Rockville Rape Defense: 14-Year-Old Girl Sent Explicit Pictures, Texted About Sex

Defense attorneys for one of the two male high school students accused of violently raping a 14-year-old girl are claiming the victim agreed to have sex with one of the suspects over text message and sent him explicit photos.

Both suspects — 17-year-old Jose Montano and 18-year-old Henry Sanchez — were in the country illegally after being detained and then released by federal officials . . .

According to police, they forced the girl into a bathroom stall at school and made her perform oral sex on them while they took turns raping and sodomizing her as she begged them to stop. Police found blood and DNA at the scene . . .

The rape drew attention from White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who last week pointed to the case as reason for President Trump’s immigration policies.

“Part of the reason the President has cracked-down on illegal immigration, and made it such a big deal is because of tragedies like this,” Spicer said. “Immigration pays its toll on our people if it’s not done legally.” (Read more from “Rockville Rape Defense: 14-Year-Old Girl Sent Explicit Pictures, Texted About Sex” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


30 Countries Are Refusing to Take Back Illegal Aliens Convicted of Serious Crimes

Approximately 30 countries are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S., according to Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar.

While these countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, the U.S. government is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries, according to the Texan congressman. There is already a law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals, but according to Cuellar, the U.S. is not enforcing it.

“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing. So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that,” Cuellar told Sharyl Attkisson, host of Full Measure, in an interview.

Cuellar, a Democratic member of the House Committee on Appropriations, told Attkisson that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.

“That means you’re releasing criminals into our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens,” said Cuellar. “That’s wrong. And especially I think it’s even worse that this is already on the books, and we’re still issuing business tourist visas and student visas to countries that refuse to take back their criminal aliens. That’s wrong, and we’re hoping to change that.” (Read more from “30 Countries Are Refusing to Take Back Illegal Aliens Convicted of Serious Crimes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Professors, Students Demand College Start Fund for Illegal Aliens

Cornell University students hosted a protest to demand the college provide funds for all illegal immigrant students.

The protest, organized by the Cornell Coalition for Inclusive Democracy, drew about 250 students and faculty members, reports Heat Street.

The protesters want the school to provide special funding for all immigrant students, even those not protected by the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order.

“Our endangered community members still lack explicit assurance that the institution that took them in will protect them,” professor Russell Rickford said. “That’s shameful.”

The group also wants Cornell to provide on-campus housing and shelter for immigrant students who have been warned from traveling overseas. It wants the college to fight for legislation that protects illegal immigrants. (Read more from “Professors, Students Demand College Start Fund for Illegal Aliens” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Ninth Circuit Forces Arizona to Follow Obama’s Illegal Amnesty, Provide Illegals With Driver’s Licenses

You heard that right. At the same time the Ninth Circuit is flipping federal immigration power on its head and allowing states to block Trump’s lawful order reducing dangerous immigration, it is forcing Arizona to comply with Obama’s executive amnesty and provide illegal aliens with driver’s licenses.

There is no word in the English language to describe this degree of perfidy and hypocrisy. I don’t know how I missed this, but just one week before the Ninth Circuit nullified federal immigration laws and lawfully delegated presidential powers, the full court refused to overturn a three-judge panel that forced Arizona to provide DACA recipients with driver’s licenses.

The rationale of the court? Arizona was preempted by federal immigration powers!!!

“The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law,” wrote the radical Judge Harry Pregerson. This opinion to deny the rehearing of the case was joined by 23 of the remaining 28 active judges on the Ninth Circuit … including Judge Michelle Friedland. She wrote the opinion last week saying that states can force the federal government to bring in more immigrants even when the president is acting on iron-clad statutory authority.

Just last week, I detailed how the federal courts are flipping federalism and immigration on its head — upside down, inside out. However, the juxtaposition of these two decisions takes the duplicity to a new level. A few points to consider:

1) Sure, the federal government controls immigration, but which branch? Congress. With Obama’s DACA amnesty, Obama unilaterally nullified federal statutes and created his own immigration program, a program that was explicitly rejected by Congress. Trump, on the other hand, was following a long tradition of delegated authority to ratchet down immigration as needed, in concert with five congressional statutes.

2) Arizona was being asked by illegal aliens, who should never have had standing to sue, to initiate a positive action in order to abide by Obama’s unlawful amnesty. Washington and Minnesota, on the other hand, were given no mandate by Trump’s order. They were the ones burdening the federal government and overriding federal plenary power over immigration.

3) As Scalia noted in Arizona v. U.S., “the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.” On the other hand, it was designed precisely to prevent liberal states from flooding the rest of the union with immigrants the federal government deemed undesirable, as the Ninth Circuit allowed Washington to do last week.

4) In Texas v. U.S., the Obama administration explicitly argued that states could not get standing to sue against the executive amnesty precisely because, in their view, states were not obligated to issue driver’s licenses! Now the Ninth Circuit is contending that states must give driver’s licenses but have no reason to complain!

5) After ruling that the state of Washington will suffer irreparable harm if Trump exercises his legitimate authority to keep out un-vetted immigrants from war-torn countries, the same panel ruled that “Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it has for drivers’ licenses purposes.” The fact that almost 30,000 driving offenses have been committed just by the 30,558 criminal aliens Obama released in fiscal year 2014 alone is evidently of no concern to Judge Pregerson, who has replaced jurisprudence with political rants.

6) There is a seamless flow from obtaining a driver’s license to voting via the motor-voter laws. Yet, this same court has prevented Arizona from verifying proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

7) With at least 630,000 illegals residing in the state, at a cost of $2.4 billion a year, Arizona is left defiled and helpless in protecting its own residents and even their right to vote in untainted elections. Over 10% of the state’s public school population is comprised of illegal alien children. The Arizona Department of Corrections estimates that illegal aliens comprise 17% of its prison population and 22% of all felony defendants in Maricopa County. Arizona has become the drug smuggling capital of the country. From 2010-2015, heroin seizures in Arizona have increased by 207%, while methamphetamine seizures grew by 310%. In FY 2014, there were more pounds of marijuana seized in the Tucson corridor than every other border sector combined. Yet, the state has no “cognizable interest” in fighting a past president’ illegal amnesty, but Washington state has an interest in overturning federal immigration power of an existing president and demanding its own immigrants!?

The courts of Sodom and Gomorrah indeed.

This is why it is foolish for any conservative to suggest that a better prepared Trump administration could have survived the Ninth Circuit. Those judges are willing to use opposing legal theories in order to achieve the “right” political outcome at any and all costs. That is why we need wholesale judicial reform and why it must start with breaking up the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Arizona’s junior senator, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 50%) is more bothered by the criticism of these judges than what they are doing to disembowel his own state.

The fact that states are still being forced to issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is another reason why Trump must terminate DACA. It’s not merely about the inaction of declining to deport this category of illegal aliens. These illegals are unconstitutionally obtaining Social Security cards, which forces states to issue driver’s licenses. It’s time for Trump and Congress to unite on behalf of Arizona and expose the duplicity of the courts. (For more from the author of “Ninth Circuit Forces Arizona to Follow Obama’s Illegal Amnesty, Provide Illegals With Driver’s Licenses” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Bye Bye Sanctuary Cities? Trump Gets Tough on Havens for Illegal Aliens

In a major departure from the previous administration, President Donald Trump has directed the Department of Homeland Security to get serious on tackling crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

The executive order instructs the Homeland Security Secretary General John F. Kelly, to “utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”

The purpose of this order is “to better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions.”

In other words, President Trump has taken his first steps towards ending sanctuary city policies.

He is, of course, going to meet resistance from the Left. California Governor Jerry Brown, in what Politico described as an “anti-Trump manifesto,” proudly declared that despite the supremacy of federal immigration laws, California would take measures to protect its sanctuary policies from the president.

“We may be called to defend those laws, and defend them we will,” Brown said.

So, here’s where Trump’s executive order is brilliant. By publishing the statistics of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in areas of the country with sanctuary city policies, Trump is essentially telling the public “your Democratic politicians are protecting crime in your cities with their sanctuary city policies.” The president is handing ammunition the political opponents of big-city Democratic politicians everywhere in the country.

Sanctuary city policies are already vastly unpopular with the American people. Even as Gov. Brown delivered his amnesty ultimatum, 74 percent of California residents want to see an end to sanctuary city policies.

That opposition crosses party lines. It is unifying. And President Trump’s national policies can be used to rally that opposition at the ballot box and kick out the bums at the state level.

This is the kind of strategic thinking that has been woefully lacking from Washington Republicans for far too long. It is the style of anti-establishment governance the president’s most ardent backers promised Trump would bring to the nation’s capital.

Let’s hope the president applies a similar strategy to the other items on his agenda. (For more from the author of “Bye Bye Sanctuary Cities? Trump Gets Tough on Havens for Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens

The 115th United States Congress has only been in session for a few days, but Republicans are already taking advantage of their overwhelming majority.

On Thursday, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa (F, 59%) released a statement announcing that she, along with Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Ind. (D, 66%), Deb Fischer, R-Neb. (F, 55%), and Ben Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%), reintroduced a piece of legislation that would require federal officials to take custody of illegal immigrants “charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.”

The legislation, known as Sarah’s Law, was named to honor Sarah Root, a 21-year-old Iowa woman who was killed last January in the “sanctuary city” of Omaha, Neb., by 19-year-old Edwin Mejia, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk three times over the legal limit, and drag racing. Mejia, a Honduran native who entered the United States as an “unaccompanied minor” in 2013, disappeared after posting the $5,000 bail and has been at large ever since.

“Mr. Mejia has been on the [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] Most Wanted List for more than nine months — that’s time he should have been behind bars,” Senator Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in the press release this week. “Congress has an opportunity to make sure this never happens again. Sarah’s Law would make it absolutely clear that ICE must immediately detain any illegal alien who kills someone.”

Thursday’s move to reintroduce the law offers families of individuals killed by illegal immigrants renewed hope that their loved ones will be vindicated. If passed, the legislation would require ICE officials to “make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to the crime victims or their families.”

“It is unconscionable that nearly one year after Sarah’s death, Edwin Mejia remains at-large, and the fact remains that today U.S. immigration law does not require federal immigration authorities to detain those here illegally who harm American citizens,” Senator Ernst said. “Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family or heal the wounds of such unimaginable loss, we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that no citizen falls victim to this injustice again. Sarah’s Law is about honoring Sarah, and her legacy; I have already had conversations with the incoming administration, and am hopeful that they will work with Congress to pursue

In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump described Sarah Root as “just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.” The president-elect made illegal immigration a focal point of his presidential campaign, inviting family members of those killed by illegals to join him onstage at the RNC and to speak at various campaign stops.

“We are sadly hearing of these instances far too often. If the Obama administration won’t protect our citizens, Congress will make it clear illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes will be detained. We must do everything possible to prevent the pain Sarah’s loved ones and too many others have endured,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (F, 51%).

Since Sarah’s Law was first introduced in June 2016, the legislation has gained new support from Senators Jerry Moran, R-Kan. (D, 67%), Pat Roberts, John Thune, R-S.D. (F, 44%), Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%), and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. (C, 72%). Congressman David Young, R-Ind. (F, 38%) will lead a House companion bill.

Sen. Cruz indicated that the November election afforded Congress “an extraordinary chance” to strengthen border security and restore the rule of law in a post-Obama America.

“The last eight years under the Obama Administration have seen a disastrous deterioration of the rule of law and an unwillingness to justly prosecute those who break our laws,” said Senator Cruz. “But now we have an extraordinary chance to reverse that course, secure our border, and strengthen our immigration laws. I am proud to be a sponsor of Sarah’s Law and other similar law enforcement measures that will deter illegal immigration, and ensure those who disregard our immigration laws and bring harm to our citizens are held accountable.” (For more from the author of “This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


DMV Licensed 800,000 Illegal Aliens Under 2-Year-Old Law

On the day that California officials implemented a controversial law that allows undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses, DMV offices throughout the state were packed with immigrants looking to take advantage of the opportunity.

Two years after the implementation of AB 60 on Jan. 1, 2015, an estimated 806,000 undocumented residents have received driver’s licenses, according to Department of Motor Vehicles statistics this month. About 14,000 of these licenses were issued in November alone, the DMV said.

The law has allowed undocumented residents to come out of the shadows and drive safely in their neighborhoods, according to Maricela Gutierrez, executive director of the immigration advocacy organization, SIREN.

“Many of them have been able to drive their kids to school and to run errands, when many times they were taking buses that would take them up to three hours to get from point A to point B,” she said. “It opened up new opportunities.”

One San Jose resident who applied for a license just a few days after AB 60 went into effect received his license in the mail shortly after. (Read more from “DMV Licensed 800,000 Illegal Aliens Under 2-Year-Old Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Illegals Demand Obama Issue Mass Pardons Amid Trump Deportation Fears

Illegal immigrants are preparing to ask President Obama to pardon some 750,000 Dreamers, saying such a move is their last, best hope to stave off what they fear will be a wave of deportations once Donald Trump takes the Oval Office.

Community leaders have planned a rally in New York on Wednesday to make the request.

“Millions of law abiding undocumented immigrants are fearful of what will happen when the new Administration takes control in January,” the group of New York state lawmakers and immigration advocates said in a statement announcing the rally. “However, President Obama has the power of pardons that he can use to protect all DACA enrollees.”

As of September, more than 740,000 illegal immigrants had been approved for Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a minor amnesty that grants young adult illegal immigrants a two-year stay of deportation and issues them work permits, entitling them to driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.

Mr. Trump has signaled that he would cancel that order, leaving Dreamers out of status when their work permits expire. That puts Mr. Obama in a bind because he has expressed an interest in helping illegal immigrants but also has acknowledged limits on power. (Read more from the author of “Illegals Demand Obama Issue Mass Pardons Amid Trump Deportation Fears” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The ‘Untold Threat’ Responsible for 40% of Illegal Aliens

While the debate over illegal immigration tends to focus on how to control and treat those who make it across our nation’s borders, a more enduring challenge for the U.S. government has been what to do to stop legal entrants from overstaying their allotted time here.

The problem of so-called visa “overstays”—which make up about 40 percent of the 11 million people living illegally in the U.S.—will continue on past the Obama administration and follow the next president.

That’s partially because the government has not yet delivered on its long-promised—and congressionally mandated—plan to create a better checkout system to track who has left the country on time, and who hasn’t.

“It [visa overstays] is the most overlooked issue when it comes to immigration,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“It’s an untold threat,” McCaul added. “We are allowing millions of people to overstay visas and remain in this country who could potentially pose a threat to homeland security.”

The uncertainty around the scope of the problem comes at a time when a growing percentage of the illegal immigrant population is made up of visa overstays as opposed to people being apprehended at the border.

For more than 20 years, the U.S. government had struggled to quantify just how many people entered the country legally with a visa and stayed too long, making it impossible to prescribe policy fixes.

That finally changed in January, when the Department of Homeland Security released a first-of-its-kind study reporting that 527,127 people who traveled legally to the U.S. for business or leisure and were supposed to leave the country in fiscal year 2015 in fact overstayed their visas.

This figure is larger than the 337,117 people caught crossing the border illegally last year.

The long-awaited data from 2015 was not all-encompassing. It counted only visa holders who entered the U.S. by air and sea, not by land, and it did not include those who came as students or temporary workers.

Still, immigration and security experts as well as policymakers welcomed the new information because they thought it would force the government to move faster on methods to improve, most importantly in trying to assemble a system to obtain biometric data—such as fingerprints, facial recognition images, and eye scans—on those leaving the country.

‘A Top Issue’

The 9/11 Commission recommended the Department of Homeland Security complete an entry and exit system “as soon as possible,” viewing it as an important national security tool because two of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, had overstayed their visas.

Plagued by financial and logistical challenges, the government has introduced various pilot projects at some airports and land borders, but is still a few years off from implementing a biometric exit system on a large scale.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has pledged to have biometric checks at major airports in 2018, and Congress in last year’s omnibus spending bill authorized $1 billion in visa fee increases over 10 years to pay for an exit system.

The struggle to install a biometric exit tracking system is well known.

Foreigners who apply to enter the U.S. on a visa are interviewed and photographed and have their fingerprints taken at a consulate overseas before arriving here. But collecting biometric data on those exiting the country is not as easy.

That’s because U.S. airports do not have exclusive terminals for domestic and international flights, which makes it hard for officers from Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol to screen overseas travelers and get their information.

“Most countries have a designated checkout system built in airports,” Stewart Verdery, a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. Verdery added:

We just didn’t build our airports this way. So the question is where do you collect the information in a way that doesn’t inconvenience travelers and is actually effective in making sure someone has left? None of the options are particularly great. And though the biometric equipment is very mature, there is also a manpower issue over who maintains the machines.

To satisfy these limitations, Verdery expects the government to pursue a facial recognition exit system that automatically would snap a traveler’s photograph—likely at the gate.

‘It Doesn’t Matter’

Even if the U.S. were to settle on a workable exit tracking method, some national security experts doubt that such a system would be an effective counterterrorism tool, especially when considering its cost.

David Inserra, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation, says the government could just as well use already collected biographical information, such as a traveler’s name and date of birth, to track exits and collect overstay data. But other experts say bad actors could use fake passports and aliases to bypass a system that did not require biometrics such as fingerprints and facial recognition.

No matter the method used, Inserra and other experts note that an exit system simply reveals who has departed—and remained—in the country. It would not help discover where those that stayed are living, and whether they present a security risk.

“Even if you have the greatest biometric exit system, if someone doesn’t leave, it doesn’t matter,” Inserra said, adding:

You are now left with the problem of every other police officer looking for someone. They are a missing person who doesn’t want to be found. If you want to stop visa overstays, the solution isn’t to spend money on an exit system.

Inserra argues that policymakers instead should give more money to intelligence agencies such as Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement so they can go into communities and try to locate—and deport—people who overstayed their visas.

Yet other experts are doubtful that would happen. They say the government does not prioritize enforcing immigration law against those who’ve stayed past their visa expiration date because those travelers were screened before coming here.

“In terms of removing a garden variety illegal migrant, you aren’t going to search for somebody on that basis,” Edward Alden, an immigration and visa policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “The notion we will have some special dedicated effort to go find overstays I find completely implausible.”

Alden says the government can take simpler steps to deter visa overstays, by emailing reminders to foreigners of their expected departure date, specifying the consequences of not leaving on time.

Many who overstay their visas don’t intend to settle in America, Alden contends.

The Homeland Security report from earlier this year found that as of Jan. 4, a total of 416,500 of the 527,127 overstays in 2015 remained in the U.S. More have left the country since then, the government says.

The government also has taken diplomatic steps to better track foreign visitors, especially by improving information sharing with Canada, the country that had the most overstays in the U.S.

The U.S. and Canada exchange names and biographical information of those from third countries who enter on their shared border. Mexico, the second-largest source of visa overstays in the U.S., generally does not yet have the capacity to exchange information like that, Alden says.

‘Serious About Enforcement’

Despite these improvements, Congress is not backing off its demand for a biometric exit system.

McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says he hopes for a vote next year on a broad border security bill he sponsored last year. It includes a provision requiring the government to establish an exit system at the 15 largest airports, seaports, and land ports within two years.

The legislation, which President Barack Obama promised to veto, would impose financial and other penalties on Department of Homeland Security political appointees if the government fails to meet the timeline.

Having the best data possible, supporters of the exit system say, will give the government incentive to more aggressively enforce the law against those who’ve overstayed visas.

“I think once the government gets an exit system up and running, they’ll be serious about enforcement,” Verdery said, adding:

We will never have a system where we will go out and find someone who overstays and just wants to do nothing on their buddy’s couch. But we will go out and find them when they try to get a job, draw the attention of law enforcement, or illegally try to claim benefits.

(For more from the author of “The ‘Untold Threat’ Responsible for 40% of Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


How Much Longer Can We Tolerate Illegal Aliens Stealing Our Sovereignty?

The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”
~ Chief Justice John Marshall 1812

Welcome to Absurdistan where Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces the prospect of jail time for enforcing federal immigration laws. Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is suspended indefinitely for not redefining marriage in his state. Meanwhile, illegal aliens are out in full force campaigning in a presidential election and blocking traffic on one of the nation’s busiest bridges. And nobody bats an eyelash.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that CASA In Action has mobilized groups of illegal aliens to organize ground game for the Clinton campaign in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania. What is particularly disturbing about this effort is that it is utilizing those who received Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. Which means that “crime pays” so to speak — Democrats are benefiting from the illegal violation of American sovereignty.

Let this observation sink in slowly: American sheriffs and state supreme court justices are being punished for upholding legitimate laws and sovereignty of the people, yet CASA can harbor illegal aliens and use them for get-out-the-vote efforts. Hence, people can break into this country and then organize publicly in order to sway an election and bestow themselves with citizenship rights against the consent of the people. We now have no control over our own destiny.

Fast-forward to Wednesday, when a group of illegal aliens chained themselves together across the George Washington Bridge, blocking traffic in New York at the peak of rush hour and delaying commuters for as much as 90 minutes. What are the odds a single protester will be deported?

No words can describe the depravity of our stolen sovereignty; no analogies can fully capture the moral and intellectual dyslexia playing out without understating the problem. One of the reasons why so many immigrants have flocked to our country over the years is because they respect the stability of democracy, the rule of law, and private property rights. Many of them have emigrated from countries that have no civil society or stable system of governance — countries where mob rule reigns supreme. Now, this generation of illegal aliens is bringing with them the mindset of the governments from which they have fled.

What we are witnessing today with the refusal of the federal government to enforce national sovereignty is the greatest mass trespassing of private property rights. Public property is paid for by the citizenry of the nation-state, and, for those here without the consent of the people, to takeover that property is the ultimate violation of property rights. And between illegal aliens campaigning to sway an election and some non-citizens registering to vote (and courts preventing states from weeding out non-citizen voting), they are stealing the most sacred right of a citizen — the franchise.

Let’s be clear: if Hillary wins this election, the outrage over stolen sovereignty will not abate. She would not have won based on this issue or any other policy initiative. She would have won by making this election a referendum on the personal character of her former donor. No election entitles a president to steal the sovereignty of her people. The citizenry will not tolerate this for much longer. (For more from the author of “How Much Longer Can We Tolerate Illegal Aliens Stealing Our Sovereignty?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.