Mother of Son Murdered by an Illegal Breaks Down in Tears Before Congress, Begging for Immigration Enforcement

4103771959_593986f3bf_zThe mother of a teenage son who was tortured and murdered by an illegal immigrant broke down in tears Tuesday before a House panel, begging for the government to enforce immigration law.

Laura Wilkerson, the mother of Josh Wilkerson, described in vivid detail the manner in which Hermilo Vildo Moralez, an illegal immigrant, beat, tortured, and eventually killed her son Josh then went to a movie.

In emotional testimony before the House Immigration and Border Subcommittee, Wilkerson expressed frustration that the problem of illegal immigration has not been fixed since the last time she testified before Congress in July 2015.

“Nothing has been done about it. We can have hearing after hearing, after hearing, after hearing until there is action we’re just talking,” Wilkerson said.

“I see this America government scrambling over themselves to pretend to care about American families and instead you give away every bit of America to people who have broken our laws entering this country,” she added. “Then on to break other laws.” (Read more from “Mother of Son Murdered by an Illegal Breaks Down in Tears Before Congress, Begging for Immigration Enforcement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Border Patrol In Montana

BP Council Says ‘Catch and Release’ Policy Continues Fueling Illegal Immigration

Officials last week spoke up about the Obama administration’s so-called “catch and release” policies blamed for hindering Border Patrol operations and encouraging illegal crossers from coming into the United States.

A recent letter from the National Border Patrol Council states a high-ranking member of the Obama administration confirmed to Border Patrol agents they have no intention of removing illegal border crossers that are being released with an order to appear in court.

Brandon Judd, president of the American Federation of Government Employees National Border Patrol Council, states in the letter published on March 21 he and two other Border Patrol agents met with Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to discuss concerns about the administration’s policy of releasing illegal crossers into the United States.

During the meeting, which took place on August 26, 2015, Mayorkas confirmed to the agents that the administration has no intention of removing immigrants coming across the border illegally as part of the ongoing surge, according to the letter.

“Why would we NTA [issue a Notice to Appear to] those we have no intention of deporting?” said Mayorkas, according to the letter. “We should not place someone in deportation proceedings, when the courts already have a 3-6 year backlog.” (Read more from “BP Council Says ‘Catch and Release’ Policy Continues Fueling Illegal Immigration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Illegal Immigration Surge: 106% More Unaccompanied Minors, 173% More ‘Family Units’ Apprehended

The latest U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics show that illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors and family units surged during the first two months of FY2016 compared to the same period in FY2015.

According to CPB, 106 percent more unaccompanied alien children (UAC) under the age of 17 were apprehended illegally crossing the southern border of the U.S. between Oct. 1 and Nov. 30, 2015 than during the same time a year ago.

Statistics released by the federal agency show that 10,588 UACs were apprehended at the nation’s southern border with Mexico compared to the first two months of FY2015, when 5,129 UACs were taken into custody.

The surge in unaccompanied minors was concentrated in two sectors – Big Bend in Texas and Yuma in Arizona– which both saw a more than 500 percent increase in the number of UACs crossing into the U.S. illegally. The El Paso sector was next, reporting a 250 percent increase.

The statistics also show an even larger surge in the number of family units apprehended at the border – a 173 percent increase so far in the first two months of FY2016. (Read more from “Illegal Immigration Surge: 106% More Unaccompanied Minors, 173% More ‘Family Units’ Apprehended” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Illegal Immigration From Asia Rises With Legal Immigration

National Immigrant Youth Alliance ProtestA recent report from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) shows that while most of the illegal immigration to this country over the past few decades has emanated from Latin America, it is also a growing problem from some Asian countries.

MPI estimates there are 285,000 Chinese nationals in this country illegally, up 307% from 1990. Even more striking, they estimate roughly 1.5 million people are here illegally from all Asian countries. In a public email from MPI on Tuesday, they noted that 900 Chinese aliens classified as “violent offenders” have been released onto our streets. And remember, Asia includes the Middle East. Take comfort in that thought.

The MPI study also shows a disturbing trend in illegal immigration from Africa, with the bulk of the estimated 342,000 illegal immigrants originating from Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Kenya.

3 Important Lessons & Takeaways From This Report:

First, much of the influx in illegal immigrants from non-Latin American countries is clearly the result of people overstaying their visas. While it is of urgent importance to complete the border fence to stem the flow of illegal immigration from across the southern border, the next GOP president must immediately implement a visa tracking system. It was required by Congress 19 years ago, after all.

Also, the increase in illegals from those who overstay their visas lays waste to those who say fixing unqualified birthright citizenship is a distraction. Thumb-sucking pundits like Charles Krauthammer contend that if we just secured the border, the entire problem will become moot. Clearly, the numbers show that we must eliminate all of the magnets otherwise we will face a growing visa problem in the long-run. Allowing people to scam the system and come here for the purpose of giving birth to American-born children will make it hard to deport illegal immigrants even with a successful visa tracking system in place.

Finally, the growth in illegal immigrants from China is a clear rebuke to those who contend the catalyst for illegal immigration is the lack of sufficient legal immigration. As I’ve noted before, most of our illegal immigration has stemmed from the very countries where we’ve admitted more legal immigrants than ever before. That is certainly true for Mexico and Latin America. But China is now another good example. Almost 72,000 Chinese immigrants were granted green cards in 2013, the most of any country after Mexico. Legal immigration from China has topped 745,000 over the past decade, up from 17,627 in the ‘70s, 170,897 in the ‘80s and 342,058 in the ‘90s, according to DHS data.

The pattern of illegal immigration, when juxtaposed to the time period and country of origin of legal immigration, clearly shows that when we balkanize our country with record immigration over such a short period of time, it fosters a climate that creates a chain reaction for relatives and communities of those recent immigrants to come join them in America – however they may come here. Even the most generous immigration caps will never suffice for the desired immigration levels precisely because precipitous immigration concentrated from specific countries will always entice more of their families and friends to come join them. And unless all caps are completely abolished, they will come here illegally in order to jump the massive line.

The world works on incentives and the more we incentivize balkanization and discourage assimilation, while granting illegal immigrants a panoply of benefits – including the ultimate benefit of citizenship – the more people will continue to come here illegally. (For more from the author of “Illegal Immigration From Asia Rises With Legal Immigration” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Donald Trump Says Illegal Alien Deportations Done in Two Years

BN-KE638_Trump0_G_20150907180316Donald Trump estimated that it will take 18 months to two years to get the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally to leave the country, and that he would then build a wall running along the border with Mexico.

The businessman’s statement made on a call with Alabama Republicans Thursday night added a bit of specificity to the Republican presidential frontrunner’s hardline stance on immigration. Mr. Trump released a six-page policy paper on immigration last month, and reporters have asked for details about how it would work since.

The Alabama Republican Party hosted the dial-in call with Mr. Trump Thursday night as part of series with the 2016 presidential candidates. Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have also participated.

On the call, Mr. Trump was asked for details about how long it would take to round up illegal immigrants living in the U.S., with the questioner asking if five or ten years was an appropriate timeframe. Mr. Trump said his two year benchmark could be met with “really good management.”

“We have to get them out. If we have wonderful cases, they can come back in but they have to come back in legally,” Mr. Trump said in an audio clip posted on YouTube Thursday night by a person on the call. (Read more from “Donald Trump Says Illegal Alien Deportations Done in Two Years” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Two out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase

border-protest-AP-640x480Two out of three Hispanics oppose the establishment’s campaign to increase the annual inflow of migrants into the United States., according to an Aug. 20 report by Gallup . . .

[This is] bad news for Jeb Bush, who claims he can boost the one-in-four Hispanic support for the GOP by inviting more foreign blue-collar and college-graduates to compete for the jobs sought by American Hispanics . . .

Sixty-four percent of each group of Hispanics want migration to be reduced or leveled, said Gallup, which released the report under a misleading headline, “U.S. Support for Increased Immigration Up to 25%.”

Twenty-six percent of self-identified Hispanics born in the United States, all of whom can vote, want legal migration to be reduced. However, the percentage of Hispanics opposing increases may be much higher, partly because a growing number of Hispanics now identify themselves as core white Americans . . .

A late-August poll by Rasmussen showed that 54 percent of whites, 38 percent of blacks, and 42 percent of “others,” most of whom are Hispanics, believe illegal immigration is “very serious.” An additional 51 percent of blacks, and 29 percent of “others,” say illegal immigration is “somewhat serious.” (Read more from “Two out of Three Hispanics Oppose Immigration Increase” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Only 40 Percent of the US-Mexico Border Is Under Control

d613e0f86ad586237e0f6a706700cb5b_c0-122-3184-1977_s561x327Less than half of the U.S.-Mexico border is under “operational control,” and one out of every five illegal immigrants caught there has a criminal record, the chief of Border Patrol agents’ labor union told Congress Wednesday when detailing violence that increasingly spills over the international boundary.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said the level of criminal activity belies claims that because fewer illegal immigrants are being caught, the border has improved in recent years.

“This is the challenge we are facing at the border today,” he said. “There are those who will point to lower apprehension rates and tell you the border is secure. Border Patrol agents, however, throughout this nation will tell you the border is not secure, and the southwest border certainly is not safe.”

The dangers were highlighted earlier this year when a Customs and Border Protection helicopter was fired upon while flying near Laredo, Texas, forcing it to make an emergency landing — though nobody was injured. Officials have blamed the Zetas cartel for the incident.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who called for Wednesday’s hearing, said the deteriorating security contrasts with the Obama administration’s picture of an improving situation. (Read more from “Only 40 Percent of the US-Mexico Border Is Under Control” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Some Texas Counties Are Making a Bold Move That Has the Mexican Gov’t Furious

shutterstock_310715399-913x512As outspoken Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to lead the charge for a swift and decisive response to America’s illegal immigration problem, some Texas officials are trying to take one aspect of that issue into their own hands.

Reports indicate several county registrars across the state have been refusing to accept identification cards issued by the Mexican Consulate, noting the inherent unreliability of such documentation.

According to the Texas Tribune, the Mexican government filed an amicus brief last week on behalf of several illegal immigrant families who claim their children were unfairly denied a birth certificate. The Texas Department of State Health Services was named in an associated lawsuit after reportedly telling states that were accepting the identification cards – known as matricula – to stop.

Two Texas civil rights groups filed the suit, which has since been revised to include additional families and a third activist organization. The children represented in the suit, lawyers claim, have had their constitutional rights violated. Jennifer Harbury, a lawyer representing the Mexican families, asserted that state officials “have to take something” when presented with ostensibly valid identification. (Read more from “Some Texas Counties Are Making a Bold Move That Has the Mexican Gov’t Furious” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Originalist Case Against Birthright Citizenship

court RoomThe American people are being told by the political class that there is nothing they can do to prevent future waves of illegal immigrants from coming here, unilaterally declaring political and legal jurisdiction, and securing citizenship for their children. We are told that there is no recourse through our elected representatives to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining a legal foothold in this country all because of a footnote from the most radical anti-originalist justice of this century, William Brennan Jr.

If you are scratching your head wondering how our own Constitution can be used as a suicide pact against us by foreign countries, you are not missing anything. This irrational sentiment expressed by a number of conservative and liberal pundits alike, in fact, undermines the very fabric of the social contract, popular sovereignty, and the republican form of government established by the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Mandated Birthright Citizenship Even for Legal Immigrants is a Big Stretch

Let’s put aside everything we believe as conservatives for a moment and take the activist ruling of Wong Kim Ark [169 U.S. 649 (1898)] as impregnable constitutional law. As such, the 14th Amendment would compel Congress and the Executive agencies to grant citizenship to all children of legal immigrants. Although we all agree as a matter of policy that it is a good idea to grant children born to legal permanent residents citizenship, by accepting the 1898 court decision as settled law, thereby enshrining birthright citizenship into our Constitution, we’d have to swallow the following ridiculous notions:

We’d be adopting one-directional stare decisis of an activist court that overturned two previous court decisions: the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins (1884). In those cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was primarily to grant equal rights to freed black slaves and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required that the petitioner for citizenship be “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” These cases excluded children born to foreign diplomats and Native American Indians and were quite clear that the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not include all children of immigrants – most of whom would have been covered by less political jurisdiction than even those born on Indian reservations, which were partially under U.S. jurisdiction. [See more from Prof. John Eastman at NRO on defining jurisdiction]

We’d be overturning the most logical meaning of the text of the Citizenship Clause, rendering the second phrase all but superfluous.

We’d be ignoring the intent of the drafters of this amendment who clearly had no intention to mandate birthright citizenship for all immigrants [see more in the Eastman article]. While originalists like to focus on text, in this case the text fits in exactly with the intent of the drafters, as demonstrated by the Senate floor debate.

We’d be adopting the revolutionary-era feudal system of English Common law rooted in the fact that men are subjects of the state by virtue of being born on the soil. This is antithetical to the consent-based notion of citizenship expressed by our Founders. Although many of our laws are built upon common law, this certainly was not one of them, and this segregation-era court was incorporating it into American law, ironically, at a time when England was abandoning feudalism. As Thomas Jefferson wrote precisely in a discussion on immigration in Notes on the State of Virginia [Query 8, 211], our Constitution is a composition of the “freest principles of the English constitution.”

By adopting jus soli as a constitutional mandate (not just policy) for automatic citizenship based on soil, and not jus sanguinis – right of blood – all children born to American citizens abroad would not automatically be citizens, as noted by then-Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark.

Fuller further noted in his masterful dissent that by mandating automatic citizenship for all children of immigrants – no matter the circumstances – the Fourteenth Amendment would have the power “to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.” Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over naturalizations. Fuller observes that, “the right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps toward becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.” Unless there would be no other way to read the plain language of the 14th Amendment other than a mandate granting territorial jurisdiction instead of political jurisdiction (before 1898 nobody read it this way), it is simply imprudent to interpret it in the most stringent way – having the effect of almost completely voiding out an enumerated power of the people’s representatives governing the most vital aspect of a society.

Extrapolating Birthright to Illegals Countermands the Social Contract and all Semblance of Sovereignty

Freeze frame at this point.

Accepting the notion of automatic birthright citizenship for legal immigrants as a constitutional mandate is hard enough to swallow. Yet, the conservative pundits in the political class want to extrapolate this terrible decision to children of illegal immigrants. As if it wasn’t enough to accept the activist 1898 court case from the segregationist justices, proponents of anchor citizenship for illegal immigrants rely on footnote 10 in William Brennan’s Plylor v. Doe (1982) opinion – a decision that absurdly forced taxpayers to fund K-12 education for illegal immigrants.

In that footnote, which is nothing more than dicta (non-binding comments not relevant to the case), Brennan quotes “one early commentator” noting that “given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

There you have it, until the end of time, American citizens – through their elected representatives – have no recourse to prevent future illegal immigrants from obtaining citizenship against the will of the people – because of the non-binding footnote of the most radical justice of the 20th century, which in itself, relied on a decision reversing precedent and relying on the English feudal system.

In reality, there is a huge difference between the legal permanent resident who was the subject of the 1898 court case and the illegal immigrants of today, even if we were to fully accept the concept of birthright citizenship based on nothing more than geographical jurisdiction. The justices in Wong awarded the child citizenship because his Chinese immigrant parents were “domiciled” in America (legally, before the ban on Chinese immigration). As Prof. Eastman notes, “Domicile” is a legal term of art; it means “a person’s legal home,” according to Black’s law dictionary, and is often used synonymously with “citizenship.” Undoubtedly, those here in contravention to our laws, unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents, cannot unilaterally declare domicile in our country.

And this all leads to a much more fundamental and vital discussion about sovereignty. There is simply no way our Constitution can prohibit our elected representatives from preventing illegal immigrants from driving their pregnant wives to the border, and assuming the border patrol fails to catch the speeding vehicle in time – poof! – that baby is a citizen.

First, as noted before, Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress plenary power over naturalization. By mandating automatic citizenship to babies born in the aforementioned case, that would completely strip the ability of Congress to exercise the most basic regulation over naturalization – keeping out those they affirmatively do not want in the country. Certainly, we can say that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to enforce the other sections of the amendment, would allow them to clarify the Citizenship Clause to the extent that it would not completely countermand their Article 1 power as it relates to illegal aliens who force their will on their constituents – for goodness sakes!

But more fundamentally, the notion that illegal immigrants can unilaterally declare citizenship for their kids against the will of people and the laws duly passed by the people’s representatives, and that those representatives would lack a single recourse to stop it even prospectively, violates the very essence of consent-based citizenship. The notion of consent-based citizenship serves as the bedrock of popular sovereignty, territorial sovereignty, and Republicanism – all built on the social contract. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence was built upon the principle that in order to protect natural rights people are entitled to popular sovereignty – to form a government that derives its powers “from the consent of the governed.”

Professor Edward Erler has been the leading voice observing how birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, and indeed the entire phenomenon of illegal immigration and their securing of rights and benefits, violates the social contract in the most foundational way. In his book, The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration, Erler writes the following with regards to citizenship and the social contract:

“[T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent. Not only must the individual consent to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the community as a whole. If all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are to be counted citizens-even those whose parents are in the United States illegally- then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent of “the whole people.”

Drawing on the writings of our Founders, Erler notes that they clearly envisioned that “new members can be added only with the consent of those who already constitute civil society.” He cites Madison who wrote that, “in the case of naturalization a new member is added to the social compact, not only without a unanimous consent of the members, but by a majority of the governing body, deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.”

Even Wong Kim Ark Court Would Never Mandate Citizenship for Illegal Aliens

Clearly, even the authors of the Wong decision, unlike William Brennan, understood the basic concept of consent-based citizenship, at least as it relates to those who came here illegally. While some intellectuals contend that because there was no real concept of illegal immigration in those days the decision would apply to all aliens, the writings of that very court prove otherwise.

In fact, by that point, pursuant to the immigration laws passed in 1882 and 1891, Congress had already denied admission to the following categories of aliens: “idiots,” the insane, paupers, and polygamists; persons liable to become a public charge; those convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral depravity; and sufferers “from a loathsome or dangerous” contagious disease. They also passed the Chinese Exclusion Act banning all new immigration from China. The Immigration Act of 1891 created a new office, the Commissioner of Immigration within the Treasury Department, vested with the power to inspect new immigrants and potentially deny them entry if they were deemed inadmissible under one of the criteria.

In Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), a Japanese woman sued immigration officials for denying her entry on account of her being a supposed public charge. She claimed that her due process was violated because she was not afforded the opportunity to present her case. And no, she was not even asserting the dubious modern substantive due process violation in pursuit of new fundamental rights; she was merely alleging a procedural due process violation. Yet, Justice Gray – the same author of the Wong decision – not only rejected her claim, he noted that the courts shouldn’t even have the jurisdiction to second guess legislative and executive decisions on immigration. Here are the relevant quotes with my emphasis added:

“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. Vat. Law Nat. lib. 2, §§ 94, 100; 1 Phillim. Int. Law, (3d Ed.) c. 10, § 220. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through statutes enacted by congress, upon whom the constitution has conferred power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to declare war, and to provide and maintain armies and navies; and to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into effect these powers and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. […]

“It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law.

Here we have the very activist author of the decision used as the foundation for the birthright argument clearly expressing the basic concept that Congress has the ability to control the nation’s sovereignty. It would require preposterous mental gymnastics to assume that, had this Japanese woman given birth at the port the day she was interviewed by the immigration officer, Justice Gray would have conferred citizenship on that baby – against the will of the people’s representatives.

Where is the Voice of the people on immigration?

The reason the birthright discussion is so important is because it sheds so much light on the transmogrification of the judicial system as it relates to popular sovereignty and the social contract. Not only do we have judges like Brennan bestowing citizenship and education rights on illegal immigrants from the high perches of the bench, they have invalidated almost every attempt by the states and federal government to keep out illegal immigrants. A California judge recently invalidated detention for all illegal immigrants with children, essentially mandating their irrevocable disappearance into the American population.

In addition to the courts, we have unelected bureaucrats and the U.N. transforming entire communities through refugee resettlements without the consent of the people. And although our current immigration system was formed by the Hart-Cellar Act (“Kennedy bill”) in 1965, the supporters of the bill lied to the American people and publicly ruled out the transformational outcome that indeed took place. For decades, illegal aliens have been counted in the census and have now permanently distorted the very representation the civil society needs to fight on behalf of their sovereignty.

What ever happened to the voice of the people?

Immigration transformation pursued outside of the democratic process is even worse than having courts decide societal issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, in what Justice Scalia calls “societal transformation without representation.” The courts have now empowered themselves to unilaterally and immutably change civil society itself – without any recourse from those the Constitution vested with making such decisions. How far we have deviated from the Founders’ vision that even so-called conservatives support the idea of changing the civil society without the consent of its citizens.

Indeed, the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is not just a tangential topic within immigration. It cuts to the very core of how illegal immigrants are able to coerce their will on the American citizenry and the broader issue of sovereignty. This runs much deeper than the 14th Amendment. The question for policy-makers has moved beyond whether we will survive as a nation as our Founder’s envisioned. We have already deviated so far from that vision. It’s a question of whether we are a nation at all. (Re-posted with permission, “The Originalist Case Against Birthright Citizenship” originally appeared HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shocking: Our Government No Longer Has Operational Control Over Parts of This State

arizonaIt’s not surprising for anyone that possesses even half a brain that allowing illegal immigration to run wild in this country has had a severely detrimental effect on the safety and sovereignty of the United States. What is surprising, though, is that there are parts of the country that the United States does not have operational control over.

“Nobody does,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Breitbart News when asked who has operational control of this region of the United States of America.

Babeu was on a helicopter tour of Mexican drug cartel scout locations in caves in the side of mountains throughout the desert about 70 miles inside the U.S. border. Essentially, that means U.S. sovereignty is gone for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles throughout the American southwest . . .

“If they can operate up to this degree, 70 miles north of the border, in law enforcement we call that a clue,” Babeu said in a brief exclusive interview outside the helicopter after landing back at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. The lack of United States sovereignty this deep into the country is highly concerning to Carson, who told Breitbart News that this shouldn’t be happening.

There is no reason that cartels should be allowed to basically take over. And as long as the Obama administration continues to look the other way, American citizens will be at risk. (Read more from “Shocking: Our Government No Longer Has Operational Control Over Parts of This State” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.