If Liberals Were Animals, it Would be an Improvement

If liberals were animals, if would be a marked improvement. For one thing, animals don’t lie.

Ever since President Trump characterized MS-13 gang members as “animals,” Democrats have been playing dumb (when they haven’t actually been dumb) for political gain. What started with some fake news outlets purposely misrepresenting Trump’s remarks and others sloppily parroting the deception, has degenerated into the comical: leftists trying to save face and gain votes by cynically claiming they’re offended that anyone would do violence to the principle of the dignity of all human persons. Why, Nancy Pelosi, a poo-bah of prenatal infanticide posing as a latter-day St. Thomas Aquinas, actually lectured us about how every person has a “divine spark.”

Question: Does anyone really think Trump’s remarks were a theological statement about the nature of man or, even, about the worst among his number? Are we analyzing political comments or a seminary lecture?

Not to be outdone, CNN commentator Ana Navarro wasn’t deterred in her condemnation of the president by the fact that two years ago she herself had characterized Trump as an animal; she furthermore said that he “should drop out of the human race.” But, hey, children do tend to live in the here and now.

Speaking of which, a corollary of Democrats’ situational values is, obviously, situational interpretation: All of a sudden they’ve conveniently developed an inability to recognize, or to accept, figurative speech. Any conservative who doesn’t talk like Mr. Spock is to now be reviled.

We’ve seen this before. After the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), Sarah Palin was condemned for using crosshairs imagery in a political ad. Yet nothing was said about how Barack Obama stated that he talked to certain people so he’d know “whose a** to kick”; he also advised in 2008, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

This is all figurative speech, of course. Yet Democrats, the first to condemn and mock fundamentalism, have done William Jennings Bryan one better: They insist on literalism when interpreting spoken words.

Ironic (and pathetic) here is that Democrats’ violent and vulgar tongues have led to actual crimes against traditionalists, such as the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council’s offices and the 2017 congressional baseball shooting.

The truth is that umbrage over the animals remark is posturing and delusion. Leftists will do anything to attain power, and this is another way to play the identity politics card. “Trump means all Hispanics!” is the narrative. (Now we just have to wait for the solidarity driven chant, “I am MS-13!”) Some liberals, though, have no doubt really convinced themselves that such talk is wrong; never forget that leftists live in the moment and in a world of rationalization.

In the former but not the latter, they are a bit like animals. But what beasts would they be? Would Ana Navarro be a weasel? Would Pelosi be a kookaburra (also known as a laughing jacka**)? Chris Cuomo a peacock? Hillary a Tasmanian devil and Bill a horny toad?

The final irony here is that liberals tend to embrace godless evolution and generally believe that people are nothing but animals. Yet as the brilliant G.K. Chesterton put it, “Man is an exception.” He “is always something worse or something better than an animal[.]” So true. And I think we know which free-will-abusing people are keeping MS-13 gangsters company in the worse category.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

VIDEO: The Suicide of Europe

Europe is committing suicide. How did this happen?

The civilization born of ancient Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christian values, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment is staring at the abyss, brought there by its own hand. To put it starkly: Europe is committing suicide. How did this happen? In this week’s video, Douglas Murray, author of The Strange Death of Europe, explains the two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall.

California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Laws Aren’t Pro-Immigrant—and Local Leaders Are Pushing Back

Illegal immigration along America’s Southwest border surged 230 percent in April compared to last year, according to a report issued by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month. That statistic accompanied news that a caravan of about 2,000 migrants from Central America started arriving at a U.S. port of entry in southern California.

Together, these reports reveal the lack of an orderly and fair process to manage the escalating flow of both illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers to the United States. That flawed system creates both a humanitarian and a national security crisis at our border.

Yet America’s immigration challenge does not end at our doorstep. Because of “sanctuary city” jurisdictions—many recently emboldened by new State laws in California—law enforcement officers face dangerous obstacles to protecting our communities from the effects of a broken immigration system.

Under the guise of being pro-immigrant, these jurisdictions privilege a small group of criminals at the expense of the safety and well-being of American citizens, law enforcement, and law-abiding immigrants.

Here’s how it works. Sanctuary cities are State or local jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement, often by rejecting “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or refusing to tell ICE when criminal aliens are scheduled for release. If a suspected illegal alien commits a crime, ICE will issue a detainer to request that the jurisdiction notify ICE prior to releasing the criminal, that the criminal be held for up to 48 hours after their planned release to allow for questioning and possible removal, and that the jurisdiction safely transfer custody to ICE.

State and local law enforcement agencies routinely detain suspects for violating Federal laws at the request of Federal authorities. When sanctuary cities refuse to comply with these requests, law enforcement officers must carry out immigration enforcement duties in workplaces, residences, and in the streets—far more dangerous environments to engage a criminal suspect.

In effect, these jurisdictions assert a special exemption from Federal law. The consequences of their decisions, of course, do not remain in their own backyards. They spill over into other communities across the country.

President Donald J. Trump and other Administration officials have recently highlighted a number of troubling examples:

  • Nery Estrada-Margos was arrested last year in California on charges of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant, only to be released just days later in defiance of Federal immigration authorities. He was arrested a couple of weeks later as a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend, Veronica Cabrera Ramirez.
  • In November 2016, San Francisco Police arrested Santos Lopez-Avila for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges. Lopez had been deported three times and had previous convictions relating to drug dealing. Last year, he was arrested again in San Francisco, whose authorities did not honor ICE’s request for a detainer. He remains at-large.
  • New York City Police arrested Kendel Felix, a citizen of St. Lucia and a national of the United Kingdom, on various criminal charges in 2012 and 2013. Despite an immigration detainer lodged by ICE, he was released in April 2013. He was convicted in September 2016 of a kidnapping/abduction resulting in death.
  • San Francisco Police arrested an illegal alien and alleged gang member more than 10 times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, assault, and robbery. ICE requested to have the individual transferred to its custody multiple times. On each occasion, that request was denied.

“The State of California is sheltering dangerous criminals in a brazen and lawless attack on our Constitutional system of government,” President Trump said. “Every state in our Union is subject to the laws and Constitution of the United States.”

To that end, the Department of Justice has filed legal action against three California laws. These policies intentionally obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration law, regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with Federal authorities, and impede consultation and communication between Federal and State officials. The laws both endanger State residents and introduce confusion for local law enforcement.

“We constantly have to second-guess ourselves,” Capt. Derrick Hesselein, commander of the Santa Rita Jail in California, told The Washington Post.

On May 16, President Trump met with local California officials at the White House to discuss their recent efforts to push back against California’s “sanctuary state” status. Many of these community leaders underscored that they are bound first and foremost to the U.S. Constitution, not California State law. Their goal is simple: protect their constituents.

“They’re releasing these criminals, not by their houses. They’re not releasing them by their houses. They’re releasing them by our houses,” San Jacinto Mayor Crystal Ruiz said. “Every day we’re getting more and more reports from the police department about how they can’t arrest these people.”

While the Administration is taking every step in its power to confront the danger of sanctuary cities, Attorney General Jeff Sessions once again called on Congress to pass real, lasting immigration reform.

“This is the year that we have to move Congress,” the Attorney General said, citing efforts to clear the hurdles that prevent law enforcement officers from doing their job. “This time, let’s not come up short.”

RELATED STUDY: MS-13 Resurgence: Immigration Enforcement Needed to Take Back Our Streets

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump: We Need Merit-Based Immigration to Fill Jobs in Growing Economy

Arizona Border Ranchers Live in Fear as Illegal Immigration Crisis Worsens

More than half a million illegal immigrants of several dozen nationalities have been apprehended on John Ladd’s sprawling cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. Ladd has also found 14 dead bodies on his 16,500-acre farm, which has been in his family for well over a century and sits between the Mexican border and historic State Route 92.

The property shares a 10 ½-mile border with Mexico, making it a popular route for human and drug smugglers evading a meager force of Border Patrol agents in the mountainous region. “As big as that number sounds, many more got away,” said National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd of the hundreds of thousands arrested on Ladd’s parcel. Judd spent a chunk of his decades-long career with the agency patrolling the area and he knows it well. “It’s gotten more violent. It’s gotten worse.”

As part of an ongoing investigation into the critical security issues created by the famously porous southern border, Judicial Watch visited frustrated ranchers and residents in Sierra Vista, a Cochise County town located 75 miles southeast of Tucson with a population of around 44,000.

The town sits in the picturesque Sonoran Desert and is surrounded by the scenic Huachuca Mountains. Illegal immigrants and drug smugglers are devastating the area and many longtime residents live in fear. Some are too scared to enjoy a simple pastime—horseback riding on their own land. “I can’t guarantee there’s not a dead body somewhere in my ranch right now,” said Ladd pointing to his property as he stood in front of the U.S. government’s border fence, an area known as the “shit ditch” because illegal immigrants use it as a toilet and trash can.

Sporting a thick gray mustache and a dapper cowboy hat, Ladd said 200 to 300 illegal aliens are caught daily passing through his property. “We don’t have any control of the border,” he said. “I see it every day.”

A 60-foot wide dirt road, known as a federal easement, separates Ladd’s ranch from Mexico. Some portions have an 18-foot iron fence along the border that Ladd says illegal immigrants “easily climb with a pack of dope.” Other sections have a laughable wire fence that has been repeatedly penetrated with vehicles speeding through from Mexico.

Some areas have been visibly patched where holes were carved out for passage. The fence is such a joke that the Border Patrol installed concrete barriers along a busy two-mile stretch across the 60-foot dirt road, right in front of the barb wire barrier on Ladd’s property line to stop smugglers. “Smugglers even put a hydraulic ramp, so a car or truck could blow through,” Ladd said.

He estimates that around 70% of the traffic that comes through his ranch is human smuggling and 30% is drug smuggling. In the last three years most of the illegal border crossers have been central American, Ladd said. The veteran rancher first became concerned with the unprotected border decades ago because sick Mexican cows threatened his herd.

The problem became more serious over the years. “First it was Mexican cows, then people, then dope,” Ladd said. “Now it’s really bad.” Ladd has traveled to the nation’s capital seven times to bring attention to the crisis in Sierra Vista, but Washington bureaucrats have failed to take any action.

Instead, the federal government has placed ineffective or faulty surveillance equipment in the region that smugglers easily evade. “The smugglers know the radio range and avoid it,” Judd said, adding that cameras are installed in the wrong spot and don’t have great resolution.

Judicial Watch staffers pictured with John Ladd

On a hill adjacent to Ladd’s ranch stands an imposing camera tower that could never capture illegal border crossers because its view is completely blocked by a sea of lush trees below. The government spent $1.3 million on the useless equipment and never bothered to study the terrain’s impact on the technology.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) simply installed the equipment based on a predetermined formula that separates the cameras by a fixed number of miles without considering the landscape, according to Judd. “They didn’t do any research on the topography,” he said. These kinds of failures frustrate local ranchers, who feel increasingly threatened by the barrage of illegal crossers rampaging through their property. With both thumbs resting on his thick, bronze belt buckle, Ladd looked up at the pointless camera tower smiling and quipped: “Now that’s a big boondoggle right there, a total waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Another troubled property owner, John Guerrero, took Judicial Watch on a nighttime tour of a nearby smuggling route that is inexplicably unprotected. The dirt road runs through the Coronado National Forest and Guerrero, a retired U.S. Army Ranger and intelligence officer who served in Iraq and Somalia, has felt the impact of the government’s failure to adequately guard it.

Five strands of barb wire serve as the physical boundary between the U.S. and Mexico in a remote portion of the park, which is closed to the public at night and is heavily transited by drug and human smugglers. Illegal immigration has had such a devastating impact on the area that Guerrero wrote a book offering detailed anecdotes of what he and his family endure because they live near the Mexican border. This includes drugs and illegal immigrants piling into vehicles on the road adjacent to his four-acre property and ultralight aircraft flying near his rooftop, just above the trees, en route to make a drug drop. “Local residents are increasingly fearful,” Guerrero said.

The event that has most impacted Guerrero occurred when smugglers burned down a beloved chapel, Our Lady of the Sierras, situated on a hill across the road from his home. A 75-foot Celtic cross outside the chapel remains lit through the night and serves as a navigational tool for smugglers and the grounds are regularly used to transfer drugs.

In 2011, illegal immigrant smugglers started the fire along the border to escape the Border Patrol during a pursuit. Besides the chapel, which has since been rebuilt, the fire destroyed nearly 30,000 acres and dozens of homes. Guerrero and his family were forced to evacuate. Widespread media coverage omitted that illegal immigrants were responsible for the fire, but a local news station finally reported that the Cochise County Sheriff confirmed the fire started 200 yards north of the Mexican border in an area known as Smuggler’s Gulch. “There was absolutely no mention by the federal government as to the true origin of the fire,” Guerrero said.

Judd, who heads the union that represents some 16,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, says the border can be secured. “There has to be political will to secure the border,” he said. The frontline agency had tremendous faith that the Trump administration would finally get the job done, but the stats tell a different story.

Shortly after Trump became president there was a dip in the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. through Mexico, Judd said. However, “by April 2018 we were back to the Obama high of illegal border crossers,” Judd confirmed. Sierra Vista residents like Ladd and Guerrero continue to suffer the consequences of anemic border control and worry about the crime that has infested their once-idyllic town.

The problem is so rampant that Ladd often sees smuggling spotters from his property on the nearby mountains in the Mexican side. “They’re right there every day,” he said. “They live in camps and have solar generators. Their job is to look out.” Residents in Sierra Vista feel no one is looking out for them.

RELATED ARTICLE: Meet the ‘Never Trump’ Republicans Trying to Force a DACA Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Who Are America’s Friends?

Have you ever been out to a large family dinner at a restaurant? Typically someone picks up the check for the entire party, such as a rich uncle. During the meal, he is kidded and listened to, but he is always expected to pick up the bill, with tip. It gets interesting when, one day, the family sits down at the table and the waiter asks who will be taking care of the bill at the end of the meal. The family is aghast when the uncle speaks up and says, “Separate checks.” Suddenly, the uncle isn’t quite so funny anymore, nor do people listen to him during the meal; in fact, he is ostracized and accused of being cheap. This pretty much describes America’s relationship with other countries.

On May 8th, President Trump announced the United States was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. This sent shock waves through our European allies as they had hoped we would stay in it, believing the Iranians would keep their end of the bargain and not develop nuclear weapons down the road. Mr. Trump didn’t read it the same way and saw it as producing long-term problems. It must be remembered this agreement was never ratified as a treaty by the Senate as the Obama administration didn’t want to see the Congress upset one of his landmark achievements.

Following America’s withdrawal, protests were formed in Iran, American flags were burned, and “Death to America,” was chanted by protesters and members of the Iranian parliament. Then again, this was also done when the agreement was first signed, so nothing has really changed; the Iranians never did like us, and probably never will.

This is another example of Mr. Trump’s “Big Stick” foreign policy where we no longer cajole countries into trying to see things our way. Whereas other presidents hoped to entice countries into working together, Mr. Trump is more results oriented, likely because of his business background. Time and again he has been using his “America First” mantra as an intricate part of his foreign policy.

We have used the “carrot and stick” approach for many years, but what did we get in return, loyalty? Hardly. For example, in December 2017, the United Nations held a resolution disapproving of America’s recent decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, something many past presidents had promised to do, yet failed to deliver. The vote passed 128-9 with 35 countries abstaining. Among those countries voting against the United States included our “friends,” the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

Others also voted against the United States, including many receiving generous foreign aid from America, including:

(From FY2017) –

Afghanistan – $977M
Bangladesh – $179M
Brazil – $25M
Congo – $395M
Cuba – $7.3M
Egypt – $143M
Ethiopia – $939M
Ghana – $167M
Iraq – $529M
Jordan – $813M
Lebanon – $116M
Libya – $64M
Nepal – $181M
Nigeria – $684M
Pakistan – $485M
Somalia – $416M
South Africa – $360M
Sudan – $151M
Viet Nam – $81M
West Bank/Gaza (Palestine Auth) – $285M
Yemen – $573M
Zimbabwe – $154M


In all, $21B was spent on foreign aid last year, which is used for such things as disasters, poverty relief, technical cooperation on global issues, including the environment, U.S. bilateral interests, and socioeconomic development. However, this does not include military aid which would probably double the figures shown. Yet, all of these countries voted against the United States, thereby creating an embarrassing moment for us.

If you study the individual donations listed here, which is only a partial list, one can only wonder if there is a better way of spending this money, particularly in our own country instead of giving it to our “friends.” Don’t we still have a national debt?

In refuting the resolution, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said,

“The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”

The Palestinian Authority has declared it will not with work the Trump administration in peace talks because of the Jerusalem decision, and will negotiate with other parties instead. Fine. I’m sure they will not need the $285 million they are currently receiving from our country.

Countries ask their rich “Uncle Sam” for money for a variety of reasons, such as to cooperate with American military policy, payola, and because they desperately need it. Whatever the reason, they have to learn to play ball with the administration. A vote against the United States, such as what happened at the United Nations, should be felt in the pocket book.

We would like to believe the European countries are our friends, particularly the United Kingdom. The truth is, it is a myth. Even Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the Philippines, long considered friendly to the United States, opted to abstain as opposed to rejecting the UN resolution outright. We should know by now, the other countries only want deals favoring their countries, and not our own. This is what Mr. Trump has been warning us about since he began to run for president. There is nothing wrong in helping others in time of need, but it should come with the stipulation they will support us in return. Otherwise, it is a Win-Lose proposition and as our president can tell you, the only good business relationship is when both parties prosper.

Keep the Faith!

P.S., Be sure to see my video, “The PRIDE Renewal Tour,” on YouTube.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hamas Turmoil in Gaza is a Reflection of a Deeper Development in the Arab World

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured image is of Iranians holding anti-Israel and anti-U.S. placards during a protest in Tehran. (AFP/Getty Images)

Migration Madness Syndrome

Europe’s Elite want their citizens to believe open borders and migration from Islamic countries will solve their need for a future workforce due to a shrinking population. I call their bluff. If they need workers, why not get them from the poorer parts of the EU–Romania, Bulgaria, Greece? This isn’t about guest workers. This is about the Left securing a voting block so they can be voted into office in perpetuity.  Islam makes for a perfect partner in their endeavor to achieve political dominance. Both conspire to tear down society and rebuild their Utopian ideal. What the Left doesn’t realize is when Islam ultimately takes power, as it tends to do, the last laugh will be on the them, just as it was with the Tudeh Party in Iran. In the end, Islam has no loyalty to Kafirs, only to Allah and Mohammed.

To understand Islamic migration today, it is imperative to understand the concept of hijra. The hijra dates to the time of Mohammed when he left Mecca and moved to Medina where he became a warlord and politician. Mohammed’s migration, or hijra, is so important to the success of Islam that it is the basis for the Islamic calendar.

Hijra is a form of soft jihad and is quite effective for spreading Islam.

Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki stated, referring to doctrine: “Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim…it is your duty to find ways to practice it and support it.” He then lists 44 ways to support jihad. In #36 Preparing for Hijrah, al-Awlaki quotes Mohammed: “Hijrah does not stop as long as there is an enemy to fight”.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind, said, “the practical way to defeat America is through immigration and “outbreeding non-Muslims”.  These jihadists are not creating new ideas. They are repeating 1400 year old doctrine.

The bottom line: Hijra is a tactic to pave the way for Sharia.

Ultimately, the danger of migration is not that there will be too many unemployed workers draining welfare dollars from the state, but it’s that Sharia supremacists will keep Islamicizing the EU.  These guest workers aren’t going home. They have a religious duty to stay and fulfill the doctrine. Their loyalty is to Allah and Mohammed, not to the Kafir countries of the West. History has shown that once a nation is invaded by Islam, it will become 100% Islamic, unless driven out.

What is the solution?

We must wake up to the true nature of the problem. The doctrine of the Left says we aren’t nice enough, we need more programs, we need to integrate migrants better–the fault is always ours. I happen to agree that the fault is with us, but it is due to our ignorance, not our lack of virtue.

Once we understand the problem is the Islamic doctrine, then we can make proper plans for solutions, like changing migration laws, citizenry laws, instituting zero tolerance for Sharia, etc. In the meantime, churches and everyday people need to push back. We can’t wait for the government Elite.

Society can use social pressure like a weapon. We need to make fun of Sharia, use shame and humor. Islam reacts to shame and humor like a weed to poison. When a society can make Mohammed jokes, we win. It’s that simple. As soon as we become a citizenry of blasphemers, the problem solves itself.  This is key: to reverse Islamization, it must entail mass civil disobedience against censorship and oppression of freedom of thought, not just a few brave souls.

We must never give up. We must come out of the closet and face our fears. We can prevail and must because our civilization and freedoms are too precious to lose. Stand up Europe. Do not let North Africa and Arabia be your destiny.


The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States

Minnesota Somalis: You’re old and we are taking over

RELATED VIDEO: To learn more about hijra, watch video Hijra: Islamic Migration

Tennessee Refugee Resettlement Decision Appealed — A Fight For State Sovereignty

ANN ARBOR, MI – Informed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ observation that, “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it,” Tennessee has authorized the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) to appeal the dismissal of its lawsuit which challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. Although Tennessee officially withdrew from this federal program in 2007, the federal government continues, to this day, to commandeer state tax dollars to fund it.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed an appeal of the federal district court decision which dismissed its case. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens, challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program as a violation of the principles of State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The Notice of Appeal was filed this morning with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The appeal will be heard by a panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “We are grateful to the designated representatives of the General Assembly, State Representatives Terri Lynn Weaver and William Lamberth and State Senator John Stevens, for authorizing us to continue this significant legal battle. This case involves critical constitutional issues regarding the appropriate balance between the powers of the federal government and the states. The district court decision dismissing this case conflicts with several U.S. Supreme Court opinions upholding State sovereignty against overreach by the federal government.”

TMLC’s original lawsuit, which sought to permanently ban the federal government from forcing Tennessee to fund the refugee resettlement program out of its own treasury, was filed in March 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The lawsuit was authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 467, which passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. On March 19, 2018, a federal district court judge granted the Department of Justice motion to dismiss the case. State Representatives Terri Lynn Weaver and William Lamberth and State Senator John Stevens, as the designated representatives of the General Assembly, after consultation with the Thomas More Law Center lawyers, authorized an appeal of the decision. All the Law Center’s legal services are without charge.

Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and State sovereignty.  In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

As Tennessee’s own President Andrew Jackson declared in his March 4, 1837 Farewell Address: “[E]very friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the States and to confine the action of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, however, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, eliminated entirely.  The states thereby became responsible for the immense costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

Currently, Tennessee State revenues that could otherwise be used for State programs to help Tennesseans are appropriated by the federal government to support the federal refugee resettlement program. This arrangement displaces Tennessee’s constitutionally mandated funding prerogatives and appropriations process.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2018 Thomas More Law Center, All rights reserved.

U.S. says no to Iranians and Somalis in refugee deal with Australia

I’ve been having computer problems so this is going to be a quickie update on the “dumb” Australia refugee deal that we should never have entered in to with the Australian government.
Trump and Turnbull

In January of 2017, Trump should have said NO! to the outrageous Obama arrangement for us to take off the Australians’ hands 1,250 of their detained refugee wannabes.

So now this is all dragging out with the Lefty press taking shots at the US each step of the way.

Here is the latest at The Guardian:

Australia’s refugee deal ‘a farce’ after US rejects all Iranian and Somali asylum seekers

Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban is influencing Australia’s offshore processing system – with all Iranian and Somali refugees rejected for resettlement in the US.

The third version of Donald Trump’s travel ban bars or limits entry to citizens of five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – as well as North Korea. The ban’s constitutionality is currently being considered by the supreme court but is currently in effect.

About 150 refugees held in offshore processing on the island of Nauru have appointments with US officials this week, where they will discover final assessments of whether they have been accepted by America. So far, every Iranian and Somali applicant has been rejected.

But, remember dear readers the fake refugees we are taking in the Australian deal are mostly single men from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Burma (Rohingya Muslims).

The Australian government has promoted the US resettlement deal as its solution to offshore processing but, for more than a year, it has conceded that the US deal cannot clear the camps.

Thus far, 85 refugees have been resettled from Manus and 162 from Nauru. US officials hope to finalise the resettlement deal by October, when its annual resettlement quota restarts.
ian Rintoul.jpgMore than 500 refugees are expected to be left on the island of Nauru even if the US fulfils its entire commitment of 1,250 places.


Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Coalition said the US resettlement had been “revealed to be a farce”.

“Iranian refugees account for around a third of all refugees on Nauru,” he said. “It is just not possible for all Iranians to be rejected on any legitimate basis.

“While Trump says there is no official ban on Iranians and Somalis, it is now very clear that the US administration is imposing an unofficial ban. It is not a coincidence that all Iranians are being rejected.

“Turnbull’s phone call to Trump is coming back to haunt him. Turnbull told Trump that he didn’t have to accept anyone; now Trump is taking him at his word.”

That phone call is haunting all of us!

Continue reading here.

See my archive on the “dumb” Australia deal by clicking here.  If anyone is interested in following this topic to its very beginning, you will find the information archived here at RRW.

What you can do!

You have probably done it already, but it can’t hurt to let the President know again that he can still shut this down! He is setting a terrible precedent with this highly unorthodox arrangement for refugee resettlement, plus he isn’t keeping us safe by simply blocking the Iranians and Somalis while taking the Afghans, Pakistanis and Rohingya Muslims!

And, to top it off, just as this article makes clear, the media is going to use this whole dumb deal to further bash Trump!

See how to contact the White House in the upper right hand column of RRW.

RELATED ARTICLE: Organization of Islamic Cooperation wants international pressure on Burma over Rohingya Muslims

In Eric Schneiderman’s Fall, Trump Resistance Loses ‘Ringleader’

Just two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was coming off a legal victory against the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda for fuel efficiency standards.

“As we’ve proven again and again, when the Trump administration puts special interests before public health and our environment, we’ll take them to court—and we will win,” Schneiderman said April 23.

And Saturday, Schneiderman boasted about taking on the Trump administration in a tweet with comic book art presenting him as a superhero.

But Monday evening, the Democrat resigned as New York attorney general amid allegations that he had beaten and physically abused four women.

The sudden fall came just hours after he announced plans to lead eight state attorneys general in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.

First elected to his post in 2010 after eight years in the state Senate and seen as a contender for governor, Schneiderman made himself a leading figure among states challenging some of Trump’s biggest initiatives.

Touting his lawsuits against the Trump administration on the travel ban, environmental issues, immigration, and other matters, Schneiderman embraced his stature as a “resistance” figure. In a February video made for the leftist MoveOn.org to encourage voting in local elections, he said: “If you really, truly want to be part of the resistance, this is where the fight lives.”

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, chairwoman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, called Schneiderman the “ringleader” of anti-Trump activists fighting the president in the courts.

“As Schneiderman leaves office in disgrace, his impact and influence with activist Democrat state attorneys general and candidates cannot be overstated,” Rutledge told The Daily Signal in a prepared statement.

Schneiderman filed 100 lawsuits or administrative actions against the Trump administration in 2017, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in December.

“Schneiderman was the ringleader of the activist attorneys general that sought to use the courts to pursue their liberal political agenda,” Rutledge said. “While there will be a reckoning for those who directly benefited from his political power, unfortunately there remain plenty of activist Democrat attorneys general who will push each other down to lead the charge against the rule of law.”

In its 2017 year-end report, the Democratic Attorneys General Association heralded Schneiderman’s work in opposing Trump administration policies on abortion, contraception, student loans, and net neutrality.

In a public statement Tuesday, the group’s executive director, Sean Rankin, saidit opposes “any and all” forms of domestic and sexual violence.

“Our state attorneys general have a special and powerful responsibility in creating that culture—we must hold them to the highest standards of accountability,” Rankin said. “We will continue to support our Democratic attorneys general in their commitment to stand with survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, in addition to their ongoing work in protecting civil rights, keeping our communities and families safe, and serving as the people’s lawyers.”

Schneiderman announced his resignation Monday in one statement and in another, denied the four women’s allegations of physical abuse, first reported by The New Yorker magazine.

“While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time,” Schneiderman said in a statement from the attorney general’s office. “I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”

In a tweet that night from his private twitter account, Schneiderman asserted: “I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in non-consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

Track Record With Trump

Schneiderman, 63, routinely took credit for “leading” lawsuits among other attorneys general against the Trump administration—and in many cases, they filed such litigation in a federal court in New York.

The legal standoff between Schneiderman and Trump predates the 45th president’s taking office.

In 2013, Schneiderman sued the businessman and real estate developer, alleging fraud in the case of Trump University. In late 2016, after the presidential election, Trump settled for $25 million. A federal court finalized the settlement last month.

The president was noticeably silent on Twitter about Schneiderman after the announcement. But citizen Trump predicted in 2013 that Schneiderman would suffer a fate similar to two other New York politicians, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, both Democrats who resigned over sex scandals.

After Trump took office, Schneiderman became the face of state litigation against Trump policies, usually joined by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

In early April, Schneiderman announced he would lead a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia, plus mayors, to sue to block the Trump administration from asking about citizenship status in the 2020 census.

“With immigrant communities already living in fear, demanding citizenship status would drive them into the shadows, leading to a major undercount that threatens billions in federal funding for New York and our fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” Schneiderman said in announcing the lawsuit. “I’m proud to lead this coalition in the fight for a full and fair census.”

More plaintiffs joined the suit by early May.

In March, Schneiderman teamed with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to lead 17 other Democratic attorneys general in filing comments to oppose the Labor Department’s association health plans. The plans would allow small businesses and sole proprietors to band together to create employee health plans, which officials said would expand coverage options for 11 million uninsured Americans.

Schneiderman announced in February that he would lead a multistate lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from rolling back the Waters of the United States regulation promulgated by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

“Over the last year, we have not hesitated to fight back against the Trump administration’s assault on the law and New Yorkers’ fundamental right to clean water, air, and environment. We won’t stop now,” he said in the announcement.

In December, Schneiderman sued to stop the rollback of net neutrality regulations of the internet by the Federal Communications Commission.

Also in December, he led a coalition of 12 attorneys general in a statement supporting a lawsuit to protect the right of women who are illegal immigrants to get abortions.

That same month he joined 13 other states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for not designating more areas as having unhealthy air by missing an Oct. 1 deadline.

Last fall, the Trump administration announced plans to phase out former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which shielded from deportation an estimated 800,000 persons brought to the country illegally as children by their parents or others.

Schneiderman called the decision “cruel, inhumane and devastating.”

He announced he would lead 16 state attorneys general to sue the Trump administration to maintain DACA, an action filed in federal court in New York.

Schneiderman consistently put politics before the law, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation.

“He clearly has, not just in the resist Trump movement and the lawsuits against the administration, but also in the absurd lawsuits filed against Exxon and other companies supposedly saying they’re responsible for global warming,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “So his being gone may take some of the energy and enthusiasm out of that movement.”

California’s Becerra hasn’t shown himself to be the type of lawyer to take the lead in Schneiderman’s absence, von Spakovsky added.

“This probably won’t make any difference in the litigation itself, but it may make a difference behind the scenes, where the folks behind all of this are doing their planning and coming up with their strategies and tactics,” von Spakovsky said. “He’s not going to be there.”


Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


BDSM community angry at Schneiderman’s ‘role-playing’ depiction

BREAKING: NY Attorney General Resigns Amid Major Sexual Assault Allegations

Ex: Schneiderman called me ‘brown slave,’ slapped me until I called him ‘Master’

‘I Am the Law’– Schneiderman was abusive in his public and private conduct.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaking on Sept. 6, 2017, about plans to sue the Trump administration to reverse its decision to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; againstalienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please subscribe to our Revolutionary YouTube channel.

DACA Ruling: Judicial Travesty Obstructs Presidential Authority

Fed. Judge Bates’ ruling ignores facts and national security.

The April 24, 2018 headline of the New York Times articleU.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules summed up Judge John D. Bates’ outrageous decision to force the Trump administration to continue the DACA program created by the Obama administration.

The judge has given the Trump administration 90 days to substantiate President Trump 90 days to justify his claim that DACA is illegal.

Judge Bates’ ruling ignores the indisputable fact that DACA was created by Obama’s Executive Order and not by legislation.  Judge Bates apparently believes that Exeuctive Orders must extend beyond the administration of the president who issued those Executive Orders, even when the new president disagrees with them.  Bates’ ruling obstructs President Trump’s ability to implement his policies.

In order to understand the issue we must begin by considering the origins of DACA, an acronym for Deferred Action – Childhood Arrival.

First of all, the action that is being deferred by DACA is the required departure of illegal aliens from the United States.

Prior to the Obama administration’s claim of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to justify the creation of DACA, immigration authorities did use the notion of “deferred action” for humanitarian purposes in a case-by-case basis, to provide nonimmigrant aliens, that is to say aliens who had been admitted into the United States for a temporary period of time, with permission to remain in the United States beyond their authorized periods of admission.

If, for example, a family member of an alien visitor in the United States had fallen seriously ill or became seriously injured, nonimmigrant family members would be allowed to remain in the United States for a finite additional period of time, to tend to their stricken family member.

As an INS special agent I was, on occasion, tasked with interviewing medical professionals to verify the medical condition of such individuals to make certain that fraud was not being perpetrated.  Generally doctors were required to provide periodic documentation that reported on the medical status of the ill or injured family member.

Once the situation was resolved, hopefully with that family member making a sufficient recovery, the alien beneficiaries of that temporary deferred action were required to depart from the United States.

Obama however, exploited this humanitarian program, that was supposed to be used in a limited case-by-case basis, to achieve a political goal by enabling potentially millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States as quasi-lawful immigrants for an initial two year period, even though there is no provision in the immigration laws for this action.

Under current immigration law, the U.S. generously, provides approximately one million aliens are granted lawful immigrant status for a number of circumstances that do not begin as a reward for violating our immigration laws.  That number of new immigrants surpasses the number of immigrants admitted by all of the countries on earth, combined.

On June 15, 2012 President Obama delivered a statement from the White House Rose Garden in which he announced his plans to create DACA via an Exeuctive Order.  His statement made it clear that DACA was an end-run, around the legislative process, to provide illegal aliens with immigration benefits contained in the DREAM Act, which failed to pass in the Congress.

The DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.  It is more than a bit confounding that under the guise of “Political Correctness” actually an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak, the term “alien” has been expunged from discussions about immigration.  That term has come to be referred to as “hate speech” by immigration anarchists

Yet  that word is included in the acronym “DREAM” and illegal aliens who participate in this wrong-headed program have come to be known as “DREAMERS.”

Hypocrisy is alive and well in the immigration debate.

Furthermore, the claim that the “DREAMERS” were all children when they were brought to the United States and hence too young to have control over their circumstances, is yet another artifice and one repeated by the media every time this issue is discussed.

In reality, aliens were eligible to apply to participate in Obama’s program if they had not yet attained the age of 32 when they filed their applications and claimed that they entered the United States prior to their 16 birthdays.

With so many applications and so few resources, there were virtually no interviews and no field investigations to verify the claims made in the applications that, thus far, have been filed by nearly 800,000 illegal aliens.

This creates an open invitation to fraud.

Imagine, for example, how effective law enforcement would be in stopping speeders if police officers had no radar units and could only issue a speeding tickets if drivers admitted to exceeding the speed limit.  This is, in essence, how these DACA applications were processed and continue to be processed under Judge Bates’ ruling.

Today, six years after Mr. Obama’s DACA program was created, aliens as old as 37 years of age could apply for DACA- provided that they claim to have entered the United States before they turned 16.

An alien who lies on that application would be committing a serious crime, immigration fraud. However, given the scarce resources, if Judge Bates gets his way, unknown millions of illegal aliens could easily game this program.

Adult illegal aliens who have not yet entered the United States could easily falsely claim to have been present in the United States for decades, justifiably confident that their fraudulent claims would not only go undetected but rewarded.

What could possibly go wrong?

The answer that that question can be found in my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill wherein I quoted from the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel:

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.

[ … ]

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Obama falsely claimed that “Congress had failed to act,” blithely ignoring that when Congress votes down legislation it is, indeed, acting- just in this instance, not the way he wanted Congress to act.

On June 17, 2012, Fox News published my Op-Ed, Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress, in which I stated that, given all of the facts, what Obama had referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, actually, be referred to as “Prosecutorial Deception.”

Prosecutorial discretion is often used by government and law enforcement agencies to not squander limited resources but to use them most effectively, not unlike the concept of a medical triage whereby in an instance of mass casualties, the most seriously injured are treated before those with relatively minor wounds.

In creating DACA, the Obama administration did not simply ignore illegal aliens not deemed essential to arrest, but created an expensive program that required that limited resources were diverted to provide huge numbers of illegal aliens with lawful status without legal authority.

This disingenuous, supposed justification for creating DACA caused me to describe Obama’s claims as an example of “Prosecutorial Deception” in my Fox News commentary.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s use of the term “Deferred Action” was clearly another artifice.  DACA was not intended to postpone the eventual departure of the huge number of illegal aliens who were dealing with personal emergencies, but rather serve as a stop-gap measure to enable them to remain in the U.S. until, Obama had hoped, Congress would pass legislation that would permanently legalize their immigration status by creating a massive amnesty program.

This, in and of itself, runs contrary to the principles that underly the concept of “Deferred Action.”

News coverage about DACA has failed to report on that which I have noted in my commentary, but has become a conduit for the dissemination of propaganda and the disingenuous claims made by the Obama administration, parading those falsehoods as supposed facts.

Mainstream media coverage and discussions about DACA have ignored how the Obama administration perverted the discretionary authority inherent in deferred action, for humanitarian purposes, to create a de facto temporary amnesty program, conferring lawful immigrant status on nearly 800,000 illegal aliens, who may not even be children but actually middled-aged.

By denying President Trump the right to terminate DACA, Judge Bates apparently seeks to legitimize Obama’s DACA Executive Order, treating it as law, when in reality DACA co-opted Congress’ unique legislative authority.

America is a nation of laws, not Executive Orders.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Why Florida is a Magnet for Illegal Alien Workers

In 1986, 32 years ago, Congress agreed to implement a mandatory system in the U.S.A. To protect American workers jobs by verifying that all workers were legal workers. Obviously that did not happen as all attempts failed.

In 2010 Governor Scott ran promising to make E-Verify mandatory in Florida. He lied. In 2012 he said it was a Federal not state matter. Another lie.

In 2017 the Miami Herald reported:

South Florida is home to nearly half a million immigrants who are in the country illegally, making it the metropolitan area with the fifth-largest undocumented population in the United States, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

About 450,000 unauthorized immigrants reside in the greater Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area, Pew found, based on 2014 estimates from government data. About 55,000 live in the city of Miami alone.

In 2007 the cost to Floridians was $1.85 Billion, in 2017 it was more than triple 2007 at $6.3 Billion. Unchecked, will it triple again in another decade to $20 Billion?

Meanwhile, seven states around us in the South passed what Scott said wasn’t their responsibility and so today we are the only state in the Southeastern part of the country that does not have mandatory E-Verify.

A campaign was launched by Floridians for E-Verify Now to get on the 2018 state ballot to be voted on to become a Constitutional Amendment. Early votes by the Commission were favorable but the final vote was negative. The Chamber of Commerce, Ag owners and criminal illegal alien employers exerted pressure to kill it.

So what some would ask?

The answer is as illegal aliens invade the country looking for jobs they will come to Florida where their legality won’t be checked.

Currently Chairman Bob Goodlatte has a bill, HR 4760, in Congress with 95 co-sponsors that includes mandatory E-Verify. We need to support the bill to protect Florida’s workers and our wallets.

Florida has 27 Representatives in Congress. ONLY FIVE representatives are currently co-sponsors. They are: Rep. Rutherford ®, Rep. Yoho ®, Rep. Posey ®, Rep. Rooney ® and Rep. Bilarakis ®. They are all Republicans and should be applauded for trying to protect Florida’s workers.

That leaves 22 Florida Representatives who either don’t care to protect Florida workers or are being compensated in some way to not support HR 4760.

Give them a call and ask them their reason for not wanting to support Florida’s legal workers. Encourage them to join Goodlatte and get the legislation passed.

Congressional Delegation from Florida


Name Room Phone
Nelson, Bill 716 HSOB 202-224-5274
Rubio, Marco 284 RSOB 202-224-3041


District Name Room Phone
1 Gaetz. Matt 507 CHOB 202-225-4136
2 Dunn, Neal 423 CHOB 202-225-5235
3 Yoho, Ted 511 CHOB 202-225-5744
4 Rutherford, John 230 CHOB 202-225-2501
5 Lawson, Al 1337 LHOB 202-225-0123
6 DeSantis, Ron 1524 LHOB 202-225-2706
7 Murphy, Stephanie 1237 LHOB 202-225-4035
8 Posey, Bill 2150 RHOB 202-225-3671
9 Soto, Darren 1429 LHOB 202-225-9889
10 Demings, Val 238 CHOB 202-225-2176
11 Webster, Daniel 1210 LHOB 202-225-1002
12 Bilirakis, Gus M. 2112 RHOB 202-225-5755
13 Crist, Charlie 427 CHOB 202-225-5961
14 Castor, Kathy 2052 RHOB 202-225-3376
15 Ross, Dennis 436 CHOB 202-225-1252
16 Buchanan, Vern 2104 RHOB 202-225-5015
17 Rooney, Tom 2160 RHOB 202-225-5792
18 Mast, Brian 2182 RHOB 202-225-3026
19 Rooney, Francis 120 CHOB 202-225-2536
20 Hastings, Alcee L. 2353 RHOB 202-225-1313
21 Frankel, Lois 1037 LHOB 202-225-3001
22 Deutch, Ted 2447 RHOB 202-225-9890
23 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie 1114 LHOB 202-225-7931
24 Wilson, Frederica 2445 RHOB 202-225-4506
25 Diaz-Balart, Mario 440 CHOB 202-225-4211
26 Curbelo, Carlos 1404 LHOB 202-225-2778
27 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana 2206 RHOB 202-225-3931

RELATED ARTICLE: More than 56 per cent of crimes in German town are committed by asylum seekers

PODCAST: Why This New Lawsuit Could Finally End DACA Program

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky joins us to discuss why a new lawsuit, spearheaded by Texas and including six other states, could succeed. Plus: The Boy Scouts are dropping the “boy” part of their name.


Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Cyrille Gibot /agefotostock/Newscom.

Justice Department Funded ‘Parent’ of Group Whose App Helps Illegal Immigrants

An organization whose parent group received taxpayer funds developed and offers an app that allows illegal immigrants to notify family and lawyers when they encounter law enforcement.

The app, a computer program designed to run on a cell phone or other mobile device, also allows the user to warn other illegal immigrants when authorities are in the neighborhood.

A division of the Justice Department awarded at least $206,453 to the National Immigration Law Center, which advises illegal immigrants on their rights, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The Office of Justice Programs awarded the grants between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the records cited by the conservative government watchdog group show. That would overlap the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

One of the projects of the National Immigration Law Center is United We Dream, which describes itself as a youth program for “undocumented” immigrants.

United We Dream created the smartphone application, or app, which is called Notifica.

In a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch seeks to determine whether the federal government has given any other money to the National Immigration Law Center, said Irene Garcia, editor of the Judicial Watch blog and the group’s Spanish media liaison.

“Judicial Watch believes that using the app to warn someone could definitely be considered abetting, since it is helping lawbreakers—illegal immigrants—avoid law enforcement,” Garcia told The Daily Signal.

United We Dream also receives funds from liberal megadonor George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Garcia said.

“We are working on getting the latest OSF [Open Society Foundations] funding, but essentially OSF is United We Dream’s biggest financial supporter,” Garcia said. “We are also in the process of obtaining the latest U.S. funding records. It appears that United We Dream may receive money under different umbrella groups.”

Neither United We Dream nor the National Immigration Legal Center responded to phone and email inquiries from The Daily Signal.

The Laredo Morning Times quoted Adrian Reyna, director of membership and technology strategies for United We Dream, as saying that “when something actually happens, most people don’t know what to do at that moment.”

The Texas newspaper also reported that United We Dream is working on a second version of Notifica that will include the ability to use more languages besides Spanish and English.

The second version, set to be released this summer, would include Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese. The updated app also will be able to determine where an illegal immigrant is being detained, the newspaper reported.

United We Dream pushes to give legal status to so-called Dreamers, illegal immigrants brought to the United States when they were children. The organization, which has a hotline, advises illegal immigrants against cooperating with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a press release, the group says: “United We Dream calls on our communities to defend their rights, not open the door to ICE, and to report ICE activities to the United We Dream MigraWatch hotline.”

The April release adds: “United We Dream has also developed the mobile app, Notifica, which immediately alerts your loved ones and legal advocates to the user’s location in cases of detention. Text ‘Notifica’ to 877-877 for a link for download.”

The Soros-backed Open Societies Foundations don’t have a direct role in the app, but doesn’t find it objectionable, said Angela Kelley, the senior strategic adviser on immigration at the Open Society Foundations.

“The Open Society Foundations does provide general support to both United We Dream and the National Immigration Law Center. The foundations do not specifically fund this app,” Kelley told The Daily Signal.

“The app allows immigrants who face detention to notify loved ones of their whereabouts, and encourage them to contact a lawyer,” Kelley said. “It is a way of ensuring that people confronted by immigration enforcement are aware of their rights, are afforded due process, and have access to legal counsel in their hour of need.”


Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Soros-Funded Group Launches App to Help Illegal Aliens Avoid Feds.

Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers & Human Traffickers: Exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but ‘compassionate’

We have all heard the bogus claim that “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” protect the “immigrants” from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and that the mayors of sanctuary cities are being compassionate.

There is no compassion to be found in exploitation

In reality, politicians who create and support sanctuary policies are every bit as disgusting and exploitative of illegal aliens as are human traffickers and unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens and benefit by sanctuary policies and, indeed those human traffickers and employers of illegal aliens are being provided with “sanctuary” and are being shielded from detection by ICE.

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers.

Before we go further, however, it is imperative to lay waste to that the false claim that mayors of sanctuary cities protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement agents.

Lies about sanctuary policies being motivated by “compassion” creates a hostile environment and antipathy for ICE agents and Border Patrol agents that impedes them from locating and arresting aliens who violate our immigration laws, but also makes it far more difficult for ICE and Border Patrol agents to engage with the public to develop actionable intelligence.

This hostility also endangers their safety (reportedly physical attacks on immigration law enforcement personnel have more than doubled in the past couple of years).

Let’s be clear, Immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities.

Lawful immigrants and nonimmigrant aliens who have been admitted for a temporary visit under the aegis of various forms of visas, need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities unless they violate the terms of their admission. They were lawfully admitted into the United States by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors in the first place.

Lawful immigrants who were have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States and/or nonimmigrant (temporary visitors) who abide by their terms of lawful admission need no protection from immigration law enforcement officers.

Lawful immigrants only become subject to deportation (removal) is if they are convicted of committing serious crimes.

However, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry enter the United States without inspection should be fearful of detection, arrest and deportation (removal).

In point of fact, the fundamental law that underlies the decisions made by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry as to whether or not to admit a foreign visitors into the United States is Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

That section of law is contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act and enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists.

Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or provide unfair competition for American workers and would either displace American workers or cause suppression of wages and have a deleterious impact on working conditions.

Nothing in that statute that makes any distinctions about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens.

Aliens who evade the inspection process conducted at ports of entry do so because they know that they fall into one or more categories of aliens who, by law, would be inadmissable.

In the past I have written about how Sanctuary Cities Betray America and Americans and that by shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents prevents those agents from discovering the human traffickers and other criminals who enabled those aliens to gain entry into the United States and perhaps, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities around the United States.

Sanctuary jurisdictions attract large number of illegal aliens including transnational gang members, international terrorists or fugitives from other countries because they know that local police, in those jurisdictions, will not report them to immigration law enforcement authorities even if they are arrested for committing crimes in those jurisdictions.

Transnational gangs invariably set up shop among immigrants from their home countries who live within the ethnic immigrant communities,  This is not only true for gangs from Latin America but from all over the world.  Human nature is universal and criminals can be found within every ethnic immigrant community.

In point of fact, the most likely victims of the crimes of these pernicious gangs are the members of these ethnic immigrant communities who often immigrated to the United States to get away from these very same criminals, only to find that they are now, once again, forced to live with them.

Sanctuary Cities also attract huge numbers of foreign workers who, because of their desperation, are willing to take whatever risks that they must in order to evade detection from the United States to take jobs in the United States, confident that sanctuary policies will shield them from ICE.

This incentivizes illegal immigration and, consequently, overwhelms Border Patrol resources to secure our borders.  This further undermines national security and public safety in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which, deems the following actions to constitute felonies:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or


(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

When I was an INS agent, particularly when I was assigned to the Anti-Smuggling Unit in New York City many of the female illegal aliens we encountered told me that they took birth control pills for several months before they made their attempt to run our borders because they anticipated that they would be raped by the smugglers.

Today the level of violence perpetrated against these smuggled aliens by human traffickers has increased exponentially as the drug cartel and violent gangs became more involved in human trafficking, virtually cornering the market of this pernicious and violent “trade.”

Considering the extreme that these illegal aliens will go to in order to enter the United States, it is clear that they will also endure extreme exploitation by employers who intentionally hire them.

Sanctuary Cities provide a veritable “army” of readily exploitable illegal alien workers who are sought after by unscrupulous employers who eagerly hire alien workers they can exploit, paying them substandard wages under substandard, indeed, dangerous conditions that lawful immigrants and American workers would never tolerate.

The obvious question then, that must be asked, is why would a mayor or governor declare his/her city or state to be a “Sanctuary” given that this runs contrary to law, commonsense, morality and even the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that determined that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and then embed themselves in communities around the U.S.

A good place to start looking for the answer to that question can be found in the headline of a February 28, 2018 Breitbart news reportNY City Officials Hide Huge Workforce of Illegal Immigrants from ICE Enforcement.

Clearly sanctuary policies attract huge numbers of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. without inspection and often with the assistance of human traffickers- at great risk and expense, to seek illegal employment.

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens do so, not out of compassion, but out of greed.

Such unscrupulous employers hire illegal aliens because they know that these aliens will work for significantly substandard wages under substandard, indeed, often illegally hazardous working conditions.  Exploitation is not a demonstration of compassion.

Alan Greenspan included in his prepared testimony at an April 30, 2009 Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform chaired by Sen. Schumer, the following:

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

Greenspan blithely neglected to note that “marginally suppressing wages” of those American workers all too often causes them to become homeless.

Furthermore, as was noted in the Breitbart article which focused on NYC,

The huge labor force of illegals has successfully kept food-industry wages extremely low, according to 2017 state data, despite the high cost of living in the city.

The report went on to state:

The taxpayers’ cost of this illegal immigration is high, partly because of the very low wages. In 2009, New York city’s support for illegal immigrants — including aid, education, housing — cost taxpayers roughly $9.5 billion, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

On December 6, 2007 the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) issued a report, The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.

Cheap labor is anything but cheap and, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.”


More than 56 per cent of crimes in German town are committed by asylum seekers

Syrian refugees sue landlord and feds over housing complaints