Posts

Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ is Bunk

Dems’ plans to import tens of millions of immigrant children prove it.


Despite the optimistic campaign slogan “Build Back Better,” in reality, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and their Radical Leftist political cohorts are waging a war against America and Americans because they know that For Dems to Succeed, Americans Must Fail.

Not unlike most politicians, Biden and Harris promise that if they are elected they will create tens of millions of high-paying jobs.

Of course they won’t tell you how they would create those jobs other than to make some vague statements about how the “Green New Deal” would create jobs as buildings, including houses, will have to be retrofitted to meet the new environmental standards that will be imposed on landlords across the U.S.

They never say who would pay for retrofitting those buildings or what would happen if the owners of the properties are unable to come up with the funding to modify their structures. (Would such property owners have the property confiscated by the Biden administration? No one is discussing this disturbing possibility.)

Meanwhile, Biden and Harris state that if elected they would defund the Border Patrol, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and decriminalize nearly every violation of our immigration laws including unlawful entry and re-entry and, presumably, immigration fraud.

Biden and Harris also insist, as did Hillary Clinton during her unsuccessful run for the Presidency inn 2016, that they would immediately create a massive legalization program for what they estimate are 11 million illegal aliens who are already present in the United States and place them on a path to U.S. citizenship.

That 11 million figure has been claimed by supposed journalists for more than a decade.

It has, however, been estimated that the number of illegal aliens who  could be a population of more than 25 millions illegal aliens.  I believe that even that number is much smaller than he actual number of aliens who would participate.  Back in 1985 the Reagan Amnesty that was part and parcel of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was supposed to provide roughly one million illegal aliens with lawful status.  In reality the final number was between 3.5 million and 4 million.

I addressed this issue in my recent article, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should be Renamed the “Overwhelm America Act” in which I noted that on September 21, 2018 Yale University reported Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates.  That report, published just over two years ago noted:

Using mathematical modeling on a range of demographic and immigration operations data, the researchers estimate there are 22.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

However, as large as the number of illegal aliens who would be eligible to participate in such an ill-conceived program, the ultimate number of aliens who would be provided with lawful status would, in reality, be a multiple of the number of illegal aliens who are present in the United States.

This is because each and every legalized alien would immediately have the absolute right to immediately petition to have their spouses and all of their minor children to be lawfully admitted to the United States.

Many families in Third World Countries have large numbers of children.  If, for argument sake 25 million illegal aliens were to participate in the Biden/Harris Amnesty and if the average alien has four children, we could witness an immediate influx of 100 million alien children enter the United States!

One of the key issues for the Radical Left is the environment.

Every person in the United States has an ecological and economic footprint.  Each person needs more than a place to sleep.  They all need water, food, electricity, sewerage, transportation and healthcare.

As roads and transportation and infrastructure become overwhelmed, traffic will grind to a halt while pollution from cars, busses and trucks spew into the atmosphere.  There are parts of the country that experience droughts and electrical brownouts.  How would this massive influx of immigrants impact these struggling systems?

These tens of millions of immigrant children will all need to attend schools in the United States.  In 2007, nearly 14 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published a paper,  The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments  That report estimated that there were about 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States at the time the report was published.  It also noted that it costs 20% to 40% more to educate children who lack English language proficiency.

How sustainable would this situation be?

Now consider that among the proposals for Biden/Harris is that everyone in the United Stats, regardless of immigration status would be entitled to free health care and free college education.

How would our government cover the huge expenses that this would cost?

How would hospitals be able to treat all of these people?  There are communities today that already lack adequate health care facilities and capabilities.  Imagine how long the waiting lines in emergency rooms would stretch as seriously ill patients from around the world would flood these emergency rooms.

Add to this is Biden and Harris’ stated goal of creating immigration anarchy, with the promise of free health care would turn our entire country into the world’s ER!

America would become a magnate for the world’s sick.  Our immigration laws make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Without enforcement the concerns about the entry of aliens with dangerous communicable diseases will go unaddressed.  Aliens from around the world who suffer from such dangerous communicable diseases would head for the United States to seek free treatment.

This could and would likely lead to multiple epidemics of dangerous diseases in the United States.

Hasn’t the COVID-19 Pandemic from China taught Biden or Harris anything?

The loss of secure borders that would result from the Biden/Harris immigration policies would leave America vulnerable to narcotics, transnational gangs and terrorists.  The 9/11 Commission. to which I provided testimony, identified multiple failures of the immigration system as being directly responsible for the ability of terrorists, and not only 9/11 hijacker terrorists, to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

Under the massive Biden/Harris amnesty program, national security would be irreparably undermined.  Because of the huge number of illegal aliens who could apply for lawful status, in-person interviews could not be conducted and field investigation would be out of the question.  Adjudications officers would have to make quick decisions based nearly entirely on the information provided in the applications for legalization.  This program would suffer from massive fraud and the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified immigration fraud as the key method of entry and embedding for international terrorists.  This issue was the predication and my focus in my extensive article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

The obvious question that has never been asked of candidates for the President or other significant elected offices since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 is, “Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report that was prepared by the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel?

Recently we have seen where the weapon of choice for terrorists is not airliners but motor vehicles.  Yet Democrat-run states such as New York State not only provides illegal aliens with driver’s licenses, but New York State Blocks ICE and Border Patrol Access to DMV Database.

Finally, let us go back to the issue of those amazing jobs Mr. Biden claims he would provide for millions of struggling Americans.   In some of his campaign ads Biden speaks so wistfully about his father telling him when he was a boy that jobs not only provide money but dignity and a sense of purpose.

Of course that statement about the significance of jobs is accurate.  Extremely accurate.

However- with no secure borders and a massive influx of tens of millions of immigrant children who will quickly become adults and flood the labor pool, the Biden/Harris immigration policies would drive down wages and force hapless Americans to compete with tens of millions of foreign born workers for those ever so important jobs.

Barack Obama promised “shovel ready jobs” and now Biden has come up with a “shovel ready” job, shoveling the BS that he and Kamala spew when they make promises that are nothing but bald-faced lies that would irrevocably alter America- and not for the better!

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:

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

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Constitutionality of A Presidential State of Emergency

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question de jour: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?”

I am certain that is not the right question, or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government. Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations. The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution. For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label — “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate.

Recall that the 10th Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature. The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because — “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.S

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously No.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, which they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer — if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebellion, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later. 

Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78 — Alexander Hamilton

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

The Constitution, as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to a monarchy.

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Has a Strong Legal Argument That He Can Declare National Emergency at Border

EDITORS NOTE: This column from The Revolutionary Act is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

BREAKING: Trump Moves Towards Shutdown Over Wall Funding

President Donald Trump informed GOP leadership that he will not sign a continuing resolution passed by the Senate late Wednesday because it does not contain funding for his proposed wall along U.S. southern border, House Speaker Paul Ryan revealed at the White House Thursday afternoon.

Ryan spoke alongside House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy after meeting with Trump for nearly an hour. Ryan told reporters that Trump informed them he would not sign the bill without border security funding. McCarthy said he was optimistic that some deal could be reached within Congress ahead of the Friday deadline.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders quickly released a statement declaring:

President Trump just met with Republican Members of the House. Not surprisingly, they all feel strongly about Border Security — stopping the flow of drugs, stopping human trafficking, and stopping terrorism. We protect nations all over the world, but Democrats are unwilling to protect our nation. We urgently need funding for border security and that includes a wall.

Trump’s declaration to Ryan is the latest in a head-spinning saga of shutdown politics with a central fight for funding his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border. Democratic lawmakers insist they will give Trump no more than $1.3 billion in funding while Republicans say they need $5 billion.

Trump originally pledged to shut the government down during a fiery Oval Office meeting with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. The president went so far as to declare he would be “proud” to do the shutdown and that it would be politically beneficial to him.

This posture changed significantly, however, when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders broke from this hardline position Tuesday.

As she related to Fox News, “There are certainly a number of different funding sources that we’ve identified that we can use — that we can couple with money that would be given through congressional appropriations — that would help us get to that $5 billion that the president needs in order to protect our border.”

Trump’s newest declaration to Ryan appears to show he is back where he began and that shutdown may be unavoidable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Border wall symbolizes security, not racism

GoFundMe – We The People Will Fund The Wall

Twice-Deported Illegal Immigrant Embarks on Murderous ‘Reign of Terror’ Thanks to Sanctuary Laws

GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall Surpasses $5 Million In Less Than Four Days

White House Condemns ‘Activism’ Of Judge Who Wants Deportees Back in The U.S.

Is Trump Blowing His Last Chance To Get The Wall?

Meadows Calls McConnell’s Short-Term Funding Bill a Gift for Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images was originally published by The Daily Caller Foundation. It is republished with permission.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House — The Sequel [Worse than the Original]

In the movies sequels are usually worse than the original. Since Washington has often been referred to as “Hollywood for ugly people,” it is perhaps appropriate to consider another sequel in the making, not in film but in politics. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House and soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives, once again was the subject of a video posted on December 7, 2018 by Fox News, in which she rejected the notion of constructing a wall along the highly porous U.S./Mexican border to prevent the entry of illegal aliens, narcotics and other contraband.

Her outrageous statements and positions on immigration law enforcement and border security seemed to strike a new low during her first stint as Speaker. She has yet to resume that position and is already providing a disturbing peek into what America and Americans are in for with her in the position that provides her with a “leadership” role in the Congress and puts her in the chain of succession to the U.S. Presidency.

As my dad used to say, “Nothing is so good it could not be better or be so bad it could not get worse.” As hard as it might be to imagine, bad as Pelosi was the last time she held the position of Speaker, she may actually prove my dad was right.

This is the Fox News video:

It is unfathomable how Pelosi could declare that protecting the United States from threats posed by international terrorists, transnational gangs and the flow of narcotics into the United States is “immoral.”

It is similarly impossible to understand how Pelosi could determine that it is immoral to prevent the illegal entry of foreign workers who all too frequently displace American and lawful immigrant workers and drive down wages and working conditions of American and lawful immigrant workers who are similarly employed.

A wall would not prevent the lawful entry of a single person into the United States. The wall would not block America’s ports of entry but would funnel all traffic destined to the United States through ports of entry where they are subject to inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors and where a record of their entry into the United States is created. These issues have significant national security implications.

This is comparable to the way that guests who visit us are expected to knock on our front doors to ask permission to enter our homes. It would certainly be unacceptable for a stranger to enter our homes by climbing through a back window. Similarly an effective border wall would prevent aliens entering the United States surreptitiously.

In a very real sense, entering without inspection is, at a minimum, comparable to trespassing and, as I noted in my recent article, “Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters,” Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical and contradictory position on trespassing on critical infrastructure and national landmarks versus aliens who trespass on America is astonishing.

Here is the relevant excerpt from my commentary:

Aliens who evade the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States.  This is a violation of law and poses a threat to national security and public safety.

On October 13, 2014 Schumer posted a press release on his official website which announced that because of dangers created by trespassers, particularly in this era of terrorism, that he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.

However, Schumer, who actually cited the antics of a 16-year-old boy in his press release, had declared that anyone who trespasses, including “adrenaline junkies,” should face a five-year prison sentence.

However, when aliens trespass on the United States, even where violence is concerned, Schumer and his Democratic colleagues are determined to provide those illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship!

The open-borders immigration anarchists refer to aliens who run our borders as being “undocumented immigrants.” In point of fact, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of enter the United States without inspection.

Such an entry is in violation of U.S. Code § 1325, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Some “journalists” have actually seized upon this linguistic sleight of tongue and have come to refer to illegal aliens as “immigrants who lack documents,” conjuring up the image of a student who went to the bathroom without taking the hall pass. The issue is not a lack of paperwork but legal authorization to enter the United States and remain here. Some of these aliens have no shortage of documents. In my 30-year career I encountered quite a few aliens who had been deported numerous times, some having been arrested and convicted of so many crimes during each of their illegal forays into the United States that their arrest record or “rap sheet” and their immigration files could have provided wallpaper to decorate a moderately-sized house, if you like hanging garbage on walls!

Aliens who seek to evade the inspections process do so because they know that they belong to one or more categories of aliens who are legally ineligible to enter the United States. Race, religion and/or ethnicity do not have any bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of aliens who seek to enter the United States.

In fact, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States. It is clear that the purpose for this section of law is protect national security, public safety and public health and protect the jobs and wages of American workers.

Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who had been previously deported from the United States, aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, are convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment, thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges, thereby burdening the economies of the towns and cities where they would live.

Pelosi claims that the wall would be “ineffective.” In fact, had a wall been erected the “Caravan of Migrants” (aspiring illegal aliens) would likely have been deterred from streaming to the U.S./Mexican border.

However, more must be done to address the immigration crisis than simply constructing a wall along the southern border. As I have frequently noted, a wall along the border is comparable to a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but a wing by itself goes nowhere. A border wall must be erected and additional enhancements must also be made to the enforcement program of the Department of Homeland Security. Currently ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has about 6,000 agents for the entire United States and they do not only enforce immigration laws but customs laws and other laws that have nothing to do with immigration. (The “C” in ICE is, after all, Customs.) ICE is more focused on those who produce counterfeit Gucci loafers than counterfeit passports. To put things in perspective, the NYPD has about 38,000 police officers, the Border Patrol has about 20,000 agents, and our armed forces have more than one million enlisted men and women.

Obviously many more ICE agents, immigration judges and support staff should be hired, not to deport all of the illegal aliens who are present in the United States (likely more than 30,000), but to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity and convince aspiring illegal aliens around the world that the United States takes its laws and its borders seriously.

Finally, as to the issue of the cost of constructing the wall, the wall would pay for itself just as the cost of insulating a house is payed back to the homeowner many times over through savings in the costs of heating and cooling the house. I drew upon that analogy in my article “America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation,” in which I noted that each year tens of billions of ill-gotten dollars flow out of the United States in the form of remittances and other means of moving the money out of the U.S. that is earned by illegal aliens and as the result of the drug trade. Finally securing that border would help to stanch the flow of money and save many, many lives as an added bonus.

Of course, as I have noted in my article “Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design,” the multiple failures of the immigration system are not the result of inability to enforce our laws but an abject lack of desire by political leaders of both parties to enforce the immigration laws.

To put it bluntly, while our borders and our immigration laws are America’s first and last lines of defense against transnational criminals and fugitives and international terrorists, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a laundry list of other organizations and special interest groups including immigration lawyers, they are viewed as an impediment to their wealth.

While Nancy is a highly-visible proponent for open borders, there are precious few members of Congress in either party who actually disagree with her.

That is the real horror show!

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

Promise Kept: President Trump Assists the Victims of Criminal Illegal Aliens

On April 26, 2017 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) posted a self-explanatory news release, “DHS announces launch of new office for victims of illegal immigrant crime, Office built with input from victims impacted by crime” that is illustrative of President Trump’s pro-American mindset and commitment to keeping his immigration campaign promises.

This long overdue approach to immigration stands in stark contrast to the Obama administration that sought to portray illegal aliens, including such aliens who committed serious and often heinous crimes, of being the “victims” while blithely ignoring the true victims, those who either fall victim to the violence of criminal aliens or are members of the families of such victims.

This bogus and morally bankrupt perspective is still a fundamental element of the policies of the leaders of the Democratic Party and is behind the creation of “Sanctuary Cities” whose mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

America’s immigration laws were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

A review of a section of law comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens provides clear and unequivocal evidence of how reasonable and vital our immigration laws are to America and Americans.

Therefore it is hard to imagine who could be opposed to the effective and fair enforcement of such fundamental laws.  However, for decades, the enforcement and administration of our immigration laws, under a succession of administrations from both political parties, put the desires of aliens, special interest groups and corporations ahead of Americans.

Consequently, huge numbers of Americans have lost their lives and livelihoods as a direct result of what I have come to refer to as Immigration Failures – By Design.

The artful use of Orwellian language by politicians, pollsters and pundits and the steady drumbeat of propaganda by the mainstream media has, over the past several decades, obfuscated the important distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens.

Proponents of effective immigration law enforcement have come to be vilified as being xenophobes, racists and haters.

Journalists routinely castigate immigration law enforcement proponents by branding them “Anti-Immigrant” while immigration anarchists are glowingly praised as being “Pro-Immigrant.”

Americans have been told that the “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are willing to do the physically demanding work Americans are too lazy to do while America must important foreign workers to do the high-tech jobs Americans are too dumb to do.

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy he made it clear that if elected he would end the immigration madness.

Yet, since his election, President Trump’s immigration policies have been opposed by the leadership of the Democratic Party and even from some members of the Republican Party.

The manifestation of that resistance includes lawsuits and withholding of funds for the construction of the border wall and the hiring of more immigration enforcement personnel.

Nevertheless he continues to try to keep his promises that the enforcement and administration of our immigration laws would prioritize the needs and interests of Americans over aliens and the various globalist corporations and special interest groups who oppose border security and effective immigration law enforcement- no matter the costs to America and Americans.

Consider that just over one year ago, on April 19, 2016, during the final year of the Obama administration, the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security conducted a hearing on the topic:  “The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration’s Policies.”

Two of the witnesses who testified at that hearing, were Michelle Root and Laura Wilkerson, the mothers of two children who were killed by illegal aliens.

Michelle Root’s poignant and heart-breaking prepared testimony at the hearing was reported on by Breitbart “Mother of Daughter Killed by Illegal: His Bail Was ‘Less Than it Cost to Bury My Baby.’

CNS reported on Laura Wilkerson’s testimony in which she provided horrific details about the torture and murder of her high school student son by Hermilo Vildo Moralez, an illegal alien whom he had befriended.

The title of that article was,Mother of Teen Murdered by Illegal Immigrant Tells Congress: ‘Do Something – It Is Your Job.’

Now the Trump administration is attempting to do precisely what Laura Wilkerson so passionately implored Congress to do.

The administration’s multi-pronged strategy would include the construction of a wall along the U.S. /  Mexican border and adding more Border Patrol agents to combat the flood of illegal aliens and narcotics into the United States and by enforcing the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

For many decades the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, constituting the third leg of what I have come to refer to as the “Immigration Law Enforcement Tripod” has been all but missing.

This deficiency is being addressed by President Trump and by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

President Trump is seeking the funds to triple the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) enforcement personnel and expand the number of immigration judges to help clear the backlog of deportation (removal) cases.  His policies also include ending the lunacy of declaring categories of illegal aliens to be “protected” from removal as was done by the Obama administration.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is hiring more federal prosecutors and tasking them with enforcing criminal violations of our immigration laws such as 8 U.S.C. § 1326 – Reentry After Deportation (Removal).

In April 2015 the United States Sentencing Commission published an Analysis of Illegal Reentry Offenses that reported that in FY 2013 illegal reentry prosecutions accounted for 26% of all federal prosecutions, noting 18,498 such prosecutions were conducted and involved aliens with serious criminal histories as well as aliens who had no prior convictions.

However, the fact that the U.S. Sentencing Commission analysis reported that most of the aliens who were prosecuted for unlawful reentry were apprehended at or near the border illustrates the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

This provides evidence that resources for  interior enforcement must be greatly increased.

The leadership of the Democratic Party, however, is adamant about not funding the border wall and has resisted efforts to hire an adequate number of ICE agents.  Further complicating this issue is the fact that there are Republicans who are also opposed to some of these essential measures.

It would be difficult to find a better (worse?) example of politicians playing politics with innocent lives and national security.

On a personal level, the actions and statements by Attorney General Session are extremely gratifying for me.  In the early 1980’s I approached then New York Senator Al D’Amato with the proposal that the reentry laws be modified to make unlawful reentry by criminal aliens a crime that would carry a maximum penalty of 20 years.  At the time the reentry laws made no distinction about whether an alien had been convicted of any crimes and the maximum penalty for unlawful reentry was two years in prison.

Senator D’Amato and his staff worked with me, met with a number of my colleagues I introduced to him and his staffers.

We convinced him to draft the legislation and, in an example of serendipity, the chief of investigations for the INS in New York City, Walter Connery, wrote a legislative initiative to enact such legislation and sent it to Senator D’Amato shortly after we had concluded our meetings with the Senator and his staff.

However, we did not know about Walter’s efforts and he knew nothing of our efforts until I mentioned it to him casually during a meeting.

Walter was the former head of Internal Affairs for the NYPD and became the director of the equivalent bureau at INS Headquarters (Office of Professional Responsibility) before he was assigned to head up the Investigations Branch in New York City.  It certainly did not hurt that he was also an attorney.

Senator D’Amato was, ultimately, instrumental in drafting the legislation and getting it enacted.

The Senator also met with President Reagan to implement a program that would come to be known as the “Institutional Hearing Program” I suggested be created.  Under this program deportation hearings would be conducted inside prisons for aliens who had been convicted of committing serious crimes.  This would enable their deportations to be finalized before they were released from custody.

This way they could, immediately upon completion of their jail sentences, be deported from the United States.

That program has been extremely successful but needs more funding.

Solutions to “fix” the immigration system are not that difficult to devise.  All it requires is a sincere desire to actually enforce our immigration laws and imbue the immigration system with real integrity.

Too many of our political “leaders” lack that sincere desire.

This problem also has a simple solution.  Any politician, on any level of government, who is not willing to act in the best interests of America and his/her constituents, must come to understand that elections have consequences – for them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Underreported: How Building a Border Wall Changed San Diego

Portland and Berkeley: Sanctuary Cities for Leftist Violence

The History of Extreme Vetting of Immigrants

RELATED VIDEO: The Liberal Case for Effective Immigration Law Enforcement

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The Case Against Legalizing Unknown Millions of Illegal Aliens

At least as far back as the administration of Jimmy Carter, the immigration debate has been waged by globalists who have, over time, succeeded in hijacking the language and terminology applied to immigration.

Consider that Jimmy Carter: Orignator of the Orwellian Term “Undocumented Immigrant,” understood that by removing the term “alien” from discussions about immigration he could, over time, subvert the debate by confounding the public’s understanding about the entire immigration issue.

Carter insisted that INS employees immediately stop using the term “Illegal Alien” to describe aliens who were illegally present in the United States but refer to them as being “undocumented aliens.”

Today many politicians and journalists claim that illegal aliens who run America’s borders, thereby evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry, have entered the United States “undocumented.”

In actuality, aliens who evade the inspections process enter the United States without inspection.  This creates a huge threat to national security and public safety, after all, Entry Without Inspection = Entry Without Vetting.

Additionally, aliens who enter the United States through ports of entry but then go on to violate the terms of their admission, depending on the category of visa they used to enter the United States, certainly are not making “undocumented” entries.

However, to the globalists and immigration anarchists, these facts are merely speed bumps that need to be overcome so that they can craft their false narrative.

One of America’s most cherished symbols is the Statue of Liberty that is equated with America’s rich and diverse immigrant heritage.  Over time his strategy of altering the terminology succeeded in convincing huge numbers of Americans that anyone who would interfere with the flow of “immigrants” into the United States was acting against America’s culture and traditions.

The media was quick to jump on the bandwagon and identified to immigration anarchists who oppose secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement as being “Pro-Immigrant” while branding advocates for effective immigration law enforcement as “Anti-Immigrant.”

Of course if honest and accurate nomenclature was used the two sides should be referred as as “Immigration Anarchists” vs “Pro “Immigration Law Enforcement.”

However the agenda is to eradicate America’s borders which, to the globalists, are impediment to their wealth and political power.

Not being content to alter the language of the debate, the immigration anarchists have concocted a false narrative about the nature of illegal aliens and the way that the immigration crisis can be fixed since, they claim, “The immigration system is broken.”

We can find adherents to this madness in both political parties, however, the Democrats are clearly leading the charge.

Of course, in reality, what has traditionally been “broken” is the lack of resources and political will to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.  President Trump is certainly sending a clear message that this situation will be finally remedied by hiring many more ICE agents and Immigration Judges and taking the gloves off the agents by stating that there will no longer be any category of illegal aliens who may not be arrested, as was the Obama administration’s policies.

But I am compelled to address an issue that is of great concern.

While many journalists and politicians have agreed that aliens who have serious criminal convictions should be deported, but insist that since the millions of illegal aliens who are present in the United States cannot all be arrested, it is reasonable to provide them with lawful status, especially if they are working and paying taxes.

Of course our immigration laws are not about aliens paying taxes and not only are illegal aliens prohibited from working but aliens admitted under certain categories of visas are also prohibited from working.  This is about protecting the jobs and wages of American workers.

This sort of “reasoning” is never applied to any other area of law enforcement whether we consider the law enforcement response to drunk driving, texting while driving, tax fraud or other crimes.  Yet this supposed solution, is no solution at all, just a thinly veiled effort to meet the demands of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association and a laundry list of industries and special interest groups who make monumental campaign contributions seeking to get “the best government money can buy.”

Additionally, the true number of illegal aliens is unknown and unknowable but the media and many “think tanks” claim that there are between 11 million and 12 million such illegal aliens present in the United States.

During the Reagan administration it was estimated that the Amnesty of 1986 would get roughly one million such aliens “out of the shadows.”  That amnesty eventually enabled more than 3.5 million aliens to acquire lawful status.

immigration-chaos-millions-of-visa-overstays-add-to-illegal-alien-problemIn 2007 the CBO estimated that there were 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States.

Given those factors and others, it is likely that any massive amnesty program would likely provide tens of millions of illegal aliens with lawful status.

The numbers would be so huge that there would be no way to interview these aliens and no way to conduct any field investigations of these millions of aliens who evaded the United States surreptitiously without inspection.

What is not understood by most folks is that an adjudications officer can approve and application in mere minutes but would require days or weeks to deny an applications since it must be expected that when an application is denied the alien will, through his/her attorney, file an appeal of that denial.  Therefore before and application for legalization is denied the adjudicator would likely require an investigator conduct a field investigation and the subsequent denial would have to be reviewed by a government attorney to make certain it meets minimal standards to withstand any legal challenges.

Consequently, it is likely that well over 90% of these applications will be approved.

Since no field investigations could be conducted, there would be no way to determine who many of these aliens actually are.  There would be no way to ascertain when these aliens actually entered the United States.

It would be simple matter for aliens to claim to have entered the United States prior to whatever cutoff date would be established to meet the statutory requirement.  As more and more aliens succeed in gaming the system more and more aliens will be encouraged to enter the United States and make similar false claims about entry data and other pertinent facts, thereby creating a vicious cycle of fraud.

The 9/11 Commission found that immigration fraud played a major role in the ability of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves.

twin towersThis was my focus in my article, Reflections on 9/11’s Vulnerabilities.

Most terrorists have not had criminal histories.

Terrorists, not unlike spies and other “Sleeper” agents seek to maintain a low profile.

Indeed, it is believed that at least four of the 9/11 hijackers had been encountered by police officers for motor vehicle violations.  The police officers simply treated their motor vehicle violations as routine matters and permitted them to go on their way.

On January 9, 2002 BBC reported, Hijacker ‘pulled over by police’ as did CNN, Another hijacker was stopped for traffic violation.

Clearly aliens who have serious criminals histories or established involvement in gang or other criminal activities should be deported.

I would also strongly recommend that illegal aliens who frequent places of criminality such as brothels or locations associated with the drug trade should be arrested and deported (removed) in an effort to combat these criminal enterprises.

So-called “collateral” arrests are essential to imbue the immigration law enforcement program with integrity so that aliens understand that we are serious about our immigration laws.

This helps to deter aliens from entering the United States illegally.

Additionally, under the law enforcement principle known as “randomness” by arresting illegal aliens during the course of routine field work, it is to be expected that ICE agents will stumble across serious crimes and intelligence concerning major criminal organizations and even potentially uncover terrorists and aliens who support terrorism.

My very first assigned fraud investigation, as a brand new agent in 1976, led me to uncover a terror plot in Israel that was, thankfully averted.  The investigation began with a young man from Israel who attempted entry in the United States with and altered visa.

No one expected this mundane and routine assignment to trigger a major international investigation.

Finally, aliens who are provided with lawful status are entitled, under our immigration laws, to immediately petition to have their spouses and all of their minor children to be admitted into the United States.

Families in Third World Countries tend to have many children.  It is entirely possible that a massive amnesty program would enable more minor aliens to be granted visas than the number of illegal aliens who would be granted lawful status.

The impact of admitting tens of millions of children who would immediately be enrolled in school systems across the United States would be devastating to already beleaguered school districts across the United States.

President Trump’s immigration policies are already having the desired impact of deterring illegal immigration as reported by the Border Patrol.  It is important that he stay the course he has wisely plotted, America and Americans will benefit from his courageous leadership.

‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs National Security and Public Safety

Why ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States to protest the election of Donald Trump and his promises to secure the U.S./Mexican border and enforce our immigration laws.

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities and was the focus of my article, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.”

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and are vulnerable to arrest and removal (deportation).

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens.  However, what is generally not understood is that Sanctuary Cities endanger every person in the United States, no matter where they live.

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks they might carry out in the cities where they live or in other cities they could easily travel to on the day of an attack.

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure — By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers wrecking havoc on the lives of those Americans and their families when they lose their jobs and their paychecks.

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations.

To provide you with such an example, consider my commentary, “Immigration Fraud Linked To San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family: Alleged supplier of material support now also charged with marriage fraud.”

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

As an INS agent I investigated and arrested aliens from countries from around the world.  My colleagues and I did not single out violators of immigration laws on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity.

For about three years I was assigned as the Marine Intelligence Officer for the INS New York District Office.  I was responsible for joining members of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs in boarding ships in and around the New York City area to search for contraband, stow-ways and ship-jumpers (crew members who absconded and failed to return to their vessels before they departed from the United States.)

While such vessels provided individuals from many countries the opportunity to gain illegal access to the United States, the majority of crew members who went “missing” were citizens of Greece.

As part of my duties I was responsible for tracking down those aliens wherever they lived and worked and took the into custody to arrange for their deportation from the United States.

Members of the Greek community frequently complained to me that the INS was only concerned about Greeks.

When I worked on several investigations concerning organized crime, we often heard members of the Italian immigrant community complain that we were targeting Italians.

When we partnered with the Public Morals Division of the NYPD to raid brothels to shut down those locations in China Town, local resident grumbled about how unfair this was to the Asian community.

In reality the “targeting” that we did at the INS involved law violators irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity.

Period.

However, because of the utterly false and irresponsible Orwellian narrative created by the open borders immigration anarchists, incredibly, many gullible and misinformed Americans have been conned into believing that opposing fair and effective enforcement of our immigration laws is an act of heroism and a way of fighting prejudice and bigotry.

On November 14, 2016 NPR reported, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel: ‘Chicago Always Will Be A Sanctuary City’.”

That report began with the following paragraphs:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel added his voice to the chorus of big-city mayors who say theirs will remain “sanctuary cities” in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line positions on illegal immigration.

Surrounded by immigration activists, business leaders and state and federal lawmakers, Emanuel sought to reduce the fear of immigrants living in this country without authorization.

“To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” said Emanuel at a news conference called to publicize the expansion of mental health services for people anxious over the election results.

“Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city. … It always will be a sanctuary city,” the mayor said.

His comments come on the heels of Trump’s appearance Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, in which the president-elect promised to deport all immigrants with criminal records.

You would imagine that the mayor of any town would be thrilled to have criminal aliens deported to end the concern of recidivism and keep the residents of those cities safe.

Many mayors do see things that way and support cooperative efforts between their police departments and ICE.

However, the mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and the governors of Sanctuary States have “done the math” and have, unbelievably decided that achieving political objectives is far more important than protecting innocent lives and the security of our nation.

Such politicians must not find “sanctuary” in the voting booth come their election day.

RELATED ARTICLE: In 2006, These Democrats Still in Office Voted to Build a Wall

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

Brits React to ‘Brexit’ from EU and the Islamist Threat — Read their views…

We asked people from the United Kingdom for their thoughts on Islamism in the wake of their country’s vote to leave the European Union.

Clarion Project has subscribers across the globe, with thousands of readers in the United Kingdom. Our UK readers sent us their thoughts on Islamism in the wake of the June 23 vote by Brits to leave the European Union. Here are some of their comments:

“If we can control our borders we should be able to refuse entry to identified terrorists. It should make it easier to deport terrorists now that they can’t appeal to the European court.” B.S.

“As long as we beef up our border controls we’ll be safer against radical Muslim murderers, although there is still the serious danger of ‘home-grown’ lone wolves.”  A.B.

“Now that England is free from external interference we will deal with Islamic extremists.  The English are a fair and just Nation.” G.M.

“I am delighted that the British people have voted to leave the EU as this will likely put an end to the freedom of movement that many Muslim jihadists have been enjoying.” S.M.

“Brexit will do nothing to halt Islamic terrorism in Europe but it might be easier to handle in the UK.” M.E.

“I believe we should not have had a referendum on our EU membership at all but especially at this time when the world faces so many problems. Any major issues which arise from Brexit will leave the UK more unstable and more vulnerable to terrorism.” R.C.

“I think coming out of the European Union can only help us in Britain in our fight against Islamic terrorism!” K.F.

“Brexit seems unlikely to make much of a security difference in the UK since the main terrorism problem is disaffected Muslim youths who are long-term residents or who have grown up in the UK. It is not clear at the moment whether Brexit will make the UK borders more secure or not.” C.W.

“So pleased. A victory for democracy and right thinking.” W.A.

“Although I voted for Brexit and am absolutely delighted we won the vote, I do have doubts that Islamist extremism will be part of the reforms.” A.B.

“There have been Extremists and Radicals settled in the UK who have taken advantage  of liberalism and democratic rights to propagate their views on imposition of Sharia law….One major reason for Brexit was the European Court of Human Rights power of over-riding British Courts in matters related to UK.

Brexit will free British Courts to act in a proper way to protect the national interests. Justice will rest solely with British Courts.” D.D.

“Now we have Brexit, the only answer, as I see it, is every citizen must swear an oath of allegiance to our Queen and country, and on pain of any dissent or action contrary to such an oath, be stripped of British Citizenship.” J.R.

“I don’t think it will make any significant difference, certainly not in the short term, we will have a lot on our plate of internal matters and extracting the country from it massive entanglement with the EU.  In the longer term, Brexit will allow us to spend more time and effort on such problems – unless there is a massive attack on GB.” M.P.

“My own opinion is that Brexit will help Britain fight against Islamic extremism in the UK for two main reasons:

1)    Regaining control over our own borders means that we be able to have proper checks and will have the right to refuse entry to anyone considered/known to be an extremist.

2)    When/if it is obvious that someone in the UK is an extremist, we will have the power to deport that person. Currently it takes years going through EU procedures with no guarantee that the deportation will be allowed in the end.” M.S.

“Brexit itself is NOT going to help the fight against Islamism/extremism. However, it will enable the British HM Government to implement measures that would previously have been impossible.” F.

RELATED VIDEO: Nigel Farage: First speech in European Parliament after Brexit vote:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Goodbye Friend

UK Muslim Women Have Nowhere to Turn

UK Launches Government Review Of Sharia Councils

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?

VIDEO: Pastor Jack Martin Running for Congress in Florida’s 11th District

Florida’s 11th Congressional District includes Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties and most of Marion county. The current representative of the 11th Congressional District is Richard B. Nugent (R). Nugent is retiring at the end of his current term.

Pastor John “Jack” Martin has decided for God and country to run for Nugent’s seat. Here is a video of Jack Martin speaking at a Second Amendment rally:

Guns Across America Florida Rally Pastor Jack Martin from Jack Martin on Vimeo.

Pastor Marin’s history is that of a 33 year pastor. He is a member of the Black Robe Regiment and Preacher from The Pulpit. He has been standing up, speaking out and attending various events throughout the State of Florida to Washington D.C. He has always felt that a position as a statesman, U.S. Congressional Rep. to represent The People was his next calling in life.

Martin on his website lists six major crises Americans face:

  1. The National Debt – Over 18 Trillion Dollars
  2. Our Borders – Unprotected and being flooded daily with those entering illegally from many nations.
  3. Our Military both Veterans and Active Duty treated poorly.
  4. Obamacare – Needing to be repealed and replaced.
  5. Israeli / American Relationships – Need to be restored.
  6. Our Judeo Christian Ethics – under heavy attack.

Jack Martin speaking on the Black Robe Regiment at a Deland, Florida Rally in December 2015:

Pastor Martin has been endorsed by William Finlay, Wild Bill for America, also a Black Robe Regiment member among others.

Supporter Deb Howard states, “Pastor Jack is well known for his candor of Gods word and the application in conjunction with today’s times that we face. His deliveries are captivating. I am attaching one in particular that I believe delivers Jacks beliefs as he does walk the walk. There is no denying that people are pleasantly surprised as the preacher from the small country church is ready willing and able to face the evil in D.C. unafraid to be heard and willing to fight the mass corruption within our Halls!”

“Pastor Jack is also acquainted with Geoff Ross, Senior Chief, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Michael McCallister, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), Ann Murrin, PoliticoChicks, Rodney Conover (writer and radio host), Joe The Plumber and numerous others who are supporting, covering the campaign trail and publishing information about him, ” said Howard.

Howard notes, “Our attempt to make Pastor John Martin a household name not only in District FL-11 but nationwide as he is challenging pastors to step out and off of the pulpit and guide congregations to comprehend the true nature of their work. As Black Robe Regiment Pastors joined in leading with George Washington to fight for our independence in the Revolutionary War, so stands John Martin.”

EDITORS NOTE: Readers wanting more information may visit the Jack Martin for Congress website.

American Immigration Crisis: One Vote, One Man, One Time

Manchester, NH: On Saturday, July 25th, the Center for Security Policy, in partnership with First Principles and High Frontier, hosted The New Hampshire National Security Action Summit. A number of America’s most influential national security leaders addressed the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policies in an increasingly dangerous world. Its purpose was to ensure that the common defense receives the priority attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, at both the federal and state levels.

Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of New Hampshire:

  • The threat from Iran, shariah and the Global Jihad Movement
  • The hollowing-out of the U.S. military
  • The border insecurity and immigration crises
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure

Here is the 18-minute video on border security and the immigration crisis given by James Simpson:

To view the full video of the action summit click here.