Posts

1024px-us-border-notice-1

1.4 Million Obama Amnesty Applicants on Deportation Hit List

Some 1.4 million illegals who followed President Obama’s request to sign up for two controversial amnesty programs could be among the first to face deportation under the new administration.

The reason: In exchange for getting into the two programs, they handed over their identities, home addresses, and admitted to being in the United States illegally, making them the easiest to find and legally deport.

“I was surprised anyone would be stupid enough to sign up for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). Yet apparently hundreds of thousands of people did so anyway,” said John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies.

He said in a blog post that the programs are dead under a Trump administration and those who signed up “created a list of prime candidates for deportation with names, addresses, and an admission of illegal alien status.”

Secrets has already received reports that illegals are already starting to leave the country. One source said that some in Virginia left for the border on Wednesday, the day Donald Trump was declared the winner. (Read more from “1.4 Million Obama Amnesty Applicants on Deportation Hit List” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

john_mccain_-_guard_association_of_the_united_states_general_conference-4

No Amnesty for 2 ‘Treasonous’ Open-Borders Republicans

Citing their support for illegal immigration and the rising influx of Muslim refugees, one of the nation’s most hawkish immigration lobbying groups has launched a new strategy to remove John McCain, R-Ariz., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., from office.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, also called ALIPAC, is endorsing their Democrat opponents in the Nov. 8 general election.

That’s a first for the organization. In its 12-year history ALIPAC has never endorsed a single Democrat.

But it makes sense, said ALIPAC President William Gheen, given the two lawmakers’ persistent support for amnesty for illegals, their support for President Obama’s bulging numbers of Muslim refugees being secretly funneled into hundreds of U.S. cities and towns, and their efforts to elect Hillary Clinton by “undermining the campaign of Donald Trump.”

“If Republicans like McCain and Ryan are going to act like and help Democrats, why not elect Democrats and try for better Republicans next time?” asked Gheen. (Read more from “No Amnesty for 2 ‘Treasonous’ Open-Borders Republicans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4638389389_5952fd5c42_b

Immigration Insanity: This Federal Judge Just Turned Six States Into Sanctuary States

If you thought executive amnesty was bad, wait until you get a taste of judicial amnesty. A new order from a federal judge issued a week from last Friday will prevent ICE from placing detainers on many illegal aliens held in local jails in six states. This radical violation of American sovereignty — judicial tyranny on steroids — will have the effect of creating a judicial sanctuary for sanctuary cities and prevent the Obama administration from detaining even the few illegal aliens they are pursuing. You heard that correctly, a federal judge wants to grant de facto amnesty to those even the Obama administration wants to deport!

For the past decade, ICE has issued detainers on those suspected of being in the country illegally who have been arrested by local officials, but are about to be released. ICE asks local police to hold the individual for 48 hours if they have probable cause an individual is an illegal immigrant so they can apprehend any criminal alien without them being released into the population. Remember, in almost every case where an illegal is arrested, they were never apprehended for simply being an illegal alien. They have usually committed an additional crime. These are not your lovely housekeepers Democrats nostalgically speak of when stereotyping illegal immigrants.

On September 30, Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order voiding out thousands of such detainers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the states where plaintiffs filed a class action suit. In a pattern of interpreting statutes in the most stringent manner for American sovereignty and in the most lenient manner for illegal aliens (in other cases they downright overturn statutes), Judge Lee asserted that ICE is required to obtain a warrant for every individual before issuing a post-release detainer unless they can verify that each individual suspected alien is a flight risk. This ruling will essentially take the policy of Cook County and the City of Chicago of “we will not enforce the law” and expand it to six states, ensuring that the Feds can’t enforce the law, even when local officials want to cooperate.

To begin with, the Obama administration has reduced the number of monthly detainers from nearly 30,000 in 2011 to under 10,000 since announcing the DAPA amnesty. That part of DAPA has not been halted by the courts, and this latest court ruling will likely void out most of the remaining detainers. Keep in mind, for the Obama administration to issue a detainer, that individual has to be a pretty nefarious character, given the fact that he has declined to deport even most criminal aliens.

As has been the case throughout the Obama administration, there is a bit of kabuki theater between the DOJ attorneys and the liberal judges. While the DOJ has to defend the laws and practices of the federal government, the Obama administration has not put up a rigorous defense for immigration enforcement, and that was evident in this case. As Judge Lee noted, the DOJ essentially agreed with the Soros-funded immigration groups that there is no ubiquitous flight risk among illegals. That is scandalous. By definition, illegal aliens with no documentation are the consummate flight risk, which is exactly why the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), calls upon ICE to apprehend illegal aliens without a warrant when the suspected alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.”

For example, we know that 84 percent of family units from Central America that received a notice to appear before an immigration judge absconded and disappeared into the population before the final decision in 2014-2015, yet this judge feels that none of them can be detained. Among young illegal aliens who have crossed over in recent years, 90% failed to show up for their hearings, according to data from the House Judiciary Committee. The notion that illegals who have been arrested for crimes but never apprehended by the feds in the first place are not a flight risk is insane.

The consequences of this decision are devastating because it will codify sanctuary city policies into law everywhere, even where local law enforcement actually follows federal law. As CIS’s Jessica Vaughn reported, during a nine-month period in 2014 alone, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders ICE was seeking to deport. Of these illegals, 62% had significant prior criminal histories and 2,320 of them were subsequently rearrested for new crimes. There is no telling how many have committed crimes and were never caught. This is just a nine-month snapshot of the devastation from sanctuary policies. As of last year, 69% of them were still at large. So much for not being a flight risk.

While the lead plaintiff in this case was a U.S. citizen and obviously had standing to bring the suit against ICE, it is astounding that illegal aliens could piggyback on this lawsuit and secure a carte blanche order from a judge to suspend detainers in six states. In all cases of law enforcement actions, even pertaining to U.S. citizens, police operate based on probable cause. There are times that they make mistakes. In this case, the U.S. citizen, Jose Jimenez Moreno, can file a civil suit against the government if he wants to get revenge. But how do illegals get standing for relief when they are not even allowed to be in the country and how can a judge legislate immigration policy from the bench?

This is part of the disturbing trend of granting citizen rights to illegal aliens I warn about in Stolen Sovereignty. It has long been settled law that non-citizens have no right to stay in this country, nor are they entitled to a judge reviewing their case for remaining in the country. That understanding has been changed as we allowed liberal lawyers to violate that precedent in recent years. As Justice Robert Jackson, the famous Nuremberg prosecutor who was a champion of due process rights (he wrote the dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the Japanese internment case) and regarded as one of the greatest writers of his time wrote, “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

While all human beings obviously have a right to due process before being punished or indefinitely detained, a country acting to protect its sovereignty can apprehend any alien with the purpose of deporting them. They are not entitled to judicial review beyond an appearance before some administrative official to ensure the individual is indeed not a U.S. citizen. “As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law, ” wrote the court in 1892. That was a decision that Justice Felix Frankfurter regarded as “about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

Yet, over the past number of years, the courts have overturned this settled law and have now made their supremacy over sovereignty its own form of “settled law,” a premise adopted, at least in part, by much of the conservative legal profession. This will not change with a Republican president. It will only get worse with an administration that is serious about enforcing our sovereignty because the illegal alien legal profession has the ability to use the lower courts to litigate every last deportation to death, even in the few instances where we get narrow victories at the Supreme Court.

This is why Judge Roy Moore’s fight against the usurpation of the federal judiciary is about more than marriage. The federal judiciary is crushing states from exercising the powers they’ve held since our founding with regards to defining marriage, (gender?!), proscribing methods and procedures for elections, protecting civil and religious liberty, and enforcing immigration laws. Yet, at the same time, the courts are defending the blue states that thwart federal immigration law, the one area where the feds legitimately have plenary power in order to protect the sovereignty of the entire union.

That Congress can just sit idly and watch lower courts — which are a complete creation of the legislative branch — grant citizen rights to dangerous illegal immigrants reflects the ultimate breakdown of our system of governance and is a gross violation of the social contract. (For more from the author of “Immigration Insanity: This Federal Judge Just Turned Six States Into Sanctuary States” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2227111521_c752005a2a_b-6

Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty

Could a federal judge pave the road to reviving Obama’s DAPA amnesty in most of the country? Are we about to see a mass judicial amnesty on top of Obama’s existing executive amnesties that are still in operation?

As we reported in August, an illegal alien recipient of Obama’s DACA status sued in federal court to have Obama’s DAPA amnesty (which renewed DACA applications for three years) reinstated. The illegal alien, represented by the Soros-funded National Immigration Law Center (NILC), is asking the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York to ignore the Fifth Circuit’s injunction on Obama’s amnesty because, in their estimation, the injunction should not apply outside of the 26 states that sued the administration, given that the Supreme Court was deadlocked at a national level. The consequence of this decision would open up DAPA for New York City and potentially in many other states.

At the time, we suggested that it would be absurd for a judge to grant standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative citizen privileges on an illegal executive amnesty that even the administration is no longer pursuing. It’s bad enough to rule that Obama has the authority to override the sovereignty of the nation and the plenary power of inviolable congressional statutes. But to proactively order the administration to revive its executive amnesty — at the behest of an illegal alien — would be mind-blowing to even liberal justices of previous generations, as I demonstrate in chapter 4 of Stolen Sovereignty.

Sadly, the men in robes on the federal bench ain’t your grandfather’s judicial activists. They literally believe that the Constitution and statutes are amendable to their geopolitical world view. It now appears that Judge Nicholas Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, is not only willing to grant Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, an illegal alien from Mexico, standing to sue for citizen rights, but he indicated his personal sympathies and inclination to rule in Vidal’s favor.

Here is the report from Law360 (subscription required) on the initial hearing:

A New York federal judge has indicated a willingness to break from a Texas court on Thursday in a case seeking to exempt certain New York residents from the block against the president’s executive actions on immigration, saying he had “no intention” of “marching behind in the parade,” according to a transcript. […]

“I don’t know what’s going on out there [in] Texas on the border, but I know what’s going on in New York,” said Judge Garaufis, according to a transcript of an initial hearing held Thursday. “And I’m very concerned about it, and I have absolutely no intention of simply marching behind in the parade that’s going on out there in Texas, if this person has rights here.”

What right does a judge have to be concerned with illegal aliens? Ironically, the plaintiff is actually suing the Obama administration for NOT following through with its own egregious executive action in the other states. Yet, when the lawyer for the DOJ complained to Judge Garaufis about their untenable situation, the judicial tyrant responded, “I sympathize with your problem, but I do not sympathize with the idea that I am hamstrung in dealing with an issue involving individual rights and including the right to go make a living and have a life as an immigrant in the United States.”

Freeze frame right there!

This is the constitutional crisis we face. Courts think that they have the power to not only change the Constitution and statutes, but force an executive to enact a revolutionary executive action and grant standing to an illegal in order to tickle their social sensibilities. Who are we to “hamstring” them from getting what they want by any means?!

t would be scandalous enough for a judge to grant standing to a plaintiff in order to force the Executive Branch to enact any executive action, even as it relates to American citizens. But to grant such standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative benefits who, under the most settled aspect of American law and sovereignty must be deported, is beyond comprehension. Yet, this judge believes this man has individual rights and calls him an “immigrant” as if he’s here with the consent of the citizenry. If transgenderism could be applied to jurisprudence, it would look something like this.

Moreover, as Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute points out, the injunction has to be applied nationwide because “nothing would stop the millions of illegal aliens in Texas (and Louisiana and Alabama) going out of state to apply for and receive DAPA-benefits” in a state like New York (if the judge reinstates the program). That alien could then return home and force one of the state’s that received injunctive relief to issue a driver’s license.

To make matters worse, consider the following warped juxtaposition: sovereign states, law enforcement, and individual taxpayers are denied standing to sue the administration when it manifestly violates Congressional immigration statutes. States, towns, communities, civil services, and the criminal justice system are then flooded with illegal aliens, often violent ones. Yet, individuals in this country without the consent of the people can obtain standing to sue the administration for NOT taking action to violate Congress’ plenary power over immigration.

Stolen Sovereignty, indeed!

As I warn in my book, if the courts are not stripped of their power to adjudicate cases granting illegal aliens rights, there are already enough lower court judges who would create an affirmative right to immigrate and nullify our national sovereignty — the most profound manifestation of what Justice Scalia called “social transformation without representation.”

The courts are engaging in nullification and civil disobedience. That Congress sits idly while lower court judges, which are created and controlled by Congress, subvert our system of governance, enlarge their role, nullify congressional statutes, ignore 200 years of case law, and shred the preamble of the Declaration of Independence — which calls for governance by the consent of the government (citizenship by consent) — is something our Founders could never have envisioned in their worst nightmares.

If Congress refuses to use Article III Sec. 2 to take immigration away from the courts or use the power of the purse to defund adjudication that violates our sovereignty, the people and the states must rise up and ignore the courts. As Robert Bork said 20 years ago, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” And at the time, Bork wasn’t even confronted with the stolen sovereignty and mandated transgenderism we face today. (For more from the author of “Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Boat_People_at_Sicily_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea (3)

DOJ Defies Federal Judge to Protect White House’s Amnesty

The U.S. Department of Justice is refusing an order from a federal judge to release details of benefits provided to over 100,000 illegal immigrants under President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered the Justice Department to produce a list of individuals who received deportation deferrals from the 2014 DHS directive in a decision made May 19. The decision was made after learning DoJ had not disclosed that approximately 100,000 illegal immigrants had received three-year deferrals from deportation between November 20, 2014 and March 3, 2015. The Justice Department urged Hanen to stay his order in a brief released late Tuesday.

The 2014 DHS directive expanded a program that allowed individuals who immigrated illegally to the United States as children to obtain work permits and renewable two-year deferrals from deportation. The 2014 directive expanded this program, allowing the parents of such individuals to obtain work permits. It also increased the deferral period from two years to three.

Judge Hanen says the Justice Department assured him the 2014 program would not be implemented until February 2015, affording him time to evaluate the case. However, the federal government began issuing deferrals months earlier, in November 2014.

“They knowingly continued to hide this conduct for months and only admitted it once they realized the number of violations exceeded 100,000,” Judge Hanen wrote in his order. He also ordered Justice Department attorneys to attend a legal ethics course.

Government lawyers claim that producing a list of individuals who received deferrals and other benefits before March 3 imposes an undue burden on the Department of Homeland Security and jeopardizes the privacy interests of individuals appearing on the list.

“Finally, the balance of equities and the public interest, including the interests of tens of thousands of innocent third parties whose personally identifying information DHS has been ordered to produce, also weigh in favor of a stay,” the Justice Department’s brief read.

Judge Hanen’s order instructs that the list, once produced, would not be available for public review.

“Obviously, this list, once filed, will remain sealed until a further order of this Court,” his order reads.

As Hanen is unlikely to rescind his own decision, the Department of Justice will almost certainly appeal the order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit previously ruled that the president’s executive action on immigration is unconstitutional. In January, the Supreme Court announced that they would review the case. No ruling has yet been issued. (For more from the author of “DOJ Defies Federal Judge to Protect White House’s Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

hqdefault

Obama Amnesty Supreme Court Case to Test Limits of Presidential Power

hqdefaultThe Constitution was ratified more than two centuries ago, and in all that time no president had ever tested the limits of executive power enough to force the Supreme Court to rule whether he has lived up to the founders’ command that the laws be “faithfully executed” . . .

When the justices convene Monday morning, they will hear what is shaping up to be the biggest case of the term, and perhaps one of the most consequential in a generation, as they consider whether President Obama has overstepped his constitutional powers by trying to grant a tentative deportation amnesty to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

“In 225 years, the Supreme Court has never had occasion to ask the president whether he has reneged on his oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. However, with pens and phones replacing checks and balances, the Supreme Court is now poised to break new constitutional ground in order to preserve our embattled separation of powers,” said Josh Blackman, associate professor at the South Texas College of Law, who has followed the case from the start and filed amicus briefs opposing Mr. Obama’s claim of powers.

At issue is the Take Care Clause, which is what scholars call the Constitution’s charge to presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

That clause has been read to be both empowering to presidents, emboldening them with independent authority to see through the execution of laws, but also as a check — that, in the end, he carry out laws rather than write them. (Read more from “Obama Amnesty Supreme Court Case to Test Limits of Presidential Power” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Betrayed Again: Prominent Republicans File Brief Supporting Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Imagine a prominent Democrat committee chairman promoting private Social Security accounts or right to work legislation. Try to picture a long-serving Democrat senator filing a brief in a pending Supreme Court case in favor of the right to concealed carry. You will have a tough time conjuring up such images because there are no prominent Democrats who promote major policy initiatives of the other side. Therein lies the imbalance between our nation’s two major political parties.

On Tuesday, the Orwellian-named Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in support of Obama’s executive amnesty in U.S. v. Texas. The brief was filed on behalf of a number of former Republican members of Congress in addition to Democrat members. Not only do they support the underlying policy of open borders, this brief demonstrates that these Republicans, who were influential in crafting party policy in their respective times, do not believe in the Constitution nor in the concept of separation of powers. They defiantly assert that Obama’s executive amnesty “is legally no different than countless other exercises of executive discretion engaged in by presidents of both parties and blessed by both parties in Congress.”

Sure, a president unilaterally granting illegal aliens work permits, Social Security cards and a backdoor path to citizenship is just another day at work in the Oval Office.

Here is a list of the Republicans who signed onto the brief and a description of their respective careers in the House or Senate:

LaHood, Raymond H. (“Ray”) Former Representative of Illinois (1995- 2009); Member of the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee, and the Republican Mainstream Partnership; Former United States Secretary of Transportation (2009-2013)

Leach, James A. Former Representative of Iowa (1977- 2007); Chair of the House Committee on Financial Services; Member of the Committee on International Relations; Chair of the Subcommittee on Asian-Pacific Affairs; Chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities (2009-2013)

Lugar, Richard Former Senator of Indiana (1977-2013); Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Porter, John E. Former Representative of Illinois (1980- 2001); Member of the House Committee on Appropriations; Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education

We have here a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man who crafted foreign policy for Republicans for years, who has no regard for our sovereignty and the rule of law. We have Republicans who shaped our domestic policy for years and were viewed as titans of the legislature, yet they believe in the predominance of rule by executive fiat over congressional statutes. All of these individuals held prominent positions in the party for years and nobody ever questioned their commitment to the Constitution, much less the platform of the Republican Party. Now we all know it was built on a lie. For so many Republicans over the past few decades, this has all been a fake fight.

This is why voters in the GOP feel so angry and betrayed. This is why voters have permanently severed all ties and interest with anything that smacks of the party establishment. They now understand that while Democrats were intrepidly promoting their agenda for years, so many Republicans who were supposed to be combating their fundamental transformation were really wolves in sheep’s clothing.

When choosing your candidate for president, make that decision wisely, making sure you are not selecting someone who will turn around in a few years and champion the very causes he promised to fight against today. (For more from the author of “Betrayed Again: Prominent Republicans File Brief Supporting Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Largest State Republican Party in US Endorses Amnesty, Self-Destruction

On Sunday, the Republican Party of California voted to make themselves irrelevant by opposing the rule of law and changing their party platform on illegal immigration. Fortunately for them, their decision will not make much of a difference because they were already eternally irrelevant and hopelessly disenfranchised precisely because the very policies they espoused this past weekend have already been implemented.

The GOP of California is deader than dead.

According to the Orange County Register, the GOP’s revision to the platform went beyond dropping their opposition to amnesty. It is now considered controversial to promote the deportation of violent criminal aliens:

Meeting during their semiannual convention, state Republicans voted on a new immigration stance that states the party is “pro-immigrant” and wants to fix a system that “does not work for California or America.” Under its new platform, the state GOP supports worker visa programs but is against providing amnesty. Gone is language about “illegal aliens” or cross-deputizing state and county law enforcement to help immediately deport those who have committed crimes.

What these “Republicans” will never understand is that they can never out-maneuver the Democrats on immigrant-pandering and opposition to Americanization. The voters will always choose the real thing rather than the mealy-mouthed diffidence of pretenders.

More importantly, they can nominate the most pro illegal immigration candidates to statewide offices and it won’t make a difference. The state of California has been remade past the point of cultural return. Rather than fostering a melting pot that helps immigrants assimilate into the existing values of the state, there has been so much legal and illegal immigration to the state over such a short period of time, no Republican candidate – fiscal or social conservative – can ever win, irrespective of his views on immigration.

Just ask Carly Fiorina who ran on support for amnesty and birthright citizenship, yet got crushed in a good national year for Republicans, despite spending $22 million on her campaign. In fact, almost every Republican politician in the state has run on an open border platform for quite some time – long before the platform change – and has failed to move the impermeable needle one inch.

As early as 1993, even Harry Reid was warning that 67% of all babies born in LA hospitals where children of illegal aliens. The problem has only grown and compounded for 22 years. A whopping 27% of California is foreign born and 38.6% of the state’s population – a plurality – is Latino. They are expected to become an absolute majority between 2050-2060. According to the 2010 Census, 23 of the 58 counties in the state are 30% or more Hispanic. California Governor Jerry Brown claims that 30% of schoolchildren in his state are either “undocumented or don’t speak English.”

Take Orange County, for example. Orange County was once the breadbasket of GOP politics in the state and was a big part of the GOP’s dominance during the Nixon and Reagan eras. Thirty percent of the county’s population is now foreign born and 45.5% of resident speak a foreign language at home.

Toss in the illegal policies of automatic birthright citizenship and counting illegals in the reapportionment process, and there is no way Republicans will ever win that state again. This analysis doesn’t even begin to digest the enormity of the social programs that are now available to legal and illegal aliens in the state. As recent as 1988, Republicans were still able to carry the state in a presidential year. Now, Republicans believe that a “me too” approach to the very policies that created a permanent Democrat majority will somehow revive their electoral viability.

It doesn’t take a world-renowned political scientist to understand that such unprecedented societal transformation (without representation) – beyond anything our nation has ever seen – will produce a permanent majority of those who don’t assimilate into free market constitutional values, but permanently alter those values. With 44% of the state’s residents speaking a language other than English at home, including 54.3% of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Republicans could put out as many campaign ads in foreign languages as they want but it will fail to move the needle. They have already lost.

There’s a melting pot; there’s a salad bowl, then there’s California.

Will national Republicans learn the lesson?

Americans have always been open and welcoming to those who assimilate into our culture and support our constitutional values. But numbers, origin, and time span all matter in immigration policy. We can bring in all sorts of people, but numbers and time matter. The citizenry should have more input in the future of our immigration policy.

It’s time for the GOP platform to reflect one simple principle: no societal transformation without representation. Or, if you will, the elite politicians who often live in the ivory towers unaffected by the deleterious effects of illegal immigration on schools, hospitals, and public safety, ought to follow the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or at least let them have a say in the matter. (For more from the author of “Largest State Republican Party in US Endorses Amnesty, Self-Destruction” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview from the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ben Carson Now Backs Amnesty for Illegals

Ben CarsonOn Wednesday, Dr. Ben Carson said America’s borders must be sealed to protect against terrorism and told a prominent group of Latino elected officials that he also supports giving illegal immigrants a path to legalization and eventual citizenship . . .

Regarding the country’s illegal immigrants, Carson said, “many of them have never known any other country … so where are you going to send them?”

Carson said the country must “provide them a way so that they don’t have to hide in the shadows” and “give them an opportunity to become guest-workers–they have to register, they have to enroll in a back tax program.”

“And if they want to become citizens they have to get in the line with everyone else… because we have to pay homage to people who’ve done it the right way,” Carson added.

He also told the audience that “what threatens to destroy is division” and blasted the “purveyors of division” who try to divide Americans based on race, age, income and a host of other issues for trying to convince Americans that “we are each other’s enemies.” He said that radical Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy the United States and Americans should not make it easier for them by buying into the politics of division. (Read more from “Ben Carson Now Backs Amnesty for Illegals” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Massive Threat to US Security, Much Bigger Than Expiring PATRIOT Act [+video]

While the Senate is embroiled in a heated debate over the extension of NSA surveillance, nobody is focusing on the more serious issue at hand. No amount of surveillance –constitutional or not – can defend against the avoidable, but currently suicidal, immigration policies in which security threats are brought here in the first place.

There is perhaps nothing more counterintuitive about U.S. foreign policy than the massive increase in refugees from Islamic civil wars in the Middle East – at a time when we are engaging in foreign interventions under the guise of protecting our homeland.

Conservative Review has already detailed numerous cases of refugees being arrested for engaging in terror activities and the torrent of immigrants from the Middle East who have attempted to go fight for the Islamic State in Syria. With all of the apocalyptic rhetoric on display in Washington in light of the shutdown of NSA surveillance for two days, is anybody concerned about all the security threats that are needlessly admitted to this country on a daily basis?

Assuming the NSA is legitimately focused only on stopping terror attacks, who do you think is under surveillance? While a number of Middle Eastern immigrants are peaceful like any other group, almost all of the Islamic terror threats will invariably emanate from this growing population.

Consider this for a moment: Iraq is saturated with Sunni and Shiite Jihadist elements, yet each group is able to claim refugee status if they can show they are persecuted based on their minority status in a given neighborhood. Ironically, radical elements of both Sunnis and Shias have been admitted to places like Bowling Green, Kentucky, and there are now stories of violence erupting between them! The indifferent politicians are literally bringing all of the woes from the Middle East to our shores.

From fiscal year 2007 through April 30, 2015, the U.S. has resettled 134,314 Iraqis via the refugee program and the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, the overwhelming majority being Muslim and evenly divided between Sunni and Shia. For the first half of fiscal year 2015, as the debate over surveillance has heated up, we’ve continued to admit more people from volatile Islamic countries (data from the Refugee Processing Center):

8229 from Iraq, roughly 6640 have been Muslim – evenly split between Sunnis and Shiites

4993 from Somalia

9000 from Burma, but 1,649 are Muslim, mostly the Rohingya. Although a predominantly Buddhist country, a large share of refugees from Burma are Muslims.

As I noted last week, the SIV program – designed to bring in contractors and translators from Iraq and Afghanistan – has turned out to be just as problematic as the refugee program. Yet, Democrats slipped in a provision to the NDAA that would add 3,000 more Afghanis to the SIV program.

Additionally, a group of 14 Democrat senators are now calling on the administration to admit a whopping 65,000 refugees from the Syrian civil war. By my count, 865 Syrians have been admitted as refugees since fiscal year 2012, roughly corresponding with the start of the civil war. While the number seems small, it is growing rapidly and several thousand more are in the pipeline. More importantly, almost all of them have been Muslims, despite the fact that Christians face the most credible fear of persecution and have the least risk when it comes to vetting for security risks.

The call for admitting so many Syrian refugees is a prima facie threat. As with any civil war, there are thousands of innocent civilians being killed. However, this is a complex tangled web with hostilities between Assad’s regime, Hezbollah, al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria), Islamic State, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Front. There is no way to sort out this mess without needlessly letting in security risks.

Time and again, our political class has failed us by letting in persecutors under a program designed to protect those being persecuted. The refugee resettlement program has essentially been reoriented towards a Muslim resettlement operation. According to data compiled by the State Department, Arabic is by far the most commonly spoken language by recent refugees. The third most commonly spoken language on the list? Somali.

There are undoubtedly plenty of Muslims who are being persecuted in the Middle East, but it is becoming harder and harder to untangle the web of disparate radical groups that are at war with each other, yet have the ability to obtain refugee status. There are countless Muslim refugees in Syria and Iraq who have been legitimately displaced from their homes but who harbor the same radical Islamic views as those conquering their neighborhoods.

It is not the job of America to gratuitously incur risk without the absolute certainty that refugees will not endanger our national security. With the unprecedented growth in Muslim immigration and unparalleled generosity of our refugee program over the past decade, there is no downside to exercising more caution as the Middle East continues to erupt in rampant upheaval.

It’s time to confront a simple reality. The best way to prevent homegrown terror while simultaneously protecting against government overreach into personal privacy is not to blithely import security risks in the first place. There will obviously always be a need for the NSA and FBI to have robust, yet constitutional, tools to combat and preempt terror threats. Yet, to focus on those tools while welcoming the problems of the Middle East through lax immigration is completely dyslexic. But leave it to our politicians to propose the worst solution to any impending problem. (See “A Bigger Threat Than an Expiring PATRIOT Act? This” HERE)

[Here’s a recent interview with this article’s author:]

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.