First Two Months of FY2017, 98% of Syrian Refugees Entering the US Are Muslims

Continuing a trend on-going now for several years, the vast majority of Syrian refugees entering the US are Muslims. Of the 2,279 Syrians resettled in October and November, 2,225 are Muslim (2,188 of those are Sunnis). All data from Wrapsnet.org (Refugee Processing Center)

Here are the top states where they were distributed. (15 states got none, so far)

Michigan (313)

California (256)

Pennsylvania (162)

(Read more from “First Two Months of FY2017, 98% of Syrian Refugees Entering the US Are Muslims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wrong Kind of Black? Twitter Libs Can’t Handle Ben Carson’s HUD Appointment

News broke Monday morning that President-elect Donald Trump will nominate former presidential rival Dr. Ben Carson to be his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

And the immediate reaction from many on social media was incredulous skepticism.

A few people cited statements made by Carson spokesman Armstrong Williams indicating that Dr. Carson felt he was unqualified to hold a cabinet-level position. Williams told the Hill that “Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

Carson clarified his position in a November 15 Facebook post, indicating that his decision not to seek a cabinet position “has nothing to do with the complexity of the job as is being reported by some news outlets.”

It seems the president-elect convinced Dr. Carson to change his mind. And now Carson is being mercilessly ridiculed.

But here’s the thing:

Yeah, that’s definitely not happening.

The tolerance mob out in full force to nuke this appointment today. As for Dr. Carson, he’s just “honored” to serve.

(For more from the author of “Wrong Kind of Black? Twitter Libs Can’t Handle Ben Carson’s HUD Appointment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Not Finished yet With Executive Actions, Regulations

On Monday, President Barack Obama issued his fifth executive order since the Nov. 8 election. In this case, it was to create a National Invasive Species Council to compile a report by 2020 on how to prevent such species from affecting climate change, food safety, and even military readiness.

Citing national security concerns, Obama issued another order on Friday blocking Chinese firm Fujian Grand Chip from buying Aixtron, a German company operating in California that produces crystalline layers used as semiconductors in U.S. weapons systems.

Executive orders aren’t the only means for Obama to act without Congress before he leaves office on Jan. 20.

A new policy on highly skilled immigrants, restrictions on for-profit colleges, and energy efficiency standards are among the matters that the administration wants that don’t require congressional authorization that the Obama administration is moving aggressively in the post-election to complete before Obama exits on Jan. 20.

Executive actions and administrative regulations were planned and considered before the election and not a result of Republican Donald Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said at a White House press briefing, noting executive actions and regulations take “a lot of preparation.”

“I’m not going to rule out additional executive actions that the administration may take between now and January 20—after all, the president of the United States is the president of the United States until Jan. 20,” Earnest told The Daily Signal, adding:

But what I can rule out are any sort of hastily added executive actions that weren’t previously considered that would just be tacked on at the end. But are there some actions that have been in the pipeline for quite some time that could be announced between now and Jan. 20? That possibility certainly exists, but I don’t have anything to preview at this point.

Politico reported the list of Obama administration actions before leaving office includes:

A U.S. citizenship and immigration policy to make it easier for employers to sponsor highly skilled immigrants;

An Education Department policy to provide debt relief to students at for-profit colleges;

The Transportation Department is moving to ban cellphone calls on commercial flights;

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration could limit exposure to beryllium, a metal used in electronics and aerospace industries believed to pose lung cancer risks; and

The Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to change how doctors and hospitals get paid for administering drugs under Medicare Part B.

The fact that Trump could overturn much executive or administrative actions doesn’t appear to have caused pause, as the Federal Register has grown by 9,000 pages since Nov. 8, said Ryan Young, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Gina McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, seemed eager for more action in a memo to staff sent to employees after the Nov. 8 election, which was obtained by the Washington Examiner.

“As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running—not walking—through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency,” McCarthy wrote. “Thank you for taking that run with me. I’m looking forward to all the progress that still lies ahead.”

Whether the regulations or executive actions are hasty shouldn’t really be the key question, said James Gattuso, a senior research fellow who studies regulatory issues for The Heritage Foundation.

“As far as I’m concerned, if it takes a long time to adopt rules or actions, or if they fly through the process, it doesn’t matter if it’s a bad rule,” Gattuso told The Daily Signal.

Regulations, he said, can be more tedious to overturn than executive orders or executive actions. However, the 1996 Congressional Review Act could be used to roll back many of those regulations, Gattuso said.

The law allows Congress, with the president’s signature, to scrap regulations it opposes, bypassing previous legal procedures in place, while forbidding bureaucrats from imposing rules that are substantially the same.

“No president is willing to sign a bill overturning their own regulation, but they are willing to overturn their predecessor’s regulations,” Gattuso said. “This is a once in a decade chance, really a once in several decades’’ opportunity, to roll back regulations.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and 21 House committee chairmen warned against a rush for regulations in a letter to agency heads, pledging to used the Congressional Review Act if need be. The Nov. 15 letter from House Republicans said:

As you are aware, such action often involves the exercise of substantial policymaking discretion and could have far-reaching impacts on the American people and the economy. Considering these potential consequences, we write to caution you against finalizing pending rules or regulations in the administration’s last days.

By refraining from acting with undue haste, you will ensure that agency staff may fully assess the costs and benefits of rules, making it less likely that unintended consequences will harm consumers and businesses.

Moreover, such forbearance is necessary to afford the recently elected administration and Congress the opportunity to review and give direction concerning pending rulemakings.

Should you ignore this counsel, please be aware that we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions—and, if appropriate, overturns them—pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

On Nov. 8, the Federal Register contained 78,300 pages, and as of Dec. 2, it had increased to 87,297 pages, Young said. Further, since Election Day, there were 144 new proposed regulations from federal agencies, and 243 regulations that were finalized.

“We could see a midnight rush the likes of which we haven’t seen before,” Young, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. (For more from the author of “Obama Administration Not Finished yet With Executive Actions, Regulations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Admin Reserves Hero’s Sendoff for Castro. Thatcher? Not So Much

President Obama will send a higher-level delegation to the funeral of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s funeral than he did when Margaret Thatcher was laid to rest.

Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security advisor and one of the president’s closest aides, will attend the Castro funeral, the Obama administration announced Tuesday. He will be joined by Jeffrey DeLaurentis, the U.S. ambassador to Cuba.

Castro, imposed his tyrannical rule on the people of Cuba for half a century. Known for his firing squads, labor camps, and suppression of basic human rights, he was also fiercely anti-American, allying with the Soviet Union in hopes that one day the United States would crumble.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Tuesday: “The president has decided not to send a presidential delegation to attend the memorial service.” However, with the sending of Rhodes, whether or not the president sent an “official” delegation becomes more or less an issue of semantics.

The United States restored official diplomatic relations with the Cuban regime in July 2015. Rhodes, who has been on Obama’s team since 2007, was an integral member of the administration’s push to normalize relations with Havana. The New York Times previously reported on Rhodes’ efforts to advance negotiations with Cuba, claiming he “spent more than a year sneaking off to secret negotiations in Canada and finally at the Vatican.”

Rhodes has utilized the enormous influence of his position to pursue the Obama foreign policy agenda, leaving a trail of deception in his path.

The White House deputy national security advisor has bragged that he purposely misled journalists regarding the U.S. negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rhodes boasted about his success in creating an “echo chamber” to move public opinion toward accepting a nuclear deal with the Ayatollah’s regime.

When baroness Thatcher passed away in 2013, the president did not send a SINGLE high-profile member of his administration to the funeral. Two Reagan-era secretaries of state, James Baker and George Schultz, attended on behalf of the U.S., along with the ambassador to the United Kingdom.

As the first female prime minister of the U.K., Margaret Thatcher helped end the Cold War.

“All over Europe the peace marchers demonstrated to prevent Western missiles from being installed for their defense,” President Ronald Reagan wrote in a 1989 piece for National Review, “but they were silent about the Soviet missiles targeted against them! Again, in the face of these demonstrations, Margaret (Thatcher) never wavered.”

The Soviet press nicknamed her “the Iron Lady,” a tag she embraced in showcasing her resolve against tyranny.

Lady Thatcher, a voice for liberty and freedom worldwide, and a key ally in bringing about the end of the Soviet Union, was given the cold shoulder by President Obama. Fidel Castro, the ruthless tyrant, known for mass executions and the subjugation of basic human rights, gets Ben Rhodes, an irreplaceable part of the White House foreign policy team. (For more from the author of “Obama Admin Reserves Hero’s Sendoff for Castro. Thatcher? Not So Much” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump and the Media: Star-Crossed Lovers

Remember back in those first Republican presidential debates when Donald Trump would seemingly mess with Jeb Bush and Rand Paul just because he thought it was fun?

Right from the start, he was marking his territory like some kind of feral dog. He smelled weakness, and off he went — straight to the White House.

Now that he’s there, don’t expect this old dog to suddenly learn new tricks. Why would he? The old tricks are working. This is a man who invented an alter ego named John Barron just so he could mess with reporters’ minds. Which I know is a pretty low bar, considering how messed up many of those minds already are.

Journalism has been trolling the American public for decades now with its fake news and elitist contempt, but now it has met its match. Trump has seen its malarkey and raised it. And like double-down addicts who always think the next hand of poker will set them free, progressive journalism is almost certainly about to bankrupt itself of whatever shred of integrity it had left.

In fact, Trump is counting on it.

Amidst making cabinet selections that ultimately haven’t looked too different from what Jeb himself would have selected, Trump yelled “squirrel” in the form of sharing his opinion on flag burning earlier this week.

Off to the races we went.

Ironically, the chattering class took a break from demanding Draconian limits be placed on Christian speech and expression to offer an ode to the First Amendment. Which took Trump right where he wanted to go. Otherwise known as his happy place, where he holds court on Twitter with barely trained seals.

The great prophet Snoop Dog had it right: Hate the game, not the player. Trump is just the dealer here, and you’re not a dealer if there’s no one to deal to. It’s not his fault the mainstream media have all the self-control of a meth addict.

For all the stress Trump put his messaging team through during the campaign, this is an amusement park for him now that he has won and in governing mode. He gets to call all the shots with the biggest bully pulpit on the planet. Just wind up that jack-in-the-box that is the artist formerly known as journalism, and watch it annoyingly pop again and again and again.

He will watch amused as various members of the press write column after dutiful column about their vital watchdog role, during what they believe to be the most dangerous presidency of our lifetime. Meanwhile, Trump will smile a yuge smile, because he knows he has them right where he wants them. They simply have no idea what is happening to them.

This goes way beyond flag burning and midnight Tweet binges. For example, Trump has announced his own multi-billion-dollar version of the New Deal as part of his strategy to Make America Great Again. With this week’s crony capitalist deal with Carrier being the opening salvo on that front.

So while he’s got the discredited media birthing cows on television defending flag-burning-America-haters, Trump was in Indiana celebrating 1,000 jobs he “saved” before he’s even sworn in. Exactly the side-by-side “America First” comparison Team Trump is looking for. Because Team Trump understands as leery as people may be about a Trump presidency, they hate the media even more.

Even though they bring out the worst in the other, Trump and the media need each other like we need oxygen to breathe. They’re like the stereotypical binging rock star and his junkie groupie, who can’t stay away from each other. But when they hook up, it always ends up with both of them naked in a seedy hotel with full ash trays, dirty needles, and half-drank liquor bottles everywhere. He always wakes up before her and sneaks out, leaving her to clean up the mess.

And given the fact Trump is about to be inaugurated while the media implode, it’s pretty obvious who’s who in this analogy. (For more from the author of “Trump and the Media: Star-Crossed Lovers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Administration Sides With Protesters, Halting Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline

The Department of the Army handed protesters of the Dakota Access pipeline a victory Sunday when it announced the project would be re-routed. The decision came on the eve of the government’s Monday deadline for protesters to evacuate their encampment.

For the past several months, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have waged a campaign against the pipeline, drawing the support of environmentalists and liberal entertainers. They were upset that the pipeline would cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Now, the company installing the 1,172-mile pipeline will have to find another route or appeal to the incoming Trump administration in 2017.

“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works, said in the statement Sunday. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”

It’s unclear what protesters will do Monday, when they face the deadline to leave. Even before Sunday’s decision, North Dakota’s congressman warned that the fight over the pipeline would likely continue.

“The idea that [the pipeline protest] is about the environment is bogus,” Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said last week in an interview with Daily Signal editor in chief Rob Bluey.

The pipeline is designed to transport oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to southern Illinois.

Prior to Sunday’s announcement, Energy Transfer Partners, the company in charge of the project, had estimated it would be fully operational by the end of this year. It is already over 90 percent complete, but environmentalists and citizens of the nearby Standing Rock Sioux Reservation successful halted its construction.

On April 1, tribal citizens founded the “Sacred Stone Camp” near the construction site to protest the pipeline. The group is concerned that it will be constructed close enough to the tribe’s water source, the Missouri River, to cause spillage.

However, according to Time magazine, the pipeline does not pass through tribal land. Since Sacred Stone’s founding, the site has been subject to ongoing protests to halt the pipeline’s construction.

State officials and the Army Corps of Engineers have issued an evacuation notice to protesters, but Cramer said it is unlikely they will comply.

“They have … issued an evacuation notice for the land that the camp is on, the illegal camp, and so as of next Monday [Dec. 5], anyone staying there will be trespassing,” Cramer said.

When asked if he was confident that the protesters would leave by the deadline, the congressman said:

I’m not, because the tribe and others have committed to staying there. I will tell you that the 2 feet of snow or so that they’ve got in the last couple of days probably is a greater distraction than an evacuation notice from the [U.S. Army] Corps of Engineers, but winter can be a very sobering time in North Dakota on the prairie.

“What started out as a prayerful, peaceful protest of course has turned into a very violent and aggressive riot in many cases,” the congressman said in his interview with The Daily Signal. “The blending of agitators and out-of-state people with a different agenda than just protection of water for the tribe has created a lot of chaos,” he said.

In the interview, Cramer also rejected the idea that protesters were seeking to defend the environment against the pipeline’s construction.

“This oil is being produced today. It’s being moved now. It’s just not being moved by this efficient, safe means of transportation,” Cramer said. “So the idea that some of this is about the environment is bogus. This oil is going to be produced. So I just think that many of the arguments against it are ironic at best and hypocritical most likely.”

When asked about how he believed the management of federal lands would change under the incoming Trump administration, Cramer expressed optimism that President-elect Donald Trump would handle things differently.

“We own … over $50 trillion … worth of oil and gas. [Trump is] a businessman; he knows what $50 trillion could do for our country,” Cramer said, adding:

Mr. Trump is also an environmentalist. The idea of just exploiting federal lands is something he doesn’t take lightly either, but he’s also smart enough to know that modern technology and appropriate safeguards can be put in place to do it in a safe and reasonable manner while at the same time exploiting it for the benefit of our economy and job creation and, certainly, national security.

(For more from the author of “Obama Administration Sides With Protesters, Halting Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Veteran Dies With Maggots Crawling in Wound, Four Employees at VA Hospital Immediately Resign

Four employees at the Talihina Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs center have resigned after a patient was found with maggots in his wound shortly before he died.

Talihina director Myles Deering confirmed the maggots didn’t enter the wound after the patient died on Oct. 3, but rather were present while the patient was still alive . . .

eering also serves as secretary of the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, which is separate from the federal Department of Veterans Affairs.

The 73-year-old veteran, Owen Reese Peterson, initially came to the medical center with an infection, but then ended up with sepsis, to which he later succumbed . . .

The Oklahoma VA has since reported the maggot incident to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and has sent over a report to the district attorney, which means charges may be forthcoming. (Read more from “Veteran Dies With Maggots Crawling in Wound, Four Employees at VA Hospital Immediately Resign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Last Christmas Present to America? A Boatload of New Regulations

Barack Obama’s presidency may be waning, but that isn’t stopping the administration from issuing a volley of new regulations designed to implement the departing president’s agenda.

From commodities speculation to air pollution, Medicare drug payments to protecting funding for Planned Parenthood, agencies are hard at work issuing mandates, grasping at their last opportunity to lock in rules on Obama’s legacy issues.

These actions are nothing new. In fact, “midnight regulations” are almost a permanent feature of lame-duck presidents. Midnight regulations spiked under President Bill Clinton and were also used extensively by President George W. Bush.

However, President Obama has been far more direct about using the regulatory state to impose his agenda nearly by executive fiat — or without the approval of Congress. Under Obama, regulations have exploded. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Obama Administration issued 184 major rules during its first six years in office — at a cost of almost $80 billion a year.

Though only two months remain in Obama’s term, there are thousands of rules yet to finalize. Over 1500 proposed rules and regulations are in the pipeline, including over 700 dubbed “economically significant” — meaning those that cost the economy over $100 million per year. It’s these regulations that are likely candidates to be imposed in a last-minute flurry.

Is Congress powerless to stop this power grab by the executive branch?

Yes. And no.

By law, Congress has the authority to issue a “congressional review” of regulations it finds objectionable. Congress has 60 days to hold and up or down vote on regulations it chooses to review. This is tougher than it sounds — in fact, since its enactment, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) has only been successfully used once.

So, really, Congress provided itself with a tool to challenge executive regulations that is nearly impossible to utilize. I’m not too shocked.

However, this shouldn’t stop Republicans in the new Congress from seeking every opportunity to use the CRA. President Obama has issued more regulations — and at greater cost — than any sitting president to date. It is the constitutional role of Congress to check an overly-enthusiastic executive, and to do so requires Congress to muster the will to assert itself against this regulatory excess.

There is another way in which Congress can assert a permanent check on the power of the executive, and that is by passing the Regulations in Need of Scrutiny Act, or the REINS Act. This proposed bill would require every major regulation — those costing the economy $100 million or more per year — to receive an approval vote from Congress before it can go into effect.

Such a law, if enacted, would put accountability back where it belongs — in the hands of Congress, and the members that have been elected by the people. No longer would agency bureaucrats be able to write billion dollar regulations and impose them on the voters, who lack the recourse to stop them.

Consider the regulatory burden imposed by President Obama, without the approval of Congress:

Obama’s air pollution rule would be “the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public,” according to the National Association of Manufacturers, who calculated the rule would cost $3.4 trillion in economic output, and 2.9 million jobs by 2040.

The Obama administration’s rules on the financial industry reach over 19,000 pages so far.

EPA’s rule on emissions for automobiles costs $2.4 billion annually, according to one estimate.

The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, a rule co-authored by every cabinet agency, could impose more than 12.1 million paperwork hours onto the medical research industry (in addition to costing $13.3 billion).

The regulatory state now comprises a literal “fourth branch” of government — one that is unchecked, and unaccountable. It is vital that Congress reasserts its Constitutional authority as a check on the executive branch. The new Congress must act aggressively to counter Obama’s surge of midnight regulations with the Congressional Review Act, and they must pass the REINS Act to subject major regulations to Congressional scrutiny.

More than that, however, this new Congress must be cautious about giving so much authority away to federal agencies. In many cases, harmful regulations are the result of Congress giving agencies vague directions and overly broad mandates. Too often legislation is passed that is half-written; allowing unelected bureaucrats to fill in the holes. If government is going to work as the Founders intended, then Congress must stop shirking the hard work of legislating, and write bills that contain clear direction — and limits — for agency power.

Unfortunately, midnight regulations are only part of a much larger regulatory problem. Unless Congress acts quickly, America will continue to be governed by unelected bureaucrats, accountable to no one but themselves. If this new Congress is serious about “draining the swamp,” their first step will be to rein in regulatory state. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Last Christmas Present to America? A Boatload of New Regulations” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Speaker Ryan Says He and Trump Have Patched Things Up

The speaker of the House tells Scott Pelley he and President-elect Donald Trump have made up and speak on the phone nearly every day. On the campaign trail, the two were at odds. Speaker Ryan had called one of Trump’s statements racist and Trump dismissed him as ineffective and disloyal, but Ryan says the two are not looking back and are already working together. Ryan spoke to Pelley today in Washington in an interview to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday Dec. 4 at 7 p.m. ET/PT . . .

Scott Pelley: You called Donald Trump a racist.

Paul Ryan: No, I didn’t. I said his comment was.

Scott Pelley: Well, I’m not sure there’s a great deal of daylight between those two definitions. But he definitely called you ineffective and disloyal. Have you patched it up?

Paul Ryan: Yeah, we have. We’re fine. We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward. We– we actually– we’ve had– we– like I said, we speak about every day. And it’s not about looking for– back in the past. That’s behind us. We’re way beyond that.

(Read more from “Speaker Ryan Says He and Trump Have Patched Things Up” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federalism When It Works for Them: Why Liberals Are Wrong About Sanctuary Cities

When it comes to nullifying federal immigration statutes, the most foundational powers of a national government, liberals suddenly develop an affinity for localism. With Trump promising to finally crack down on sanctuary cities, liberals are now fanning the flames for nullification and disobedience. In fact, they are somehow trying to suggest that it is arduous or unconstitutional for the federal government to punish sanctuary cities. As always, liberals have the Constitution exactly backwards.

Amber Philips, a writer for the Washington Post, penned a piece examining (and advocating for) “why Donald Trump may not be able to close sanctuary cities.” Citing “immigration experts,” she asserts that Trump will be confronted with “constitutional, geographic and even legal challenges.”

First, she notes that most sanctuary cities are geographically in blue states where state governments won’t cut off funding to those localities. But conservatives, for the most part, are not counting on states to do it. Rather they are asking Congress and the Department of Justice to crack down on those lawless cities — two entities that have jurisdiction over immigration in all 50 states.

So why can’t Congress simply cut off funds?

Philips suggests that GOP leaders might not be so excited about the proposal. Well, Ms. Philips, you just discovered America. Yes, GOP leaders stink. They couldn’t care less about national sovereignty. There’s nothing new there. While they are likely to be an obstacle against many sweeping reforms, including on the topic of immigration, it is very unlikely they will fight against one of Trump’s biggest mandates. The sitting party in control almost always defers to the president (when he is of the same party) regarding his key agenda items, unless they are clearly unpopular. With regards to stopping sanctuary cities, the public overwhelmingly favors national sovereignty and the rule of law.

Philips goes on to suggest the DOJ might sue in the courts to get sanctuary cities to comply with immigration officials. She knocks down that option but rightly noting that the courts are certainly unreliable for conservatives. But that is exactly the point. The courts will never be an easier route than Congress, which is why we don’t need to grovel to the lawless courts to respect the Constitution. Congress can simply pass a law or include those provisions in must-pass budget bills.

So it’s now unconstitutional for the federal government to defend national sovereignty?

Next, Philips quotes law professors saying that somehow even Congress can’t force states to cooperate with federal immigration officials because it is unconstitutional. So while the unelected branch of the federal government can crush the states on internal issues that are manifestly within the purview of the state — and evidently there is nothing states can do to fight back — these same scholars believe that states can thwart a foundational enumerated federal power and that there is nothing the stronger legislative and executive branches can do about it.

Opponents of punishing sanctuary cities cite past court cases where the courts have limited the power of the federal government to place conditions on grants to the states in order to induce them to accept specific policies. For example the court has ruled that the conditions must be unambiguous “so that states can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Moreover, the condition must not be “so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion” akin to “a gun to the head.”

However, the comparison to these court cases doesn’t get off the ground. Although this point requires an article in itself, here are some key points:

In South Dakota v. Dole, the federal government was leveraging an enumerated spending power to induce states into raising their minimum age for alcohol assumption, a power that does not belong to the federal government and should be left to the states. In Pennhurst, the federal government was forcing states into a costly and burdensome disability program full of extra costs and regulations. In the case involving Medicaid expansion (NFIB v. Sebelius), the federal government was placing a massive unfunded liability on the states — which accounts for the single-largest expenditure for a state. These are instances when it is appropriate, within certain limits, for states to tell the federal government to get off their lawns.

Immigration, on the other hand, is one of the most foundational enumerated powers and responsibilities of the federal government to the entire union of states. [4] The federal government has the right to send out agents anywhere at any time to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. Furthermore, the federal government isn’t foisting upon the states implementation of a cumbersome, officious, and costly spending or regulatory regime. All they are asking for is the minimum cooperation needed for the federal government to protect the sovereignty and security of all the states, which merely requires states to communicate with ICE and detain illegal immigrants in jail until they are picked up by the feds. At the very least, they are asking that states don’t take active steps to undermine, thwart, and downright prohibit police from cooperating with ICE, as required by law [8 U.S.C. 1373]. There is no practical way for the federal government to exercise this solemn responsibility if states are active accomplices to the assault on the national sovereignty.

Federalism flipped upside down, inside out

Finally, Amber Philips suggests that this entire priority of cracking down on sanctuary cities is somehow an anathema to the typical conservative preference for state and local control.

Here is where liberals have no understanding of our Constitution and republican form of government. We have a dual track system: states and the national government. Then there are three branches of the federal government, each with distinct roles, powers, and responsibilities. While there have always been and will always be gray areas of jurisdiction and/or disagreements over jurisdiction and policies, most of the basic powers are incontrovertibly vested in one of the branches. Conservatives are not “pro-states” or “anti-federal government” or pro-Congress and anti-courts. Conservatives are for keeping what is rightfully vested to the federal government in federal hands and what is rightfully vested in the hands of state governments in state hands.

When it comes to immigration — who gets to enter or remain in the country — power, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is given over exclusively to the United States Congress, which represents the sovereignty of the whole federal union. Just like the federal government has absolutely no legal right to nullify local zoning decisions, something the Obama administration had done, states have no right to nullify immigration law, which stems from an unambiguous enumerated power of Congress.

Liberals might disagree vehemently with Trump’s immigration policies. They might want an unlimited number of illegal aliens, Muslim immigrants, and refugees. They have the right to hold that view and advocate strongly for their convictions. But none of them can say with a straight face that federal immigration law and national sovereignty is unconstitutional. Nobody has the right to enter this country without the consent of the people, as reflected through congressional statutes. The framers vested the power over immigration in the hands of the federal government precisely for the purpose of precluding the sanctuary city mindset.

Roger Sherman, among the greatest of all the Founders, noted during the House debate on the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner.” Sherman was emphatic that federal control was designed to “guard against an improper mode of naturalization,” and prevent individual states from flooding the country with immigrants based on “easier terms.”

Thus, states have absolutely no right to disobey the most foundational sovereignty laws of the nation. If liberals in blue states disagree with these policies, they must win congressional and presidential elections.

But don’t conservatives want states to ignore federal usurpations?

While I have encouraged states to fight back against the tyranny emanating from the federal judiciary, I have never advocated that states nullify statutes duly passed by Congress. Moreover, once again, the devil is in the details of the particular issue and how it relates to the Constitution. It is settled law that states have plenary power over marriage, legislative districts, and methods and procedures of elections. The federal judiciary has no right to nullify state laws in those spheres of policy. If they do so, states have the right to interpret the Constitution as they clearly understand it. After all, state officials swear the same oath to uphold the federal constitution as federal judges do.

Contrast those issues to sanctuary cities and immigration law and there are no similarities to be observed. While individual states and cities might be repulsed by certain immigration laws, they cannot suggest that those laws are unconstitutional.

Yet, ironically, the Left somehow believes that when states like Arizona affirm, defend, augment, or enable implementation of federal immigration law, they are interfering with federal power. But states like California openly nullifying immigration law is just fine and even a righteous exercise of conscience-based decision-making.

We have a very polarized and diverse country that has boiled over into widespread acrimony in recent years. However, if we respected the constitutional processes of law-making even as we disagree on individual policies, it would go a long way in healing the divide. This is not a matter of whether states should predominate or whether the Feds should rule; whether Congress should reclaim more power or whether the other branches should remain strong. This is an issue of constitutional supremacy. We all must follow the rules of the Constitution in pursuing our diverse policy ideas. Process matters. And in the case of loosening our immigration laws, there is only one legitimate process to pursue: getting Congress to pass amnesty. Until then, liberals have no one to blame but themselves. (For more from the author of “Federalism When It Works for Them: Why Liberals Are Wrong About Sanctuary Cities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.