow individuals who identify as transgender to get a special legal status related to employment law, federally-funded health care benefits, and the use of bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex,” 54 percent said no. Only 27 percent agree with radical positions of Pelosi and Obama.

On abortion, where Democrats have boxed themselves into one of the most militant positions of all — even going so far as to demand taxpayer-funded abortions in their platform — 56 percent don’t agree. As other polls have shown, the majority of Americans appreciate the Hyde Amendment that Democrats want to abolish – the 41-year-old wall between taxpayers and elective abortion. That’s double the 28 percent in Pelosi’s camp.

But perhaps the most powerful support came on an issue where President Trump stands tallest: religious liberty. A whopping 70 percent of respondents agreed that the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman” — not just in how they live their lives but in how they run their businesses. They’ve seen people like Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, and Barronelle Stuzman personally destroyed for daring to hold a view on marriage that Barack Obama did five years ago. (And, as our poll shows, a plurality still do!) That’s an astounding majority, especially when you see the minuscule number (18 percent) who think like Obama and Pelosi do – that government should be used as a club to beat people into submission on LGBT issues.

The bottom line of the survey is this: if Democrats think they have a mandate to push their fanatical social agenda, they’re wrong. And trust me. In two years, Americans will remind them — like they did in 2010 and 2016 — if they try.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


HHS Prescribes a Health Care Fix

Justice Was Served by Sessions

Countering The False Claims As Immigration Takes Center Stage by Peter B. Gemma

Immigration will be center stage with the Democrats now in charge of the House and President Trump determined to secure America’s borders and control who can come in.

And so the surplus of claims made by immigration advocates that are either misleading, incomplete, a rewriting of history or just flat wrong will be rolling forward unabated through the partisan mainstream media. But these claims are not hard to correct. And in fact, they can be supported through the insightful commentary of historic American leaders.

Here are the major claims made by open immigration advocates, and the necessary responses to them for every American who wants to maintain America as a Shining City on a Hill.

Claim: We’re a nation of immigrants.

Reply: Our heritage of immigration is just one facet of our national identity. First and foremost, we’re a nation of Americans, a nation built on ideals — not ethnicities. As a free people, we have the right to regulate immigration for the benefit of our national interest.

Alexander Hamilton: “Foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. In the composition and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” 

Claim: The descendants of immigrants cannot in good conscience keep out new immigrants.

Reply: This is like saying that a private business, staffed by people who were once job applicants, is morally obligated to hire all new applicants. This is ridiculous on the face of it because the purpose of a business is to sell products and make money, and it must gear its hiring program to meet those ends. Similarly, a nation exits to serve its national interests — and it should regulate immigration by that standard.

Frederick Douglass: “The old employments by which we have heretofore gained our livelihood, are gradually, and it may seem inevitably, passing into other hands. Every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived immigrant whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better title to the place.” 

Claim: Immigration has been good for America; we need it to keep benefitting us. Immigrants after all built America.

Reply: Certainly immigration can help America, but to say that it is always good, regardless of quantity or quality, is absurd. It’s like saying that alcohol is always beneficial because a daily glass of red wine will improve a person’s health — and from that observation going on to claim that two bottles of wine a day will be even more beneficial. The specific question to ask is whether our massive level of immigration today is helpful or harmful. In the past, a high level of immigration helped to populate and develop a vast and undeveloped country. But today our nation is populated and built. So why do we need to keep on admitting so many builders?

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL): “America must not be overwhelmed. Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.”

Claim: We have the moral duty to be a haven for the world’s poor and downtrodden.

Reply: Morality does not require us to do what is impossible and self-destructive. World population now increases at the rate of about 80 million a year, with most of this increase in poor and relatively poor countries. Let’s suppose we decided to admit one-tenth of that number a year, eight million, a total about six times higher than our current annual intake of legal and illegal immigrants. With immigration causing problems now, imagine what stress that increase would cause, one which would add 100 million people in little more than a decade. For most people in the world, prosperity is something they will have to create at home. If America remains strong, we can provide them with assistance. But if we are overwhelmed, we will lack the capacity to help anyone.

Francis A. Walker, President, MIT 1881-1897: “Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril.”

Claim: Diversity is our strength. All cultures are equal and equally enriching.

Reply: Anything labeled as good cannot be discerned without reference to quantity and quality. Certainly we can enjoy the diversity of having a number of ethnic restaurants in a city and some retained cultural customs, but that hardly means we should welcome such profound cultural differences that threaten our national unity. Some diversity is good, but taken as universal can be divisive and destructive. The statement that “all cultures are equal and equally enriching” is one that flatly contradicts reality. In terms of things that nearly all people want, such as freedom and prosperity, it is manifestly clear that some cultures provide them far better than others. Western countries, led by the United States, are a case in point. That’s why so many people around the world want to move here. If all cultures were truly equal, those people could find the satisfactions they want within their own cultures without leaving home.

Calvin Coolidge“American institutions rest solely on good citizenship, created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.” 

Claim: This land belongs to the American Indians. Only they have the right to set immigration policy.

Reply: Whoever truly believes this claim, should be the first to call for an end to immigration. Why allow more foreign thieves to come and take Indian land? Of course no one really believes this claim. It’s just a rhetorical cheap shot to denigrate immigration control by manipulating guilt about historic injustices done to Indians. Those were real and unfortunate, but dwelling on past moral failings should not keep us from living in the present and dealing with present realities. Today, American land belongs to Americans of all backgrounds, including American Indians. Allowing guilt to paralyze our will to make necessary decisions about immigration is gross irresponsibility, a patent evil which will jeopardize our country’s future. We can make up what we owe to Indians by treating them justly as citizens today, allowing them full participation in the American way of life.

Teddy Roosevelt“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

And, finally, an admonition on the whole concept of immigration from John Adams“Among the number of applications, cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?

If that sounds harsh, just realize the reality that if we wreck America with unwise immigration policies, we wreck it for our children and also for the rest of the world. There will be no shining city on a hill for throngs to aspire to.

That is the cost of foolish immigration policies, and the real harshness.


Peter B. Gemma is an award-winning freelance writer whose articles have appeared in the websites DailyCaller and AmericanThinker, as well as USA Today and the Washington Examiner.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Paul Dufour on Unsplash.

ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA NIXES TRUMP AD ABOUT DANGEROUS CARAVAN: Is there really no difference between a house-guest and a burglar?

On Monday November 5, 2018, NBC news posted a report, NBC, Fox News pull Trump immigration ad, Facebook blocks paid promotion. The online article included a tweet from Donald Trump, Jr which included a supposedly racist ad.

The article began with these two paragraphs:

NBC and Fox News said on Monday morning that they would no longer air an immigration ad from President Donald Trump that has been widely derided as racially divisive.

“After further review, we recognize the insensitive nature of the ad and have decided to cease airing it across our properties as soon as possible,” said Joe Benarroch, a spokesperson for NBC’s advertising sales department.

The article included this statement:

Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted that NBC, CNN and Facebook “have chosen to stand” with undocumented immigrants.

By standing with illegal aliens, these “news” organizations that refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have turned their backs on lawful immigrants and have harmed their reputation in the eyes of the American public.

We may be a “nation of immigrants” but we most certainly are not a nation of trespassers.

I urge you to watch the video. It simply references an illegal alien who killed two police officers in the United States and, in court, laughingly laments that he did not kill more cops! The commercial then shows the caravan heading to the United States and ends with President Trump promising to stop this invasion.

The preface of the official report 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

The local CBS radio station in New York City covered the report about the Trump ad by claiming that it reinforced negative stereotypes about immigrants.

On November 3, 2018 that local radio station (News Radio 880) posted an article, “Migrants In Caravan Respond To Trump: ‘We Are Not Killers,’” which reported on how many in the caravan were fleeing poverty in their home countries and gang violence.

One of the members of the caravan, identified as Marta Cuellos, a 40-year-old from Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, was quoted in the article:

Cuellos said she owned a cantina back home in Honduras but left because she could no longer make rent and was being harassed by police. She persuaded her 35-year-old sister to join her on the trip, and said the only thing they want is work and a better life in the United States. It’s her second attempt. She first crossed into the U.S. seven years ago but was deported last year.

The article blithely ignored that under the provisions of federal immigration statute 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then returns without authorization is committing a felony that carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, if that alien has committed serious crimes, the penalty for unauthorized re-entry carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. Cuellos never explained the grounds for her previous deportation, but in any event, what the media neglected to report was that she was heading to the United States to commit a crime, the crime of illegal re-entry.

Cuellos is certainly not the only alien in the caravan who was previously deported. In fact, on November 2, 2018 I was a guest on Dana Loesch’s, NRA-TV program Relentless to discuss the supposed “caravan of migrants” heading north from Central America to the United States.

My segment on Dana’s show began with an alien in the caravan being interviewed, during which he confessed to having been previously deported from the United States because he had been convicted of attempted murder in the third degree. He claimed that his purpose for joining the caravan was to come back to the United States to seek a pardon!

I recently wrote an article about the caravan with the unambiguous title, “The Threats Posed By The Impending Invasion.”

That article included this paragraph:

Nearly a year ago I wrote an article, “New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade, wherein I discussed the fact that the only reason that the Mexican drug cartels had decided to make the City of New York their central hub for their drug trafficking operations on the east coast was due, in large measure, to the sanctuary policies of New York City.

My article focused heavily on the drug smuggling activities of the Mexican Drug Cartels, particularly El Chapo’s Sinaloa Cartel, and how NYC’s “Sanctuary” policies emboldened the cartels to turn NYC into a major hub for drug trafficking notwithstanding the fact that the NYPD is the largest, best-equipped and -trained police departing in the United States.

Ironically, even as NBC and other mainstream news outlets derided President Trump’s ad and his public statements about the threats that illegal immigration pose to the United States, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the alleged leader of the highly violent Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel, was brought from his jail cell in lower Manhattan to the federal courthouse in downtown Brooklyn to begin the process of jury selection for his trial for a laundry list of felonies pertaining to drug trafficking and violent crimes he is alleged to have committed in the United States in furtherance of his criminal enterprises here.

The November 4, 2018 NBC reportNotorious ‘El Chapo’ Trial Begins in NYC Monday, begins with this excerpt:

He is accused of having a hand in dozens of murders, of using his drug cartel to smuggle more than 200 tons of cocaine into the United States, even pulling off running the massive operation from behind bars. That’s when he wasn’t busy escaping from jail — twice.

The almost-mythical criminal pedigree of Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who was extradited in 2017 to face U.S. drug conspiracy charges, has sparked security concerns at his upcoming New York City trial that at times have drawn as much attention as the case’s sensational allegations.

The article also reported:


At pretrial hearings leading to the trial, heavily armed federal officers and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolled outside. Anyone trying to attend the hearings was put through airport-style metal detectors at the courthouse entrance and at the door of the courtroom itself.

The judge also agreed with prosecutors that the jury for the case should be kept anonymous, a measure typical in terrorism or mob cases where jury intimidation is a concern.

No one’s hiding the ominous nature of the case from potential jurors. Questions for them on an initial screening form ask if they’ve ever heard of “El Chapo” along with, “Have you, or has anyone close to you, ever felt fearful of or threatened by people who you thought were associated with drug crimes?”

Jurors also will be escorted to and from the courthouse by federal officers and sequestered from the public while inside. As a reason, the judge cited prosecutors’ contention that Guzman’s cartel “employs ‘sicarios,’ or hit men, who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults and kidnappings.”

There are clear and well-founded concerns that cartel hitmen or “sicarios” have been able to infiltrate the United States to do El Chapo’s bidding. It is almost a certainty that any such criminals would have entered the United States by running the U.S./Mexican border and entering the United States without inspection.

All of the cocaine and other drugs “imported” into the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel were smuggled here by various means. However, the most likely means would be to smuggle them across the U.S./Mexican border.

Yet when President Trump insists that our borders, particularly the dangerous U.S./Mexican border, need to be secured to prevent the entry of members of the drug cartels, transactional gangs and international terrorist organizations, he is accused by the media as well as by his political adversaries of creating bad stereotypes about “immigrants.”

The media and politicians who refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens are actually responsible for discrediting lawful immigrants who patiently wait their turn on line and submit themselves to scrutiny in the lawful immigration process that, each and every year, generously admits approximately one million new lawful immigrants and immediately places them on the pathway to U.S. citizenship.

As I have noted on many, many occasions for the sake of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

The title of my recent article will serve as the summation for my article: “Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers Of Illegal Immigration.” But the Left attacks him for the picture it creates.

RELATED VIDEO: Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power – Prager University.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Trump Really Does Have The Authority To End Birthright Citizenship Through Executive Order!

On October 30, 2018, President Trump voiced his intent to end birthright citizenship through an executive order. To those on the left, his comment sounded outlandish and devoid of any attachment to reality.  To others, the comment was an expression of wishful thinking, or worse yet, a hollow political stunt.

Indeed, the President’s only defense of his claim when pressed was, “Now, they’re saying that I can.”

Well, who is they?  And to whom are they saying it?

Immediately, reporters and politicians alike responded with claims of the plan’s unconstitutionality.  On the same day that President Trump spoke of the idea, Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote that President Trump’s claim was at odds with the legal consensus.  Liptak reached back to the testimony of then Head Counsel for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Walter Dellinger, before Congress in 1995 who said, “Because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution.”  Similarly, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in an interview with “Larry Glover Live” on WVLK, “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

But like so many other things in law, innovative approaches and ideas that are in fact allowable become so only because the idea is viewed under the scrutiny of a different prism.  This case, I believe, is no exception.

Presidential Powers.

The powers of the President of the United States, and indeed the entirety of the executive branch, are defined in Article II of the Constitution of the United States.  The Framers made it perfectly clear in Article II, Section 3, that the President of the United States “. . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . .”

The mandate goes straight to the most elemental check upon the President, and indeed, the whole executive branch.  The President cannot create any new laws.  All the President has the power to do is make sure that statute passed by Congress, or authorities given to him by the Constitution, are carried out in a manner consistent with the statutes enacted by Congress and with the language contained within the Constitution.

As a matter of fact, the question of whether the President has the authority to write new laws has already been reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down.  In Clinton v. City of New York, U.S. (1998), the Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 giving the President the power to veto certain items in the budget if he so desired.  So strict was the interpretation of the prohibition upon the President to in any way alter a law presented to him or her by Congress, that even the mere alteration through a line-item veto was interpreted as giving the President the authority to amend the statute he was altering.  The power of amendment, the Court said, rested only with Congress, a signature feature of the Separation of Powers doctrine that colored the Constitution.  Any intrusion through amendment or line item veto by the executive was expressly prohibited.

So clearly, the President, and all departments of the executive branch are bound to the charter of faithfully executing the laws of the United States and may not alter them.

But interpreting the laws of the United States is an altogether different matter.  Both the executive branch and the President are continuously tasked with interpreting the laws passed by Congress.  Essentially, the President lacks any authority to do anything that either the Congress or the Constitution does not allow him to do.  But if Congress grants the executive the authority to carry out a particular task, then it is fundamental to the successful execution of that task that the President and the departments answerable to him interpret Congress’s mandate.

In certain areas, Congress has made perfectly clear what it is that they wish for the President or agencies to do. Elsewhere, Congress has not been specific, either because it purposely wished to give the authority of interpretation or policy design to the executive, or because it lacked the political will to pass the law inclusive of specific definitions or directions.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Language Regarding Birthright Citizenship.

In 1866, the country was reeling from the devastating effects of the Civil War.  The South lay in ruins.  The Democrat establishment inculcated in the southern states, although militarily defeated, was doing everything it could to maintain its old class and economic system. Although slavery had been outlawed and former slaves emancipated, southern Democrats were busy building roadblocks to the success of former slaves and African Americans in general.

Yes, slavery was no longer an option, but southern Democrats still had the Dred Scott decision at their disposal. In the most offensive Supreme Court ruling in American history, the Court in Dred Scott held that black Americans were not citizens of the United States, and that even if a state had afforded the person citizenship, such an act did not concurrently grant American, or federal citizenship.  In other words, merely because an individual of African descent was a citizen of a certain state, he or she still would not be considered an American citizen.  The post-war Southern States, under Democrat hands, aimed to capitalize on that still governing opinion.

The Reconstructionist Congress immediately took to rectify that situation and repeal the Dred Scott opinion.  It would do this through a Constitutional Amendment.  Congress had already outlawed slavery by passing and ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  Now, it was hard at work at correcting this latest affront to former slaves by fashioning an amendment that would accomplish five things:

  1. clarify that citizenship of the United States supersedes state citizenship;
  2. define who is a citizen of the United States;
  3. guarantee equal protection under the law to all citizens;
  4. guarantee due process rights to all citizens;
  5. and guarantee the same privileges and immunities to all citizens.

The result of their efforts was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, a rather voluminous addition addressing all the aforementioned issues.  Regarding who is recognized as a citizen of the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Notice that the Fourteenth Amendment does not state that all persons born in the United States are citizens, but rather, those who are born in the United States and who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

So, what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?

For that, we have information from debates and Supreme Court cases.  In the debates leading to the passage of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, some senators agreed that the phrase essentially meant “subject to full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.”  Consequently, the phrase was included to make sure that certain persons born in the United States would not be considered citizens. These included American Indians, foreign invaders, and foreign dignitaries, such that, for example, if a foreign dignitary were to find herself pregnant in the United States and gave birth to a baby on American soil, that child was not considered to be a citizen of the United States.

The question of the citizenship of a baby who was born on American soil to someone who found herself in the United States illegally was never contemplated.  Clearly, upon interpreting the language and the intent of the addition of the clause, it is clear that such an individual would not be subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States and would likely not have been intended to be a citizen of the United States according to the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

For the contrary interpretation we would have to go to the few cases decided by the Supreme Court where the Court dealt with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but whose circumstances were not identical to the questions posited by President Trump.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. (1898) was a case dealing with the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese, non-citizen immigrants.  In that case, the Court ruled that the child was indeed a citizen of the United States. The stickler here is that the baby’s parents, although non-citizens, had come to the United States and were residing within the United States, legally.

Contrarily, the Court held in Elk v. Wilkins, U.S. (1884) that the children of American Indians were not automatically considered citizens of the United States because, even though they were born on U.S. soil, the parents, by virtue of belonging to an American Indian tribe had not subjected themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

There are cases dealing with government benefits where courts, even the Supreme Court, have decided that the children of illegal immigrants born on American soil are eligible for benefits because they are citizens of the United States, but in such cases the courts began their analyses under the assumption that these children were citizens.  More to the point, the Court has never decided whether birthright citizenship is absolute and immutable under the Constitution, or whether it is subject to regulatory oversight.  In other words, the question of whether Congress or the executive can interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in such a manner that clarifies the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thereby limit certain classes of individuals from being citizens has never been entertained by the Court.

Congress Opens The Door To The President’s Executive Order.

Whether the President has the authority to make a policy interpretation directly from the language in the Constitution of the United States is an interesting discussion, but our analysis does not have to reach that question because in point of fact, Congress passed a statute codifying the citizenship clause within the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress in 1952 actually codifies the citizenship and naturalization provision of the Fourteenth Amendment in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). It reads, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . . ”  However, in it Congress did not define the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Consequently, so long as Congress fails to define the meaning of the clause, it falls upon the executive or the President to do so.  Therein lies the invitation by Congress for the President to interpret eligibility for birthright citizenship born to a person illegally in the United States. Admittedly, the judiciary may also interpret that phrase, but it can only do so in a case or controversy with standing where the actual question of the meaning of the phrase is at play. Additionally, even if the judiciary interprets the meaning of the statutory language, a definition put forth by the executive or Congress will supersede the judiciary’s definition.

However, if the judiciary were to interpret the meaning of the phrase as it is used in the Constitution then only a constitutional amendment could overturn the decision, which represents yet another example of why our nation is well served by the passage of a legislative override provision to a Supreme Court decision.

The Merits Of Ending Birthright Citizenship.

Having established that the President has the authority to end birthright citizenship by simply defining the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” should he?

I begin with the question of whether it should be done at all.  There are a number of arguments in favor of ending birthright citizenship. Perhaps the most compelling of these is that birthright citizenship serves as an incentive for illegal immigration. Unquestionably, many women would risk life or limb to have their children born in the United States just so that the baby would be a citizen of the United States.  The practice has many deleterious effects, not the least of which is increasing the number of American citizens with dual citizenship. Additionally, once the child is a citizen, it becomes much more difficult for authorities to deport the parents.  And finally, of course, the child born under these circumstances becomes the first link in the chain of migration that will naturally include his or her parents.

There are also real costs to illegal immigration.  Jon Feere, a policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies pointed out during his congressional hearing in 2015 that about 375,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, or one in 10 births.  Additionally, 71% of illegal alien households with children make use of welfare benefits. The aggregate costs of these programs run into the billions of dollars each year.   And bear in mind that in the developed world, only the United States and Canada honor birthright citizenships.

Who has the authority under the Constitution to end birthright citizenship?  Clearly, from our analysis, both Congress and the President have the authority to end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution.

So who should do it?

Congress, of course!  Congress is where such a robust discussion should rightfully take place.  But if Congress does not or cannot, then the responsibility falls upon the President.

If President Trump were to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, there is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will overrule him regardless of how the executive order is fashioned.  But if it does so based on a claim that the President lacks the authority to define a vague and previously undefined statutory clause, the Court will be glaringly guilty of two things.  First, it would be guilty of randomly and capriciously denying the President the authority to do something that is fundamental to his duties of faithfully executing the laws of the United States.  And second, the Supreme Court will be making a decision not on the inherent authorities granted to each branch of government as it should, but merely on its disdain towards the policy enacted, clearly a policy consideration outside of its own purview.

The President is correct in asserting his authority to interpret a nebulous congressional statute, even if the result is the end of birthright citizenship.  At the very least, doing so will force Congress to have the debate it should have had decades ago.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power

Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.

Click here to take a brief survey about this video.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

Trump Administration Returns to Supreme Court, Seeking End To DACA

  • The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review its decision to rescind the Obama-era DACA program Tuesday night.
  • The request is unusual, because legal challenges to DACA’s termination are still underway in the lower courts.
  • The Justice Department said the Court must act now to resolve the dispute this term, but left-leaning civil rights groups called the petition a political student ahead of Tuesday’s election. 

The Trump administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night seeking to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends protected status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children.

The move is aggressive and unusual, as decisions on Trump’s efforts to rescind DACA are still pending in several federal appeals courts, and the justices seldom take up cases before those judgments issue. But the U.S. Department of Justice told the Supreme Court Monday that action is needed in the near term.

The Trump administration previously sought the Supreme Court’s review of its efforts to phase out DACA. After two federal judges issued injunctions requiring the government to continue administering the program, the Justice Department bypassed normal appellate procedure and went directly to the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 to vindicate its right to terminate the program.

The justices rejected that request on Feb. 26, but asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to quickly process the case so it could return to the high court in a reasonable timeframe. Other challenges to DACA repeal efforts are currently before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C.

“It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case,” the Supreme Court’s February order read. No decision has since come from the circuit courts.

In a letter attending the government’s petition, Solicitor General Noel Francisco explained that the high court should take the cases now — even though the appeals courts have yet to render decisions on the matter — to ensure the justices can resolve the dispute during the current term.

“As this Court’s previous order recognized, prompt consideration of these cases is essential,” the letter reads. “By virtue of the district courts’ orders, DHS is being required to maintain a discretionary policy of non-enforcement sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million individuals.”

“Yet, absent prompt intervention from this Court, there is little chance this dispute will be resolved for at least another year,” the letter adds.

Paulina Ruiz chants with supporters of the DACA program on Olivera Street in Los Angeles, California. REUTERS/Kyle Grillot

Paulina Ruiz chants with supporters of the DACA program on Olivera Street in Los Angeles, California. REUTERS/Kyle Grillot

On the merits of the dispute, the Trump administration contends that its decision to terminate DACA cannot be reviewed in court, since the program exists entirely at the executive branch’s discretion. Even if its termination decision is reviewable, they continue, it is still reasonable and lawful.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights denounced the move as an “election eve stunt.”

“The day before an election that will have huge implications for this administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his Department have shamelessly asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appellate courts in their quest to end DACA,” said Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference. “This administration is in a rush to pull the rug out from under Dreamers and subject them to deportation. This extraordinary move is blatantly cruel to immigrant youth who call this country their home and contribute to their communities.”

“The Supreme Court must reject this politically motivated and unnecessary request,” she added.

But Sessions said that the 9th Circuit left the administration with little choice.

“The Department of Justice should not have been forced to make this filing today — the 9th Circuit should have acted expeditiously, just as the Supreme Court expected them to do,” the AG said Monday night. “But we will not hesitate to defend the constitutional system of checks and balances vigorously and resolutely.”

DACA extends temporary legal status to approximately 700,000 migrants, and allows them to obtain work permits.


Kevin Daley

Kevin J. Daley is the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Supreme Court reporter. Follow Kevin on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Weighs Bid To Open Nation’s Largest Uranium Mine

Send tips to

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Meeting the Caravan With Common Sense

It’s sad to see the debate over the migrant caravan break down into the usual polarized camps. You’re either pro-immigrant and therefore willing to let anyone in, or you’re anti-immigrant and you want to slam the door in the face of anyone, right?

Wrong. The phrase “My fellow immigrants” certainly rings true for me, as it does for countless other Americans. In the 1870s, my forebears came to the land of opportunity, worked their way westward to Chicago, and lived their dream.

Today, there are more listings for “Feulner” in the Chicago phone book than in southern Germany, where my ancestors came from. (Although a quick computer search tells me that Markus Feulner is a star footballer for the Augsburg team. Clearly, “Cousin Markus” didn’t get his football genes from me.)

This isn’t a question about being unwilling to welcome newcomers. It’s about how we do it. For my ancestors—on both sides of our family—and millions of others, there was only one way to enter America: legally.

A sovereign nation is defined by specific territorial limits. Limits are borders, and borders must be real—that is, secure. A country without borders, sooner or later, will cease to be a country altogether.

That’s why there are processes and procedures for those who wish to enter our great land, either to visit or to become a citizen. We don’t just leave the door propped up.

In the words of a former U.S. president, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”

Hmm, you may be wondering, what hard-core conservative said that? Barack Obama. Surprised? The difference is that he said it when he was a senator, back when he and his fellow liberals were a bit more willing to speak truthfully about this subject.

Fast forward to 2018, and many of the same people who echoed Obama’s sentiment happily denounce anyone unwilling to throw the border open to the 7,000-plus migrant caravan wending its way north through Mexico.

Consider what Marc McGovern, mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts, says: “Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees. These are people who really are facing real problems, and we have to let them through.”

Some people may find themselves swayed by this emotional appeal, but it’s dangerous. Our nation has specific laws in place when it comes to asylum—laws that are typically reserved for instances of state-based repression.

Is that the case here? Maybe, but the point is that we have procedures in place to carefully determine such things. We don’t simply say, “Aww, those poor people. Just let them in.”

McGovern and others can say what they want, content to score political points because they’re publicly opposing President Donald Trump. But immigration officials can’t worry about being fashionable, or politically correct. They’re required by law to put the safety of Americans first.

The irony is, Trump’s critics don’t even seem to consider that South American left-wing parties may be manipulating the poor people in this migrant caravan.

“The timing before the U.S.’ midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental,” Latin America expert Ana Quintana says. “It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”

Those of us who care about both Americans and would-be Americans are called to a higher standard.

We should never fail to welcome those who wish to enter legally and become true Americans. But we must never allow our compassion to override our common sense, or let us forget that we’re a nation of laws—for the liberty and protection of all.

Originally published by The Washington Times.


Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Esteban Biba/EFE/Newscom.

Democrats Care About Illegal Aliens, Not You

A buddy shared a heart-wrenching story with me during dinner. His mom was killed Christmas Eve by a drunk driver illegal alien. The illegal had been caught 4 times driving drunk by police, never deported. My buddy is number 9 of his amazing mom’s 13 kids. She was old school Italian, waking up 3:00 AM five days a week to bake fresh bread and prepare meals for their family. Dad cooked on weekends.

Christmas Eve 2002, she decided to make a quick run to the store for a few ingredients she needed to bake pies. You can imagine the devastating horror their family felt upon being notified by police that their mother had been killed.

The illegal alien drunk driver received 7 years and only served 3 and half years. Two of my buddy’s brothers attended the illegal alien’s parole hearing to keep him behind bars to no available. The multiple offender illegal alien drunk driver was set free to roam the streets of America, not deported.

Watching my buddy struggle to maintain his composure, my heart went out to him. I thought, “Why is all of mainstream media’s and Democrats’ compassion and sympathy always given to illegals and nothing for Americans?”

While strolling with her dad on a San Francisco pier, 32 year old Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien. Kate’s killer had a long criminal record. Deported 5 times and a 7 times convicted felon, the sanctuary city repeatedly welcomed back the illegal with open arms who eventually murdered Kate Steinle. A liberal San Francisco jury found Kate’s killer not guilty. President Trump said their verdict was disgraceful. Kate’s dad recalls her last words as he held her in his arms. “Help me, Dad.”

San Francisco politicians, mainstream media and Democrats celebrated the leftist jury’s outrageous not guilty verdict. These leftists did not express an once of sympathy for American citizen Kate Steinle and her family.

Sixteen year old Kayla Cuevas was brutally murdered by MS-13 gang members who illegally invade our country. Did Democrat Nancy Pelosi express an ounce of sympathy for Kayla’s mom, Evelyn Rodriguez? No. Pelosi angrily attacked Trump for calling MS-13 gang members animals. No compassion or sympathy for Americans.

Folks, I could fill this article with incidences in which American lives have been devastated by illegal repeat criminals and illegal gangs coddled by Democrats who run sanctuary cites.

Democrat California governor Jerry Brown actually signed a bill making California a “sanctuary state.” Brown’s bill says his state will not cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement, putting American lives at risk. Why is Brown gifting illegals rights while denying the rights of his American constituents? While Californians struggle to find housing, Brown is assisting illegals with housing. Illegals in California receive college tuition and numerous other benefits unavailable to legal citizens.

Democrat governor Bruce Rauner has officially made Illinois a “sanctuary state” for illegals. Why are Democrat governor’s digging in their heels, ignoring federal law to roll out the red carpet for people who arrogantly and boldly break our immigration laws? These illegals have no desire to embrace our American culture. They drain our welfare system and receive benefits unavailable to U.S. citizens.

So why are mainstream media and Democrats obsessed with opening our borders for the free flow of illegals and getting them addicted to government freebies? One reason is we have allowed old hippies to indoctrinate our kids in public schools for decades. This has created a generation which believes America is the greatest source of evil in the world; founded by white straight Christian men who stole everything from the rest of the world. Our youths believe it is morally unjust for America to have borders. We must share what we stole with the rest of the world.

Insidiously, the second reason why Democrats desire to flood the country with illegals is to gain political power. Legal immigrants have contributed greatly to our culture. The vast majority of illegals are unskilled workers easily seduced by Democrat politicians who promise to take care of them. Democrats will do to illegals what they have done to blacks for decades – give them just enough to keep them poor, on welfare and faithfully voting for Democrats.

This is why mainstream media and Democrats pretend to have all the compassion and sympathy in the world for illegals while ignoring the dire consequence coddling illegals has on the lives of Americans.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Tayla Kohler on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Border Patrol Warns Texas Landowners About ‘Possible Armed Civilians’ In Area Due To Caravan

Former INS Agent Michael Cutler joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.


The Caravan v. Donald Trump

UPDATE BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Team Beto Assists Caravan Aliens

UnidosUS, Former La Raza Group, Pushes For Open Borders For Refugee Caravan

RELATED VIDEO: Caravan migrants file class-action lawsuit against Trump