Tag Archive for: border security

Political Violence Escalates as Rioters Target ICE Operations

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The domestic terrorist attack at a federal immigration facility in Texas Wednesday morning has only served to highlight the rash of political violence and civil unrest targeting President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda and the officers carrying it out.

Following the deadly shooting at a Dallas U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility on Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is increasing security at detention centers nationwide, in order to mitigate the risk of further terrorist attacks and loss of life. DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Washington Stand, “In light of the horrific shooting that was motivated by hatred for ICE and the other unprecedented acts of violence against ICE law enforcement, including bomb threats, cars being used [as] weapons, rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at officers, and doxing online of officers’ families, DHS will immediately begin increasing security at ICE facilities across the country.” She added, “Our ICE officers are facing a more than 1,000% increase in assaults against them.”

McLaughlin pledged that DHS will also work to combat left-wing extremist groups like Antifa, which the president formally designated as a domestic terrorist organization this week. “Antifa and other left-wing extremists have shot, attacked, issued death threats against, and incited riots against law enforcement. Enough is enough: if you lay a hand on our federal law enforcement officers, you will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” McLaughlin said. “Antifa and their friends haven’t stopped us. They’re not even slowing us down,” she added. “Despite the 1,000% increase in assaults against them, our brave men and women in federal law enforcement are still on the ground, fighting every single day to uphold the rule of law and keep Americans safe from violent extremists and criminal illegal aliens alike.”

ICE currently operates 25 field offices specializing in enforcement and removal operations (EROs) and has a network of over 200 detention centers, including local jails, private prisons, and dedicated ICE facilities. Neither DHS nor ICE shared with The Washington Stand what increased security measures may look like nor how the agencies intend to combat Antifa and other left-wing rioters.

According to authorities, the shooter who targeted the Dallas ICE facility this week intended to kill ICE agents, although he accidentally shot and killed one detained immigrant and injured two others. Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Nancy Larson reported that Joshua Jahn, the 29-year-old gunman suspected of firing on the ICE facility before taking his own life, left behind notes clarifying his intention to target and kill ICE personnel. “It seems that he did not intend to kill the detainees or harm them. It’s clear from these notes that he was targeting ICE agents and ICE personnel,” she said in a press conference.

FBI Director Kash Patel shared, “One of the handwritten notes recovered read, “Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ‘is there a sniper with AP [armor-piercing] rounds on that roof?’” Patel further warned that Jahn conducted a “high degree of pre-attack planning,” including using an app to track the movements and operations of ICE agents. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt faulted mainstream media outlets (namely, CNN) for promoting the ICE-tracking app. “Three months ago, CNN irresponsibly gave free publicity to an app that recklessly shares the location of ICE Agents. It has now been revealed the leftist lunatic shooter who opened fire on the Dallas ICE Facility was using one of these apps,” she wrote in a social media post. “The liberal media is complicit in the increased threats and violence against ICE.” The official X account for DHS echoed the sentiment, writing in a post, “These apps, and the media who is gleefully advertising them, represent an existential threat to our agents. It’s no different than giving a hitman the location of their intended target.”

Meanwhile, rioters are targeting ICE facilities in Chicago. ICE began conducting intensive immigration raids in and around Chicago recently, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) boats seen patrolling the Chicago River this week. In the Chicago suburb of Broadview, protestors have lined up outside an ICE detention facility and, on Friday, began rioting. As ICE agents attempted to leave the facility, activists started blocking and even physically attacking the law enforcement officers’ vehicles. Others called for ICE agents to be shot and killed, with one rioter shouting, “Shoot the f******! Shoot the f******!” Eventually, federal law enforcement agents had to fire “pepper balls” at the rioters in order to let the ICE vehicles pass and ICE agents have also begun deploying tear gas in order to disperse rioters.

Earlier this year, riots broke out in Los Angeles in response to ICE operations in the city, escalating to violent attacks on ICE agents and culminating in Trump federalizing California’s National Guard and deploying U.S. Marines to stop the rioting.

Despite agitation against interior deportation operations, the Trump administration is slated to become the first in history to achieve “operational control” of the nation’s borders. The term “operational control” was defined in the 2006 Secure Fence Act as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and the current resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, argued that the Trump administration’s stringent border security efforts may just earn Trump the distinction of being the first president to achieve “operational control” under the terms of the Secure Fence Act. “If current trends continue, FY 2025 will be the most secure year in history at the U.S.-Mexico line, and DHS will achieve complete ‘operational control’ of our borders in FY 2026,” Arthur wrote, adding, “That’s a big ‘if,’ however, because the smugglers, while quiet for now, haven’t gone away.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Previews EO to ‘Dismantle Domestic Terrorism Networks’

RELATED ARTICLE: Driver Crashes Into Parked Police Car — Then Admits He Did It “On Purpose”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Immigration, Deportation, and ‘Sanctuary’ City Updates

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Despite numerous political and even legal hurdles, President Donald Trump and his administration are working hard to deliver on the promise of a secure border and the deportation of illegal immigrants. Here are some of the latest updates surrounding the president’s immigration agenda.

National Guard Tackles Deportation Paperwork

The president has already federalized the National Guard to assist in immigration-related operations in several instances, but now he’s asking National Guardsmen to help fill out U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) paperwork. According to several reports, thousands of National Guard troops will be deployed across at least 20 states and stationed at ICE facilities. Initially, Guardsmen will be tasked with “alien processing,” filling out detention and deportation paperwork so that ICE agents can continue their field operations.

The National Guard troops will not be federalized but will be operating under Title 32 authorities, which allows for Guardsmen to perform law enforcement duties as long as they are under state — not federal — command. At present, U.S. Marines and Naval Reserve soldiers are assisting ICE in an operational capacity, but they will soon be replaced by the National Guard.

Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told The Washington Stand, “The fact that ICE needs to supplement its ranks with the help of the National Guard to speed up deportations shows: (1) millions of deportable aliens continue to reside in the U.S.; and (2) the deportation process is too slow.” She added, “Americans continue to support mass deportations, but the Left obstructs and delays deportations for political power.” Ries continued, “In addition to prosecuting those who interfere with the execution of federal law, the Justice Department should streamline the deportation process to end third and more bites at the apple that deportable aliens currently get to remain in the country.”

Dissident Maryland Judges Claim Immunity

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against all 15 U.S. district court judges for the District of Maryland back in June. At issue is a “standing order” from the judges, automatically granting an injunction to any illegal immigrant detained within the court’s jurisdiction who files a habeas corpus complaint. In short, the standing order temporarily bars the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from carrying out any deportation.

Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said in comments shared with TWS, “It’s certainly unusual for DOJ to sue judges, let alone all of the judges on a court, and sue them in that same court, but then these are not your usual standing orders, either.” He observed that the DOJ first brought its concerns to the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body which oversees the federal courts, but Maryland’s district judges made it clear that they would not rescind their standing order. Arthur observed, “If any court issued automatic stay orders like the ones in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, it would have been incumbent on DOJ to challenge them, regardless of who was in the White House.”

In response to the Trump administration’s lawsuit, Maryland’s federal judges claimed immunity. “The district court itself possesses sovereign immunity, and the judges and clerk of court have immunity for their official acts,” the judges wrote. They added, “The complaint does not identify any statutory waiver — unequivocal or otherwise — of district courts’ sovereign immunity from suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, and Defendants are not aware of one.” The judges argued that “when a plaintiff attacks the official acts of members of the Judiciary in a standalone lawsuit, judges generally have absolute immunity.” They concluded, “Sovereign immunity bars this suit as to the district court itself, and judicial immunity bars it as to the judges and clerk in their official capacities.”

The DOJ, however, argued that neither sovereign nor judicial immunity would prevent a challenge against an unlawful standing order. “Unlike issuing rulings in particular cases, promulgating standing orders and local rules that violate procedural and substantive requirements is not a ‘function’ traditionally protected by judicial immunity. Thus, courts have often ruled on challenges to local rules with nary a peep about immunity,” the DOJ countered. Furthermore, sovereign immunity does not apply, the DOJ noted, in cases where judges have “acted beyond the scope of their powers and/or in an unconstitutional manner.” The DOJ said that its “lawsuit asserts that Defendants acted outside the scope of their authority — here, the scope as delineated both by Congress and by the Federal Rules. … Immunity does not apply.”

Since the judges of the Maryland district have had to recuse themselves from the case, being defendants, the case is being overseen by Judge Thomas Cullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, a Trump appointee, who was assigned by Albert Diaz, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Biden-Appointed Judge Halts Deportations

One of the first moves the Trump administration made was shutting down the parole program used by former President Joe Biden and his administration to usher hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country. The program allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Border Patrol (USBP) to arrest foreigners attempting the enter the U.S. illegally but, instead of detaining them or removing them, simply “parole” them into the U.S. to await an appointment in immigration court. Trump’s DHS ended the program and moved to deport those who had been “paroled” into the country.

On Friday, Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, issued a “stay of agency action,” barring the Trump administration from deporting many of those paroled into the country by the Biden administration. Cobb wrote that illegal immigrants “arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules.” She continued, “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

The Trump administration has already requested a stay of Cobb’s order and has appealed her decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “The Court’s order effectively prevents the Government from applying expedited removal to potentially hundreds of thousands of paroled arriving aliens, thereby halting its ability to expeditiously remove aliens who have no basis to remain in the country,” the administration argued. It further argued that Cobb’s order is in violation of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA barring district courts from issuing universal injunctions. “Indeed, in Trump v. CASA … the Supreme Court held that this sort of intrusion on the Executive Branch’s enforcement policies establishes irreparable harm. Finally, CASA also means that the Court’s nationwide remedy is impermissibly broad and instead the remedy should be tailored to Plaintiffs’ members.”

Overstaying Visas Now Costs $15,000

The U.S. State Department implemented a new pilot program on Tuesday, requiring a $15,000 bond for most tourism and work visas, in an effort to curb illegal overstaying. “Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure (B-1/B-2) and who are nationals of countries identified by the Department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient … may be subject to the pilot program,” the State Department’s announcement said.

Early in June, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a travel ban impacting countries identified as high terror and crime risks, but also barring travel from countries noted for high visa overstay rates.

DOJ Puts ‘Sanctuary’ Cities on Notice

On Tuesday, the DOJ published a list of nearly three dozen “sanctuary” cities, counties, and states that shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities and refuse to enforce immigration law. “Sanctuary” states named include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Cities, counties, and other jurisdictions include Albuquerque, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, Baltimore County in Maryland, Cook County in Illinois, and San Diego and San Francisco Counties in California, among others.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement, “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.” She continued, “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.” Already, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against the three largest U.S. cities, all of which are “sanctuary” cities: New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Have a Plan to Destroy America’ by Democrat Colorado Governor Richard Lamm

Kristi Noem Cuts Age Cap For ICE Agents To Supercharge Trump Deportation Agenda

Explaining the Texas Redistricting Drama

DOJ Begins Grand Jury Investigation into Obama Administration’s ‘Russian Collusion’ Deception

‘Disgusting’: Tom Homan Skewers Far-Left Dem Declaring Her Allegiance To Foreign Nation Over Her Own Country

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Statistics: ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Saw 25K Illegal Immigrants Released from Jails to Streets

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A new study is revealing one of the greatest dangers that “sanctuary” cities and states pose to the public: allowing murderers and rapists to roam the streets. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analyzed new statistics from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and found that between October 1 of 2022 and February 6 of 2025, over 25,000 illegal immigrants arrested for crimes in “sanctuary” jurisdictions were released back into the public, instead of being handed over to ICE. Of the illegal immigrants released, 72 were charged with or convicted of homicide.

Broken down by state, California led the way by releasing 13,025 illegal immigrants from jails (52% of the 25,283 released nationwide), while Illinois trailed behind at 2,946, followed relatively closely by Virginia at 1,601. Other states that released a high volume of illegal immigrants from jails include Massachusetts (1,324), Connecticut (1,153), New York (873), Minnesota (873), North Carolina (508), Pennsylvania (486), Maryland (384), Colorado (295), New Jersey (239), Kentucky (192), New Mexico (157), Wyoming (155), Indiana (139), and South Carolina (111).

Santa Clara Main Jail in California released a total of 2,981 during the studied period. Cook County Jail in Chicago released 1,804, and Fairfax County Adult Detention Center in Virginia released 1,151. Of the 30 jails that freed the most illegal immigrants, 18 are located in California. Jails in California also let 29 illegal immigrants go with homicide charges or convictions, and Illinois jails released 28. Other jails responsible for releasing illegal immigrants with homicide charges or convictions were located in Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The study’s author and director of policy at CIS, Jessica Vaughan, told The Washington Stand that “sanctuary” policies — which largely shield illegal immigrants from prosecution or investigation on the basis of their noncitizenship and refuse or prohibit cooperation with ICE and other agencies in enforcing federal immigration law — often “attract” illegal immigrants to “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

“When a state or local government provides benefits and services to illegal aliens, it becomes well known among the migrant networks,” Vaughan said. “New York, Boston, and Denver are the latest examples, where we saw thousands of newly-arrived illegal border crossers flock to these cities under the Biden years, because these cities were offering hotel rooms, meals and other services.” She added that “criminal aliens also pay attention to local sanctuary policies, not so much for free hotel rooms, but because they know that they are not going to be turned over to ICE if they are arrested for a local crime, and they discuss this openly with reporters, local detectives, and prosecutors.”

“Sanctuary” cities have proven to be an obstacle for President Donald Trump’s mass deportation program. Just days after Trump returned to the White House, officials in Chicago began working to undermine ICE raids and shield illegal immigrants in the city. When ICE raids hit Los Angeles, the City of Angels erupted in violent riots. So far, Trump and his deputies have filed lawsuits against both Chicago and Los Angeles, two of the three largest “sanctuary” cities in the country, and the state of New York, where officials have implemented “sanctuary” policies.

“Trump has several options to try to discourage or block sanctuary policies, and he is exercising these options,” Vaughan told TWS. “He can bring lawsuits to try to obtain injunctions against these state and local policies. Those lawsuits will take some time to play out, but several have already been initiated, including most recently in Los Angeles.” She continued, “In addition, Trump can withhold certain kinds of federal funding to states and localities that interfere with immigration enforcement, such as by prohibiting cooperation.”

Vaughan noted that the Big Beautiful Bill “included a provision saying that certain grantees for law enforcement funding must comply with a provision in federal law that prohibits policies that block communication and cooperation with federal immigration agencies. Trump should also work with Congress to clarify the legal issues surrounding state and local cooperation with ICE.” She added, “I would also like to see a provision in the law to deny tax-exempt status for bonds issued by sanctuary jurisdictions to finance local spending projects, and one to allow victims harmed by sanctuary policies to sue the state and local government for damages.”

Brandy Perez, a researcher with the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told TWS, “Sanctuary policies prioritize illegal aliens which endangers communities and make Americans pick up the check. By deliberately obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts, local officials politicize public safety and increase the national security risk that illegal immigration poses.” Perez noted that “sanctuary” jurisdictions violate federal law “by refusing to share information with ICE or honor detainers, resulting in the release of dangerous individuals back into American neighborhoods. President Trump can push back by revoking federal funds for sanctuary states and enforcing mandatory detention…” She emphasized, “Sanctuary jurisdictions should be held accountable for their dangerous policies that upend public safety and undermine federal law.” Perez added, “State legislatures must also bring their statutes to level with federal immigration code, and ban sanctuary policies, to prevent any of their political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies from shielding illegal aliens.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump ‘Was Right’ on Immigration, John Kerry Says

‘Have To Own This’: Jonathan Turley Says Democrats, Media Have ‘Bill That Is Coming Due’ Over Anti-ICE Violence

Dem Infighting Explodes As Hakeem Jeffries’ Team Bites Back At Mamdani Allies

EXCLUSIVE: California university confirms attempts to shield illegal students, staff from deportation

RELATED VIDEOS:

‘LOSE-LOSE SITUATION’: Victor Davis Hanson Explains How Far Left ‘Bitten By Their Own Creation’

Criminal Illegal Alien Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez received MORE THAN $400,000 in stolen federal benefits

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

House Passes BBB as Conservatives Win ‘Significant Commitments’ on Life, Transgenderism

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Congress has delivered President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill, but not without hours of mean-spirited Democratic delay and principled conservative negotiations that secured “major” commitments of executive action and future legislation to promote the pro-life, pro-family cause.

The House of Representatives passed President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) by a 218-214 vote on Thursday afternoon. All House Democrats voted no, joined by two Republicans: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, opposes the bill’s high deficit and spending levels, while Fitzpatrick accused the White House of “withholding critical defense material” from Ukraine.

The bill narrowly passed the Senate Tuesday, when Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted against the bill. It now goes to President Trump’s desk.

Democrats in both chambers tried, and failed, to prevent the bill from passing Congress by President Trump’s July 4 deadline. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) forced the Senate to read the full text of the 940-page bill aloud, which lasted nearly 16 hours. Schumer also poked at the president with a procedural motion to strip the act of its formal title, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) stalled proceedings further on Thursday morning with an eight-hour, 44-minute-long filibuster that began at 4:53 a.m. Jeffries all-but admitted he aimed to slow the bill’s passage as a procedural irritant, saying numerous times throughout his speech, “I am going to take my sweet time,” followed by a sustained standing ovation from the small gaggle of Democratic hangers-on who stayed to listen.

“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the simple truth,” replied House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a brief rejoinder to Jeffries’s record-breaking speech. “Scripture has been cited a lot this morning — I think mostly out of context.”

“Today was about performance for some of them,” said Johnson. “Democrats deliver performances, and Republicans deliver results.”

The narrow passage reflected the concern of pro-life conservatives, who withheld their support until obtaining promises from GOP leaders to address the pro-life, pro-family provisions stripped out by the Senate.

As fiscal conservatives, border security conservatives, and national security hawks celebrated the passage of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill, pro-life and pro-family leaders wonder aloud why their concerns got eliminated or minimized by the legislation. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the debate’s primary focus on taxes “reminds me of Bill Clinton back in his 1992 campaign: ‘It’s the economy, Stupid.’ It’s not the economy; it is the moral foundation of a nation that matters.” Some conservatives went as far as to call the watered-down Senate version of the bill “morally bankrupt.”

The revised Senate version of the bill “does not defund transgender surgery for minors. That is a moral issue. It only cuts funding for abortion services for one year, not the 10 in the House bill. That’s morally bankrupt,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday night.

While many pro-life advocates — including SBA Pro-Life America and Americans United for Life — called the bill’s one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood a step forward, some former insiders say the deep-pocketed abortion industry has the resources to wait it out. “While any taxpayer money diverted away from Planned Parenthood is a good thing, defunding our nation’s largest abortion provider for just one year is not the win many of us who believe abortion is abhorrent wanted it to be,” said former Planned Parenthood director and founder of And Then There Were None, Abby Johnson, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “A year is enough time for many Planned Parenthood facilities to hold out to be re-funded. Some will close, but Planned Parenthood as an organization has millions of dollars, wealthy donors, and could support those clinics if they choose.”

Planned Parenthood, which received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding in 2024, reported total net assets of $2.52 billion. “Bottom line: it’s not enough and Republicans should permanently defund the abortion giant, not just for a paltry 12 months,” said Johnson.

“A one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood is no victory; it’s a disheartening concession,” Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League, told TWS. “To receive only a token punishment for those who harm women and kill the innocent is unacceptable.”

Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, called the one-year interruption “just a very short pause on defunding” on Wednesday, noting that under the revised bill, “taxpayers will still be forced to underwrite experimental gender transition procedures.”

Family Research Council backed the House version of the bill and reserved the right to score against the Senate version. Ultimately, it reconsidered after House conservatives wrung several promises out of the Trump administration and Hill leadership.

“Last night, we facilitated negotiations and conservations on key policy issues that had been removed or modified from the House version,” announced FRC President Tony Perkins on Thursday morning. “[W]e believe we will see policy outcomes that offset the changes made by the Senate.”

House Conservatives: ‘We Gained, America Gained’

Leaders of the House Freedom Caucus quickly confirmed they had obtained promises for future executive action and legislation to defund abortion and transgender procedures, as well as other policy priorities. “We got significant commitments on spending reductions outside the framework of the bill,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “We said, ‘Let’s talk about some offsets elsewhere. Let’s talk about some things the executive can do to mitigate some of the concerns about what the Senate did with our House bill,’” Harris told Perkins.

“We got a major commitment, a serious commitment on spending reduction,” as well as “a large commitment on social issues. We got an agreement that the administration will add adults to their transgender funding limitation. And we’re going to have a discussion with the administration on the egregious, cross-state trafficking in mifepristone,” he said. “We talked about looking at program integrity in food stamps and in Medicaid,” where improper payments and fraud cost “tens of billions of dollars a year.” And “on the Green New Deal/Green New Scam provisions, the administration has a pretty fair leeway to interpret some of the Senate changes” to provisions of the Biden administration’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

Harris also revealed the House Freedom Caucus extracted a promise from the speaker of the House to address the nation’s ever-expanding national debt. “The speaker has agreed to have another vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, because the last one we had was in November of 2011, trillions of dollars of deficits ago,” he said.

The House Freedom Caucus left the negotiations satisfied. “Everything we did was perfectly in line with the president’s agenda. So he went along with it,” said Harris. “We gained, America gained.”

In a statement sent to The Washington Stand shortly after the vote, Rep. Self confirmed the House Freedom Caucus “moved the bill dramatically to the right on almost every front and at every stage of the process, including overnight, as a small group of us continued working with the White House to address critical policy and spending issues.”

The bill threatened to further divide the Republican Party, as many Republicans reluctantly embraced the bill as the best alternative capable of passing Congress. “People with the same principles, looking at the same facts can actually apply and analyze those facts a little bit differently and reach a little bit different conclusion,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch” later on Wednesday. “This is not the end-all, be-all decision for every moral matter that we have to deal with in Congress. This is, at its core, a bill about taxes and liberty.”

Social conservatives have long seen taxes and defense spending prioritized, while promises of pro-life or pro-family action do not come to fruition. However, President Trump has repeatedly said he will govern by the motto, “Promises made, promises kept.”

In part, social conservatives in the Trump administration may be wary of submitting legislation for fear liberal Republicans will exercise their collective muscle in negotiations. Harris noted the Trump administration “didn’t want to have to send this bill back to the Senate,” where senators such as abortion-supporting Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could assure the bill “would actually get worse.”

What Is in the One Big Beautiful Bill?

As The Washington Stand reported, the surviving provisions largely carry out President Trump’s legislative agenda:

  1. The revised bill increases the child tax credit to $2,200, indexed for inflation, down from $2,500 in the House bill. Without action, the child tax credit would have returned its pre-Trump level of $1,000.
  2. The bill creates “TRUMP” savings accounts for children, indexed to the stock market like a 401(k), with a $1,000 deposit from U.S. taxpayers upon the birth of each child. The bill also furthers school choice by expanding educational savings accounts.
  3. The bill makes permanent tax advantages from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including expanded personal exemptions and incentives for business research and development. “For working families, The One, Big, Beautiful Bill prevents a looming $1,700 tax hike and instead puts more money in Americans’ pockets — including upwards of $1,300 for tipped workers and $1,400 for hourly workers working overtime. Families will see a nearly $11,000 boost in take-home pay,” House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told TWS. “Households making under $100,000 will see a 12% tax cut compared to what they pay today. The average family of four will see nearly $11,000 more in their pockets each year. Real wages for workers will rise by as much as $7,200 a year,” Smith added on the House floor. The final bill gives qualifying senior citizens a $6,000 deduction, which the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates will assure that 88% of seniors on Social Security have no federal income tax liability. It eliminates federal income taxes on tips up to the first $25,000, phasing out for those who earn $150,000 a year (or couples making $300,000). Taxpayers may also deduct up to $12,500 of overtime pay under the same condition; it lapses in 2028. The bill also lets people who buy cars made in America write off up to $10,000 in interest on the car’s loan.
  4. Enhancing border security. “This bill gives President Trump the tools he needs to finish securing the border by providing $175 billion in new funding. It will allow for completion of the border wall, fund ICE deportation efforts, and hire and train new border patrol agents,” agreed Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) in a statement sent to TWS. It also taxes remittances to foreign countries. “It secures our border, funds the largest mass deportation operation in American history, and delivers the tax relief working families deserve,” Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) told TWS.
  5. Securing national defense. The bill increases defense spending by roughly $160 billion, including $25 billion for a domestic “Iron Dome” missile defense system.
  6. Student loan reform. The bill imposes a $257,500 lifetime cap on student loan borrowing and reduces provisions that allow borrowers to delay paying back their students loans.
  7. Underwriting high-tax states and cities. The Senate version of the bill increases the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000 for the next five years.
  8. Slowing our exit from the Green New Deal. The Senate bill ends tax credits or subsidies for green energy projects, such as wind and solar power favored by the Biden administration, for projects constructed within a year of the bill’s passage and that go into service by the end of 2027. But the latest bill removed a proposed excise tax on companies in those industries that use more than a specified amount of components (such as solar panels or batteries) made in China. The Senate version generally slows down the GOP’s efforts to phase out the Left’s cherished credits.
  9. Slowing SNAP reform. The Senate bill delayed reforms to the much-abused Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, program in certain states.
  10. Reforming Medicaid. Medicaid recipients capable of work and who do not have a child at home must spend 80 hours a month in paid work, community service, or schooling/vocational training. The work requirements would save taxpayers an estimated $325 billion over the next 10 years. The bill also reduces the Medicaid provider tax from 6% to 3.5% starting in the 2028 fiscal year.

Despite some well-received economic news, conservatives say the bill still spends too much money and raises the debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

Rep. Mark Harris warned, “if Washington’s overspending addiction continues, the opportunity to put our country back on a path to a sound financial future is in jeopardy. In the coming months, Republicans must use every tool at our disposal to rein in government spending. This is not the end of our work.” (Emphasis in original.) Still, he said, “The country is much better off today than it was a few days ago. There’s certainty in the average working man and woman’s pocketbook that they’re not going to get a tax increase next year” — and greater faith “that the president is watching out for them.”

Nonetheless, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) promised TWS that conservatives would not rest long before collecting the policy commitments they earned in exchange for supporting the amended legislation.

“Celebrate today,” said Roy. “Fight again tomorrow.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘What Is an American?’ Why We Remember Heroes on Our National Holiday

A Historic Week at the Supreme Court

CIA: Intelligence Community’s 2016 ‘Russian Collusion’ Claims Suffered Political Bias, Procedural Anomalies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Senate GOP Advances Tax Cuts, Border Security Spending After Marathon Session

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Senate voted largely along party lines early Saturday morning to pass a budget blueprint encompassing many of President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities, including a permanent extension of the president’s 2017 tax cuts and $175 billion in new spending on border security.

Senators voted 51 to 48 to advance the Trump-backed budget resolution to the House for consideration with Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine joining with Senate Democrats to oppose the fiscal framework. The budget blueprint’s passage at roughly 2:30 a.m. came after a marathon series of votes known as a “vote-a-rama” during which Senate Democrats forced their Republican colleagues to take politically contentious votes on amendments related to entitlement program spending, Department of Government Efficiency actions and Trump’s tariffs.

Senate Republicans countered that the forthcoming tax and spending bill that would be unlocked with passage of the budget resolution by both chambers would not cut Americans’ Medicaid or Medicare benefits. Congressional Republicans are seeking to enact Trump’s legislative agenda through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows Senate Republicans to bypass the filibuster and advance legislation by a simple majority vote.

“The argument is going to be made that we’re going to hurt all kinds of different people tonight in different ways,” Republican Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said on the Senate floor Friday evening. “But the reality is that’s not going to happen. The President has been very clear any reforms to Medicare or Medicaid must not reduce patient benefits.”

No amendment offered by Senate Democrats was notably related to border security or helping fast-track the president’s deportation agenda.

Paul voted against the budget resolution, citing the blueprint’s inclusion of a $5 trillion increase in the statutory debt limit, which the Kentucky Republican argued would set a record for borrowing more money during one bill at any recent point in American history.

“If we expand the debt at $5 trillion that will be an expansion of the debt equal to or exceeding everything that happened in the Biden years,” Paul said on the Senate floor Friday. “Republicans who vote for this will be on record as being more fiscally liberal than their counterparts. They will vote to borrow more money than the Democrats have ever borrowed.”

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget found that the Senate’s blueprint will add up to $5.8 trillion to the deficit, which the organization argued would be “historically unprecedented in its fiscal irresponsibility.”

Senate GOP leadership has argued that the low spending reduction floors in the bill give the upper chamber maximum flexibility to ensure compliance with the budget reconciliation process.

Some deficit-concerned House GOP lawmakers are not convinced senators are serious about cutting spending, suggesting they will oppose the budget resolution barring changes to the text.

“If the Senate can deliver real deficit reduction in line with or greater than the House goals, I can support the Senate budget resolution,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris said in a statement Saturday. “However, by the Senate setting committee instructions so low at $4 billion compared to the House’s $1.5 to $2 trillion, I am unconvinced that will happen. The Senate is free to put pen to paper to draft its reconciliation bill, but I can’t support House passage of the Senate changes to our budget resolution until I see the actual spending and deficit reduction plans to enact President Trump’s America First agenda.”

“The Senate response was unserious and disappointing, creating $5.8 trillion in new costs and a mere $4 billion in enforceable cuts, less than one day’s worth of borrowing by the federal government,” House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington said in a statement Saturday morning.

The initial House budget resolution did not allow for permanent tax relief, which is a nonstarter for most Senate Republicans and the president.

Senate Republicans included a permanent extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts in the fiscal framework by using a budget scoring approach that assumes a permanent extension has a deficit neutral impact because the forthcoming bill would just be continuing current policies.

“Americans should not have to live in fear of a tax hike every few years,” Thune said in a speech on the floor Thursday.

Arrington appeared to slam the budget resolution’s scoring approach Saturday morning for including the current-policy baseline without commensurate spending reductions.

“It also sets a dangerous precedent by direct scoring tax policy without including enforceable offsets,” Arrington said.

Trump has notably endorsed the Senate budget resolution, adding pressure on House lawmakers to support the blueprint when they return to Washington.

“Every Republican, House and Senate, must UNIFY,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “We need to pass it IMMEDIATELY!

AUTHOR

Adam Pack

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘People Are Throwing Around The R Word’: Fox News Host Asks Stephen Miller If He’s ‘Concerned’ About ‘Recession’

Former Bureaucrat, Green NGO Exec Charged For Allegedly Vandalizing Teslas Near Capitol

Tesla Vandals Keep Running Into The Same Problem … Cameras

Trump Isn’t In Wall Street’s Pockets. He’s In Their Heads

RELATED VIDEO: EPA MUSEUM CLOSED: Cost $4 million of taxpayer dollars to build and no visitors!

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Turn Back Now’: Trump Team Starts Mass Deportations

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In his victory speech in November, President Donald Trump vowed that his second administration would be characterized by the phrase “Promises made, promises kept.” One of the chief promises of Trump’s 2024 campaign was a mass deportation program, and the president is already keeping that promise. In a Monday night interview, Trump’s “border czar,” former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tom Homan, announced that mass deportations would begin Tuesday morning, with an emphasis on locating and expelling illegal immigrants considered a threat to public safety or national security.

“The president’s been clear that, right out of the gate, we’re going to concentrate on public safety threats and national security threats,” Homan shared. Referring to several Democratic mayors and governors who have indicated that they will oppose deportations, he continued, “I can’t believe that any elected politician — I don’t care what party you’re from, why would you not want public safety threats out of your communities? That’s your number one responsibility as an elected official is the protection of your communities.”

“ICE is going to start doing their job tomorrow. They haven’t been able to do the job for the last four years, and now they’re going to start enforcing the law like they should be,” Homan added, regarding immigration raids on so-called “sanctuary cities.” He continued, “It’s not a specific sanctuary city. They’re going to do it throughout the country — and we have offices throughout the country — and every ICE office is going to be out there enforcing the law, starting tomorrow morning.”

Moments after Trump’s inauguration, his administration also shut down the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) One app, which had previously allowed immigrants to schedule court appointments at U.S. ports of entry years into the future and, in the meantime, wander the U.S. freely. It is estimated that over one million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. using the CBP One app during former President Joe Biden’s four-year term. The program not only allowed immigrants who were unable to obtain visas entry into the U.S. but provided them with work permits and, in many cases, free transport and airfare. Existing appointments scheduled through CBP One have also been canceled, effective immediately.

Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and National Security Advisor Stephen Miller, an immigration hardliner credited with shaping the president’s immigration and border control policy, issued a clear warning to illegal immigrants following the inauguration. “All illegal aliens seeking entry into the United States should turn back now. Anyone entering the United States without authorization faces prosecution and expulsion,” Miller cautioned. The Trump advisor’s warning may refer to the use of Title 42, a policy related to communicable diseases that allows the U.S. to rapidly expel migrants without judicial oversight. During Trump’s first term, Miller was one of the advisors responsible for the administration’s use of Title 42 to secure the southern border.

In response to Trump’s mass deportation program, a coalition of South and Central American nations hosted a conference in Mexico to discuss “protecting the human rights of migrants, preventing abuse and mistreatment, managing regular, safe and orderly migration from a humanitarian perspective.” Participants also discussed “integrating migrant populations and strengthening international cooperation to address the migration phenomenon from its structural and circumstantial causes, and in its full cycle: origin, transit, destination and return.”

Officials representing Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, and Venezuela also signed a document expressing “serious concern” over mass deportations “because of their incompatibility with fundamental human rights principles and their failure to effectively address the structural causes of migration.” Without actually naming Trump or the U.S., the document continued, “We call on all countries in the hemisphere to conduct themselves in accordance with international law, human rights and their own domestic legislation in the management of human mobility with a humanistic approach, particularly in the face of the threat of mass deportations.”

It is estimated that the Biden administration allowed over 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. Additional immigrants may have entered illegally undetected. The Biden administration also released numerous immigrants recognized as national security threats and either known or potential terrorists into the U.S. and came under intense scrutiny last year for overspending on programs benefitting illegal immigrants and underspending on hurricane relief programs for Americans.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Border Czar Homan Reports Over 300 Arrests of Illegal Immigrants Wanted for Murder and Child Rape

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Border Bonanza: Trump Slated to Enact 100 Executive Orders to Tackle Immigration Crisis

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Following his sweeping electoral victory in November, President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing 100 executive orders for his first day in office, mostly centered on securing the nation’s neglected southern border.

In an interview Thursday, Trump ally and Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) discussed the president-elect’s plans. “He says he has almost 100 executive orders that will go a long ways towards securing the border again and also put the energy sector back in play again and actually build a … ‘drill, baby, drill’ process where we can become energy-independent again.” Mullin added, “All that can be done through executive order, but, as he said, it’s not permanent” without congressional support.

Newly-minted GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) also emphasized that congressional Republicans must deliver on Trump’s agenda. “This past November, the American people gave President Trump and Republicans a mandate. Now the time has come to begin executing on it,” Thune said in a floor speech Wednesday. Noting the incoming Trump administration’s focus on border security, he continued, “One of the most important issues in this last election was the illegal immigration crisis. … For the last four years, the Biden administration’s open-border policies have wreaked havoc in both border communities and those far from the border.”

Republicans in the House are also looking to grant congressional permanence to Trump’s immigration policies. On Thursday, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced a bill to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy previously employed under Trump’s first administration. The legislation would reverse the Biden administration’s “parole” program and require those seeking or claiming asylum in the U.S. to await their appointed court dates in Mexico, instead of releasing migrants into the U.S.

According to an Axios report, Trump and several of his closest policy advisors met with GOP senators late Wednesday and unveiled roughly 100 planned executive orders, mostly focused on border security and immigration. Stephen Miller, an immigration hardliner and Trump’s homeland security advisor and deputy chief of staff for policy, shared that likely executive actions included reinstating Title 42, which allows for the rapid expulsion of illegal immigrants under public health concerns; continuing construction of the border wall, a policy Miller is credited with devising; and utilizing part of the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow state and local law enforcement to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, a key promise of Trump’s successful 2024 campaign.

Trump’s mass deportation plans have consistently garnered widespread support across the nation. Surveys from both April and September of last year found that over half of Americans endorse the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. While some Democratic officials, including mayors and governors, have vowed not to cooperate with ICE to deport illegal immigrants — or, in some cases, have suggested even outright opposing federal deportation efforts — a recent poll found that a supermajority of voters in even deep-blue Democratic stronghold such as Maryland support requiring state and local law enforcement to work with ICE in carrying out deportations. Overall, 76% of Marylanders — including 96% of Republicans, 77% of Independent voters, and even 65% of Democrats — want state and local authorities to cooperate with ICE in deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

A number of prominent Democrats have recently shifted their positions on deportations, from full-throated support for “sanctuary cities” to promising to aid ICE. Governors J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) and Jared Polis (Colo.) and mayors like Eric Adams of New York City have abandoned opposition to ICE’s deportation program — Adams has even pledged his support — after initially indicating opposition. Even Governor Kathy Hochul (N.Y.) said that she would be the “first one to call up ICE” to manage deportations in her state.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington are all currently considered “sanctuary” states. There are also 157 counties and 45 cities across other states listed as “sanctuary cities” as of this week.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Venezuelan Gangs Rampaging in U.S. Because of Harris Border Policies: Congressman

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The intentional open borders immigration policies of Kamala Harris bear the blame for videos that showing heavily-armed South American gang members terrorizing residents of multiple apartment buildings in Colorado, a U.S. congressman has said.

Video footage leaked out last week showing criminals threatening the largely foreign-born tenets and barging inside apartments in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colorado. Local officials confirmed members of the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang had taken over three apartment buildings in the area. The nearby Denver Police Department added it found “reasons to believe that members of this gang are tied to crimes in this area.” In July, the Biden-Harris administration designated Tren de Aragua a transnational criminal organization and offered a $12 millionreward for its three leaders. The 5,000-member TdA’ motto is “Real until death.”

Federal officials consider TdA’s menacing presence on U.S. soil another fruit of the Biden-Harris administration’s lax border enforcement policy. “You have a completely open border that anyone can go through,” including “drug dealers, criminals,” and those seeking to take jobs from U.S. citizens, said Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) on “Washington Watch” last week. “When criminals, drug dealers, gangs see an open border — and Vice President Kamala Harris has refused to close it — they’re going to take advantage of it.”

As the videos of TdA’s intimidation broke, Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky (R) spoke openly about the South American gang’s actions. Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman (R) also revealed that “several buildings … have fallen to these Venezuelan gangs.” Residents of the three buildings, made up of “a concentration of Venezuelan migrants,” watched helplessly as TdA “pushed out the property management through intimidation and then collected the rents.”

“I think we’re a victim of a failed policy at the southern border,” Coffman toldFox News.

Despite video evidence, the office of Governor Jared Polis (D) initially dismissed the story. “According to police intelligence this purported invasion is largely a feature of Danielle Jurinsky’s imagination,” assertedPolis’s spokeswoman, Shelby Wieman, last Wednesday. “It’s illegal to take over buildings in Colorado,” she noted in remarks to the New York Post, but the governor’s office is “ready to assist.” Over the holiday weekend, and after public backlash, Polis confirmed the invasion to CNN.

“We’ve taken it very seriously,” saidPolis, adding that Aurora local police are “on the front lines” and Colorado will “assist” only if requested.

The impact on Aurora seemed doubly unjust to Coffman, since his city “took a position early on that we were not going to participate in the migrant crisis; we were not going to provide taxpayer support, and we were not even going to be a conduit for federal dollars,” he said. He suspected illegal aliens from Venezuela settled into Aurora thanks to the “federal government, perhaps using some of our local nonprofit partners as a conduit.”

“These people didn’t just go there on their own; somebody put them there,” said Coffman. “Who made this decision to put them there?”

Although Aurora has rejected the illegal immigrant invasion, former Colorado State Senator Ted Harvey told Newsmax host Carl Higbie Thursday that Denver-area officials posted a banner on county property which proclaimed, “We love immigrants.” Their policies encouraged illegal immigration to the area.

Illegal immigrants “are sleeping 10 to a room in government-paid-for hotels, and now we are having them being terrorized by illegal immigrants that their countries don’t even want there, so they’re pawning them off on the United States,” Harvey told Higbie. He revealed his own area had 44 cars stolen in July, and “a lot of those were tied back to Venezuelan crime.”

The Biden-Harris administration has chartered planes and buses to undisclosed locations throughout its four years in office, settling illegal immigrants across the United States often without the knowledge of local officials.

Human traffickers have made a record-setting number of illegal entries across both the northern and southern borders since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. Biden put Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris in charge of slowing or stopping illegal immigration across the southern border, a role the media referred to as “border czar,” during a public press conference three months later. Harris’s office later tried to pare back the task to dealing with the “root causes” of illegal immigration from three Central American nations. Immigration watchdogs say the overall levels of immigration from those countries has hardly budged, and may have increased, on her watch.

Few in Colorado seemed surprised the gang brought its deadly ways to the United States. “There’s a lot of criminality in Venezuela. It’s basically a failed state,” Coffman told local media. That and the Biden-Harris administration’s border policies make “a terrible combination.”

Mooney said international criminal syndicates know “they can profit now. They can traffic drugs. They can traffic human beings. They can traffic arms, because nobody’s protecting our border. So, the gangs can get more power now, more money. They’re not being fought.”

They will stop if the president, or Vice President Kamala Harris, begin extracting a legal cost for killing U.S. citizens or otherwise violating the border. “Criminals do evil things. But they’re not stupid,” said Mooney.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) previously called Harris’s tenure as Border Czar “one of the most catastrophic failuresin American history.”

As a presidential candidate, Harris has promoted a “bipartisan” border bill, which includes some funding for border construction. Immigration experts say the bill is unacceptably, and irreparably, flawed. The bill ‘required DHS to process and release 1,400 inadmissible a day into the United States,” noted NumbersUSA.

Yet Harris has largely skated on her poor border record, said Mooney. “The mainstream media these days is trying to downplay [the] role” of Harris as Border Czar, but “She was put in charge of this three years ago. She is directly responsible for” the border’s “lawlessness and chaos,” said Mooney. “Kamala Harris and President Biden have jeopardized our country intentionally.”

As bad as things are, experts worry about the future, in the next four months, or another four years. “What we’re seeing right now could just be a preview of much more to come,” said “Washington Watch” guest host, and Mooney’s former House colleague, Jody Hice. The administration needs to “get tough on crime and, in this case, get tough on the border. We’ve got to stop letting these people come in.”

“I think this is just the beginning” of what could lie in store, agreed Mooney. “I think there are sleeper cells that have come in from Iran and other places.”

The conservative Republican said Congress has some tools at its disposal to hold the administration accountable — if it has the courage to use them.

“The power of the purse is the most important thing invested in the U.S. House of Representatives, where I serve and served,” Mooney told Hice. “Our chamber needs to guard that power and make sure for the people who elected us that we use it to restrict the president when [he gets] out of control.”

Unfortunately, the House has whiffed so often that no one takes it seriously, he said. “Frankly, you’re seeing Democrats don’t really care. And weak Republicans who are just so afraid of a Democrat-caused government shutdown, just cave in and give the Democrats all the money they want with no restrictions.”

GOP leadership could be the silent partners to the Biden-Harris administration’s open borders policies, he stated. “It’s like we’re enabling Kamala Harris to have an open border, because we don’t punish them,” he said. “The president has just assumed to themselves all these powers they don’t have, and the House of Representatives has allowed it, because we keep giving them the money. We just shouldn’t give them the money. It’s really that simple.”

Republican congressmen have lobbied Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) to at least attach the SAVE Act — which would take practical steps to prevent illegal immigrants from registering to vote in U.S. elections — to a continuing resolution funding the government.

In the meantime, Harris’s decision to flout the law has created “a constitutional crisis. You have a president and Vice President Kamala Harris who think they can just ignore the law,” Mooney told Hice. “We have a process by which laws are made. And for the president to just say, ‘I can do whatever I feel like doing’ — ignore student debt, not secure the border — that’s really a problem for our system of government, in addition to what’s happening with the invasion at the southern border.”

As soon as possible, Americans must make their voices heard at the ballot box, border security advocates say. “This is why Donald Trump must be elected,” said Harvey. “This is why we must make sure that Kamala Harris and the other Marxists who have taken over our government right now are thrown out.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Harris Tough on Border Security? ‘That’s a Joke’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

If you’re trying to follow along with the Democrats’ narrative on immigration, good luck. In the last several weeks, the media’s gone from disputing that Vice President Kamala Harris was ever “border czar” to the claim that she’s been “tough as nails” on border security. What used to be the “challenge” of millions of illegal migrants crossing into America is finally a “crisis,” according to even Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). And the man who hasn’t been in office for four years is somehow to blame for all of it.

Harris’s disinformation campaign continued at the Democratic National Convention, where she tried to talk Americans out of what they’ve seen since 2021. “Let me be clear,” she said. “After decades in law enforcement, I know the importance of safety and security, especially at our border.” This, despite the Harris-Biden plan of amnesty, which Republicans have warned will lead to absolute lawlessness.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee, called it laughable that anyone who’s lived through this administration would think this White House is tough on the border. “I mean, that’s a joke,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Saturday’s “This Week on the Hill.” “The Democrats are very good at theater. They’re always united. Whoever controls the Democratic Party — and … it’s definitely not Joe Biden, but whoever is in control — they coordinate with the mainstream media, and they always put together a good production. … [E]veryone’s obedient and they [stay on] message. Kamala Harris, thus far as a candidate, has been very disciplined. She sticks to the teleprompter, and she doesn’t deviate.”

But at the end of the day, Comer warned, “No matter how many times the dishonest politicians say the Democrats are tough on the border, or the dishonest media writes that the Democrats were tough on the border, I think every American knows that the Democrats have allowed the southern border to be wild, wide open, which has allowed for millions and millions of illegals to pour into this country, bringing with them fentanyl as well as a massive amount of human trafficking.”

And yet, as Perkins pointed out, Democrats — with the help of a compromised media — are trying very hard to flip the script that this administration had anything to do with the stampede of illegal immigrants. They can blame-shift all they want, Comer agreed, but “the president is the commander-in-chief. His sole responsibility is to protect the American people, [including] securing the southern border.”

As for these claims that Republicans sank the silver-bullet legislation Democrats pathetically offered as political cover, that’s baloney, Comer emphasized. Not only was the policy weak, but it was also unnecessary. “We never had to have a bill to protect the southern border when Donald Trump was president or when George W. Bush was president or even when Barack Obama was the president. That’s the job of the president and Homeland Security.”

The only reason the border is wide open, Comer continued, is because this White House wants it that way. “[This is] the policy position of the Biden-Harris administration. They want a border that’s wide open. They invite illegals to pour in across that border from all over the world. They want to get those people in this country, get them registered to vote, and get them to become active citizens in their communities.”

But the level of suffering caused by these policies, which he’s seen even in rural Kentucky, has been astounding. “You have no idea the amount of human trafficking cases that are popping up in communities in America that you would never expect. … And we’ve got to stop that. And the one way to stop that is to have a president that tells the Border Patrol, ‘Do your job. Don’t be doing administrative work. Don’t be changing diapers. Secure that border.’ And if the Border Patrol can’t do it, then allow the National Guard to do it. If the National Guard can’t do it, then focus the military there. … The number one priority for our national security right now, today should be securing that southern border. You don’t need a bill to do that. You’ve got the whole United States military, as well as the National Guard.”

As the FRC president pointed out, it isn’t that Biden or Harris have lacked the tools, it’s that they lack the “willpower and desire” to fix the problem they created.

To Democrats, this is the real area of vulnerability for Trump’s opponent. Publicly, they worry that the border is one issue where Harris can’t recast herself as moderate. Former Democratic Governor David Paterson of New York warned of this on Sunday. “She has got one real big problem: 72% percent of Americans think that the number of people crossing the border from the south is going to increase [under her]. Only 21% feel that it’s going to decrease if she is president.”

“It’s not about choice,” Paterson said, referring to the Harris campaign’s hyper-focus on abortion. “It’s not about minimum wage. … It’s about the border and, to some degree, it’s about the economy,” Paterson said.

On this, Comer agrees. “I certainly hope this is an election about the issues. And the two main issues right now are the massive inflation that’s a 100% result from the Biden-Harris big spending policies. … The second issue is … crime and the lack of southern border security. We’ve got a crime outbreak in America, especially in our big cities. And a lot of this is due to lax Democrat[ic] policies. Liberal Democrat prosecutors — like Kamala Harris when she was a prosecutor in San Francisco — [are] not securing the southern border. So I hope American people focus on that. And I hope the conservatives take this very seriously.”

And it doesn’t just matter who’s at the top of the ticket, Perkins warned, but in all the races down the ballot. The White House is important, he acknowledged, but “when you talk about the border, you look at what Texas has done to secure their border. You talk about the economy. We see some states with favorable tax policies that are growing [and] attracting jobs. And then, of course, there’s the social policy, which the Democrats have made really the top-tier issues for them: abortion [and] the transgendering of our children. A lot of these are decided by state legislatures, by attorneys generals, and Congress. So those are very important races that will be on the ballot this fall as well.”

We need a motivated conservative base, the Kentuckian insisted, “because this is going to be a close election and every vote is going to count.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Tale of Two Presidents

California Democrats Passes Legislation Giving Illegals $150,000 in Taxpayer-Funded Loans to Buy Houses

RNC Lawsuit: Detroit Hired Seven Times More Democrat than Republican Poll Workers- 50 Reps vs 2,300 Dems

Jewish Democrats Had to Meet in Secret at DNC

Four Muslim Brothers Have Been Arrested In Brutal Stabbing Attack on Music Teacher in Germany

Democrat Party Sues Georgia Election Board to Block Election Integrity Measures

RELATED PODCAST: A Breakdown of the Democratic National Convention

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Thousands of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Now Victims of ‘Taxpayer-Funded Child Slavery’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Data collected between February of 2021 and January of 2024 revealed “464,922 [unaccompanied] children have been encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection police nationwide.” Some experts, such as those from the child immigrant aid organization Kids in Need of Defense, have explained this surplus of unaccompanied minors was “expected” and likely due to “U.S. measures implemented at the border during the coronavirus pandemic.” But what is shocking, experts have gone on to point out, is how the whereabouts of thousands of these children are unknown, with the biggest concern being that many are becoming victims of human trafficking.

These concerns flooded the mainstream media as whistleblowers testified in a roundtable discussion on Tuesday. The accusation laid forth is that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor are guilty “of covering up how the government and contracted companies have failed to properly care for 500,000 parentless immigrant children in government custody at the border,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Acknowledging the outcry, HHS Secretary Xavier Bacerra said, “No child has gone missing under our watch.” But Allison Dyer pointed out on X that not only is Bacerra’s statement false, but she used information collected by a New York Times report to highlight that “85,000 unaccompanied children released to sponsors in the United States by our government are unable to be accounted for,” meaning “their whereabouts or welfare are unknown.”

Emphasizing a point similar to Dyer, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who also serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, argued that the claims that these children are not unaccounted for shows a “blatant lack of transparency with the American people.” He added, “Frankly, it is hard to see this as anything other than an effort to cover up and shield the Biden administration from scrutiny for its mistreatment and mishandling of unaccompanied children, particularly in an election year where the president is behind in the polls.”

HHS whistleblower Deborah White described the circumstances as “taxpayer-funded child slavery,” and she noted that part of what led to this was the government “prioritizing speed over safety.” As a result, she stated, children are being sent to abandoned houses, unsafe homes, and even one case in which “a child was sent to an open field,” which only further proves the lack of integrity of the system. White said that even after several concerns were raised, nothing was done to stop children from being sent to dangerous locations.

“[I]t’s unbelievable that we’re … talking about government-sponsored, taxpayer funded child trafficking,” said Tara Rodas on Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” Rodas, who formerly worked for the Department of Health and Human Services and testified on Tuesday, explained how she and some of her “colleagues began reporting trafficking cases in June of 2021.” She sighed, “So, if you can imagine, it’s been more than three years” since those first reports.

Rodas emphasized how their efforts were received better “in the beginning, and [we] thought they were going to do something about it.” However, over time, they were threatened and warned from “coming forward to speak the truth.” And “this is not just one incident,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins pointed out, further noting that she “began to see … patterns.”

Rodas explained that what it boils down to is a system that is not organized or monitored well. “So,” she continued, “you can imagine how easily a system like that is exploited.” The process, she described, is that children are brought across the southern border “from Guatemala, El Salvador, all over Central and South America with smugglers.” Then, “the smugglers give them the name and address to where they’re going, the children turn that into Border Patrol, Border patrol turns it over to us at HHS, and then we send the child to that person. It’s really end-to-end delivery.”

And the issue with this, as Perkins noted, is that there’s “no verification of relationship, family connection or anything” to ensure these children end up in a safe place. Again, he contended, “[T]his is being funded by tax dollars. I mean, we’re bringing these children to this country and allowing them to be exploited. This is … horrific.”

In many cases, Rodas explained that what leads children to these horrible homes is the fact that “there is no ultimate verification because” the government “did not even verify if the person was a legal permanent resident.” But ultimately, she insisted, no sensible “child welfare organization around the globe would send a child to an unknown person. … That doesn’t even make sense. And yet, that’s what the government is doing.” However, Rodas concluded that sitting idle is not an option. “There are children in crisis now, and we need to rescue” them.

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Half Of Americans Would Support Mass Deportation Of Illegal Migrants: POLL

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Just over half of Americans now say they would support the mass deportation of illegal migrants, a poll released Thursday found.

The 51% who approve of the action includes 42% of Democrats, as well as 68% of Republicans and 46% of independents, according to the Axios Vibes/The Harris Poll survey. Approximately two-thirds of respondents believe illegal immigration is a legitimate crisis as President Joe Biden’s administration has seen record numbers of border crossings.

Mark Penn, chairman of The Harris Poll, told Axios that Biden’s “efforts to shift responsibility for the issue to [former President Donald] Trump are not going to work.”

“I was surprised at the public support for large-scale deportations,” Penn said.  “I think they’re just sending a message to politicians: ‘Get this under control.’”

Border Patrol had 137,480 encounters at the southern border in March, and has already seen 1 million in fiscal year 2024, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. Fiscal year 2022 included nearly 2.2 million encounters and fiscal year 2023 had 2 million.

A majority of White Americans would support mass deportations, while 45% of Latinos and 40% of black respondents said the same, according to the poll.

Increased crime rates, drugs and violence; added costs to taxpayers; and potential terrorism and national security risks are Americans’ top concerns related to illegal immigration, according to the poll.

The survey also found that Americans largely support immigration as long as it’s legal, with 65% saying the U.S. should make it easier for those wanting a better life to legally enter the country so they don’t try to illegally.

“The tradeoff here in the poll is, people would take expanded legal immigration if they saw there’s a crackdown on the border,” Penn said.

Click here, here, here, here and hear to view pictures of the lack of border security.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House in February over his handling of the border crisis, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the two articles without a trial on April 17.

The issue has become a main point on the campaign trail as illegal immigration continues to rank among the top concerns Americans have ahead of November. Polling suggests voters trust Trump by double digits more than Biden on the issue.

The poll surveyed 6,251 U.S. adults between March 29-31, April 5-7 and April 12-14, and it has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%.

Neither Biden’s campaign nor the White House immediately responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘For the love of god’: Leaked audio reveals Dem gov ripping Biden admin over border security

Americans Are Now Most Concerned About Immigration, Poll Finds

Media Outlets Are Misrepresenting Crime Stats To Biden’s Benefit

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Immigration Overtakes Inflation As Top Voter Concern In 2024: POLL

/in , , , , , , , /by

Immigration has overtaken inflation as the top concern for voters in 2024’s elections, according to a survey released on Monday by The Harris Poll for Harvard University’s Center for American Political Studies (CAPS).

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election, along with Republican candidates nationwide, have sought to make illegal immigration and the United States’ international border with Mexico a top political issue, owing to the high number of illegal crossings by foreign nationals during President Joe Biden’s term. The Harvard CAPS-Harris poll showed a 36% plurality of respondents ranked immigration as the top issue facing the country, beating inflation and cost-of-living issues, which 33% reported as being the top issue.

“When people ask themselves the Reagan question: ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’, the answer increasingly is no,” said Mark Penn, co-director of the poll for Harris, according to Cision PR Newswire. “The sizable number of independent voters who are still undecided will determine this election, and they continue to be personally concerned about the border crisis and their grocery store prices.”

Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll for March 2024 by Daily Caller News Foundation on Scribd

Among respondents, 53% of Republicans and a 37% plurality of independent voters ranked immigration as the top issue, while a 26% plurality of Democrats ranked inflation as their top issue. Immigration was also identified as the top issue by pluralities of white voters (39%) and Hispanic voters (41%) as well as suburban voters (40%).

Additionally, 57% of respondents believed that Biden inadequately addressed immigration during his State of the Union address to Congress on March 7. A 46% plurality also indicated that Biden’s biggest failure while in office was that he “[c]reated an open borders policy and a historic flood of immigrants,” with that rating being 21% higher than his perceived failures on inflation.

The survey was conducted between March 20 and March 21 among 2,111 registered voters across the United States, with the margin of error being 3 percentage points.

The Biden and Trump presidential campaigns did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

ARJUN SINGH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Reps Demand Transparency Over Thousands Of Migrant Children Reportedly Lost By Biden Admin

U.S. Experiencing Massive Border Breach From Canada By Illegal Aliens From 66 Different Countries [Videos]

Congress Passes Funding Package, Leaves for Recess and Fails to Secure Border

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

How Illegal Immigration Defeats the Pro-Life, Pro-Family Movement

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The impact of illegal immigration fill our TV screens, crime blotters, and morgues every day. But too few Americans appreciate how lawlessness at the border advances other liberal policies. Illegal immigration gives Democrats extra votes in Congress and greater control over all three branches of government. It forces you to spend even more of your tax dollars on transgender procedures and masks the failure of big-spending government programs. Most offensively, it drowns out your voice in your own government.

Democrats draw artificial power for all of their plans — including expanded abortion and transgender procedures — from a seemingly unrelated issue: counting illegal immigrants in the U.S. census. Under the Constitution, the number of congressional seats, Electoral College votes, and federal funding each state receives depends on its population. Lumping in illegal immigrants and resident aliens with native-born Americans gives sanctuary states undeserved power. This opaque issue exploded into the open last week, when Senate Republicans introduced a measure to give you back the full sovereignty you are due as an American citizen — and Senate Democrats shot it down.

Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) introduced the Equal Representation Act (S. 3659 and H.R. 7109), which would ask census-takers if they are U.S. citizens — and count only U.S. citizens when apportioning congressional seats. Chuck Schumer’s Senate would not allow a vote, but on March 8, Hagerty attached it as an amendment to a $460 billion spending package. Senate Democrats predictably voted against an honest census en bloc, 45-51. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined with the Democrats to give them an anti-accountability majority. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) claimed the measure attempted to “attack vulnerable, underrepresented groups,” because “our country has never excluded undocumented individuals from the apportionment process.”

But Hirono is wrong. The U.S. Census Bureau explains the Constitution’s enumeration clause (Article 1, Section 2) did not count “Indians not taxed,” because these individuals lived “under some sort of separate sovereignty recognized by a treaty, and did not vote or perform other duties related to citizenship.” This held until the American people granted U.S. citizenship to all tribal members born on U.S. soil in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, signed by President Calvin Coolidge. By definition, non-citizens have not been granted citizenship — although three states and the District of Columbia allow non-citizens to vote in elections, and only seven states prohibit it (New York City would be on that list absent constitutional limitations.) Non-citizens should not have any impact on the course of U.S. politics. Yet the same politicians continually crowing about mythical Russian attacks on “Our Democracy” want illegal immigrants to shape the course of our everyday government.

Counting non-citizens in the U.S. census has a palpable impact on Congress, transferring power from conservative states to liberal ones. A report from immigration scholars found that counting non-citizens in the census redistributes eight congressional seats: It gives extra seats to California (3), Texas (2), New York, New Jersey, and Florida (one each); and it takes seats away from Alabama, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, and West Virginia (one seat each). Illegal immigrants alone transfer one seat each from Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota to California, Texas, and New York.

Imagine a Congress without Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, and Maxine Waters. In their place, we would have an extra Jim Jordan, and Alabama voters wouldn’t have had to choose between conservative incumbents Barry Moore and Jerry Carl on Super Tuesday. The scholars similarly broke down some of the congressional districts with the largest share of non-citizens. Among them is New York’s 14th district, represented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Thus, the legally dubious policy of counting non-citizens in the census empowers the most radical left-wing voices. The prescient John Zmirak wrote in 2019, “Open Borders Equals Abortion.” Today, open borders equals abortion, porn in school libraries, and transgender surgeries for children.

It bears noting, these figures came from 2019, before the Biden administration added an unprecedented number of illegal immigrants to the U.S. population. Without mass deportations, the next redistribution of voting power will be even greater.

Of course, none of these radical representatives truly represent illegal immigrants. Leftists count illegal immigrants much the way slave states lobbied to count slaves: Slaveowners wanted to make their slaves do double labor, working in the fields and giving slave states more political power. Child labor and human trafficking remain a concern for illegal immigrants, as well. “Undocumented migrants” hold down labor costs, undercutting U.S. citizens’ wages (especially black citizens) while handing blue states a greater share of the federal budget and political representation.

Although the immediate impact falls on Congress, counting illegal immigrants in the census also affects the other two branches of government. These illicit congressional seats give states additional votes in the Electoral College, which determines the presidency. Since the president appoints Supreme Court justices, an inaccurate Census creates a whole-of-government distortion of democracy.

Counting illegal immigrants not only gives liberals the votes to implement left-wing policies, it forces you to pay for them. Census figures directed $2.8 trillion in federal spending through 353 federal programs in 2021, the U.S Census Bureau reported. Before the pandemic, the greatest census-related cost to U.S. taxpayers came from Medicaid: The lower a state’s median income, the more money it gets, so it pays to pad the numbers. Now, consider: Medicaid programs in 26 states and the District of Columbia cover so-called “gender-affirming care” (cross-sex hormone injections and/or transgender surgeries). A total of 83% of America’s sanctuary states cover transgender procedures through Medicaid. Overcounting their population means you foot more of the bill for these life-altering procedures. Additionally, eight of the 10 states that cover abortion-on-demand through Medicaid are sanctuary states — and AOC has led the charge to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from funding most of these abortions.

This policy should concern fiscal conservatives, as well. Counting non-citizens in the census generally subsidizes high-tax, high-regulation states at the expense of low-tax, fiscally responsible states. Data from the 2020 census showed U.S. citizens fleeing California, New York, and Illinois (all high-tax, sanctuary states) in favor of Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee. These citizens take federal funding with them — unless blue states can plug the gap with illegal immigrants and non-citizens, effectively transferring wealth from U.S. citizens to foreigners and their left-wing political leaders. “While people continue to flee Democrat-run cities, desperate Democrats are back-filling the mass exodus with illegal immigrants,” said Hagerty.

The Left has reacted radically each time someone suggests this policy, which would bolster citizenship and move America one step closer to constitutional order. The U.S. Census asked about citizenship until the question was removed from the 1960 census. The Left’s histrionics when President Donald Trump tried to reinsert the question into the 2020 census underline how closely they guard their ill-gotten money and power. After the vote, Haggerty declared, “Democrats’ unanimous opposition to this commonsense measure confirms that they’re using illegal aliens and sanctuary cities to increase their political power.” Indeed, I have long argued that the Left’s position on every policy in Washington can be explained based on whether it increases or decreases their political power. It is the one thing that explains everything the Left does.

Jesus said, “The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” (Luke 16:8). This scriptural truth plays itself out daily in Washington, D.C. While Christian voters hide our talent in the earth, those dedicated to foisting extreme policies on the nation use every lever to impose their agenda. They are apparently willing to pile up the bodies of Laken Riley, Kate Steinle, and an untold number of angel families in the process.

Christians would point out that the Bible repeatedly condemns false weights and measures (Leviticus 19:36, Deuteronomy 25:13, Proverbs 16:11, Proverbs 20:10; and Proverbs 20:23), thereby excluding efforts to mix non-citizens into a census intended to represent the American people. The Bible provides precedents for taking a census only of citizens (Exodus 30:12, Numbers 26:4, II Samuel 24:1) and excluding some residents (Numbers 1:49). Enrollment in this census sometimes qualified non-citizens (II Chronicles 2:17) and citizens alike (Numbers 14:29) for unique civic responsibilities.

The story strikes me personally, as members of my own spiritual tradition prepare to observe Lent. During this time, we say a beautiful ancient prayer which begins, “O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.” The thousands of crimes the government documents at the hands of illegal immigrants illustrates the ways an insatiable thirst for fleeting, earthly power hurts some, kills others, and destroys the souls of those so afflicted.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Four people caught running ‘large-scale’ marriage scam to get green cards for 600 migrants: DOJ

RELATED VIDEO: Biden would rather put Americans in extreme danger than admit Trump was right

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Judge Orders Biden Administration to Build the Wall

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Biden administration must spend funds allocated by Congress to build a wall on the southern border, a federal judge ruled Friday. Southern District of Texas Judge Drew Tipton sharply rebuked the Department of Homeland Security for contending that, “notwithstanding the language in the statute,” it had discretion to spend the money however it pleased. “Whether the Executive Branch must adhere to federal laws is not, as a general matter, an area traditionally left to its discretion,” Tipton, a Trump appointee, remarked dryly.

As usual, this lawbreaking by the Executive Branch is traceable back to the nation’s chief executive. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden issued a proclamation declaring that “it shall be the policy of my Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.” The proclamation, as Tipton noted, paused all spending on a border wall and directed DHS to devise other ways to spend the allocated funds.

This language was already misleading because the word “divert” means “to turn from one course or use to another.” To quote from the ruling, “In 2020 and 2021, Congress funded roughly $1.4 billion ‘for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border.’” Thus, by halting construction, President Biden was responsible for diverting funds from one purpose to another. The issue was funds being diverted from, not to, border wall construction.

In compliance with Biden’s proclamation, but in defiance of Congress’s allocation restrictions, DHS dreamed up plans to spend most of the money on “smarter border security measures” (a.k.a. technology systems, not a wall), “environmental remediation, flood-control, and cleanup projects.” Under these plans, the DHS would only construct new barriers “in two locations where they are filling gaps in existing walls,” according to the testimony of their own expert.

“The Biden Administration has failed to abide by the law to finish the construction of a wall along the southwest border,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R). “Joe Biden refuses to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibilities, so we took him to court to force him to do his job.”

In response to the Biden administration’s fantastical interpretation of “construction of [a] barrier system,” the judge threw the dictionary at them. “The definitions of ‘construction’ and ‘barrier’ connote building a physical structure that would serve as a barricade and a line of demarcation,” he wrote, after quoting from Merriam-Webster. “‘System’ accounts for the large scale of the U.S.-Mexico border requiring different kinds of barriers such as walls, fencing, buoys and the like.” Obviously, “this plain meaning does not include the Government’s definition,” Tipton concluded.

Tipton proceeded to analyze surrounding text in the same appropriations law. “Congress broke [the relevant section] down into five distinct subsections” and stipulated that “these funds ‘shall be available only as follows,’” he acknowledged. So, funds allocated in one category couldn’t be diverted to a purpose in another category. The following section of the law gave “currently deployed steel bollard designs” as an example of one type of barrier DHS was authorized to construct with the funds, demonstrating that Congress clearly intended the funds to cover the construction of the actual barrier.

Tipton further reasoned that DHS’s creative plans to reallocate border barrier funds fell into the other subcategories Except for a “generalized catch-all,” each section had “clearly separate and distinct purposes,” with one funding a border barrier, another “border security technologies,” another “facility construction and improvements,” and yet another “integrated operations assets and infrastructure.” These distinct categories described all the other projects DHS had in mind.

The agency’s discretion over spending projects did not extend so far, the judge argued. It would be one thing if the states who challenged the administration’s decision (Texas and Missouri) simply objected to DHS’s decision to pursue or not pursue any particular spending project. Instead, a fundamental part of their argument was that “DHS was specifically obligated to spend the CAA funds to construct border walls, and the decision to not do so … was outside DHS’s discretion and violated the law.”

This distinction was important because, instead of turning the argument into a question of federal authority versus state authority, it became an argument over whether Congress or an executive agency had authority over spending. “The central question in this case, then, is this: Has the Government obligated FY 2020 and FY 2021 funds for the ‘construction of [a] barrier system’?” the judge asked. He answered, “The answer is largely no.”

This is not just the opinion of a single federal judge out in Texas. Tipton quoted from a 1993 Supreme Court opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil, “an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities: Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes.”

Given this legal slam dunk, the judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing any parts of the DHS’s plan that did not involve the “construction of physical barriers, such as additional walls, fencing, buoys, etc.” and prohibiting them from obligating the funds in question “toward mitigation and remediation efforts, repair of existing barrier, so-called system attribute installation at existing sites, or other similar purposes.”

During a previous hearing in the Southern District of Texas, a federal judge had dismissed Texas’s border wall lawsuit for a lack of standing, but then the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision and remanded the case in July 2023.

This lawsuit forms part of a legal maelstrom darkening relations between Texas and the Biden administration over its handling of the border. Other lawsuits taking place concurrently involve Texas’s attempt to arrest illegal immigrants, place razor wire along the border, or place buoy barriers in the Rio Grande River.

Given the larger legal context surrounding the southern border, not to mention political controversy making illegal immigration a top issue in the 2024 election, the opinion contained several findings that could be significant beyond the scope of this one ruling. Specifically, the court acknowledged the Biden administration’s border crisis had inflicted real injury on the state of Texas because of the costs the state has incurred in dealing with it.

Beyond that, the court also found “that Texas has demonstrated that its injuries are traceable to DHS’s funding decisions.” Texas submitted the DHS’s own documents to prove to the court that “constructing additional border barriers will reduce illegal entries in areas where those walls are constructed, increase detection rates across the entire border, and generally disincentivize illegal immigration.”

In other words, the Biden administration knew that constructing barriers would at least hinder illegal immigration, yet from January 20, 2021 it has deliberately chosen to pursue a policy of not constructing border barriers. In late January, President Biden told reporters, “I’ve done all I can do” to secure the border. According to this federal court’s findings, DHS’s own documents prove that statement false.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Senate Republicans Block Border Bill

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Senate Republicans blocked the border security bill from advancing Wednesday after significant pushback.

A motion to proceed on the bill failed 49-50. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Mitt Romney of Utah voted to pass the legislation.

A handful of Democrats also voted no. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders opposed the military aid to Israel while Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez also voted in opposition.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would move to put a package on the floor focusing on foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and other initiatives that do not include border security.

The Senate released the long-awaited text of a border package in exchange for Ukraine aid. The bill would appropriate $48 billion to Ukraine, and nearly $16 billion to Israel and fund border security measures. Among the border provisions include more funds for hiring new immigration judges to expedite the processing of asylum and deportation proceedings as well as law enforcement to detain and remove illegal migrants.

The bill includes a provision that says the border can remain open so long as less than 5,000 migrants enter daily. Under the bill, authorities can remove migrants without removal proceedings if the week-long average of entries increases to more than 5,000 per day. The process would continue until the two-week average number of illegal entries decreases to 3,750 persons per day.

House Republicans have indicated it would be dead on arrival, arguing it doesn’t do enough to secure the border.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘It’s Our Job!’: GOP Rep Spars With Fox & Friends Host Over Border Bill

‘Just Insane’: Dr. Phil Tells Hannity He Was ‘Shocked’ By Visit To US-Mexico Border

Senate Border Bill Would Allow Foreign Fiancés, Spouses Of Americans To Work In The Country Immediately

Whimpy Liberal Country Is Doing More To Protect The American Dream Than America Herself

‘Hereby Banished’: Gov. Kristi Noem Banned From Tribal Lands Over Border Remarks

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.