Posts

Report Reveals the Reality of ‘Family Separation’ Under Trump Administration

By Daily Wire. As Democrats and their media supporters continue to claim that the Trump administration is putting “kids in cages” — despite no such outrage when President Barack Obama did the same — a new report finds that the administration has reunited nearly all of the children separated at the border.

The report, from Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, looked at data produced by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services and found that 95% of children who had been discharged from HHS custody had been “reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent.”

The data provided had identified 2,648 children who were believed to have been separated at the southern border. The committee only had data from HHS on 1,619 of those children, but found that 99% had been discharged from HHS custody.

“Of the 1,603 discharged children, 1,546 children—or 95 percent—were either reunified with an individual sponsor or released to a parent. Specifically, 1,061 children were released to a parent and 485 children were reunified with an individual sponsor,” the report found.

The remaining 73 children who were discharged but not reunited have also been accounted for. Sixteen are being cared for by HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (which determined four of the 16 hadn’t been separated from a parent), 21 had sought a voluntary departure and went back to his or her home country, 20 turned 18 while in custody and could no longer be held by ORR, eight were sent to another migrant program, six went to a DHS family shelter, one was granted immigration relief, and that last child was a runaway. (Read more from “Report Reveals the Reality of ‘Family Separation’ Under Trump Administration” HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Homeland Security chief: Family border separations are down

By AP News. A top Trump administration official said Thursday the number of family separations at the border has fallen since last summer’s zero tolerance policy, and they are done only for compelling reasons.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said fewer than 1,000 children have been separated from families out of 450,000 family groups that have crossed the border since October. He said they are separated because of health and safety concerns, among other reasons. . .

McAleenan was speaking Thursday before the House Oversight Committee investigating border problems. His testimony comes amid a growing outcry over the treatment of migrants at the border, an internal investigation into Border Patrol agents who posted crude and mocking posts in a secret Facebook group and the move this week to effectively end asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border. (Read more from “Homeland Security chief: Family border separations are down” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Previously Deported Guatemalan Accused of Killing Mother and Two Daughters

Another mother has been permanently separated from her two daughters by the grave, allegedly murdered by a previously known illegal alien.

Three more people are dead in Des Moines, Iowa, allegedly killed by an illegal alien who was able to remain in the country despite several encounters with police. Criminal illegal aliens are supposed to be immediately removed so they are not able to commit more crimes in this country.

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Marvin Oswaldo Escobar-Orellana, 31, who has been charged with the murder of a mother and two daughters Tuesday night in downtown Des Moines, is an illegal alien from Guatemala who had been previously deported twice. “Escobar-Orellana, aka, Marvin O. Esquivel-Lopez, was previously removed (deported) from the United States in 2010 and again in 2011,” said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer in a statement. “He has a prior federal conviction for illegal entry into the United States in 2010.”

While he is currently not in ICE custody, which prevents ICE from offering more information on his criminal history, ICE did confirm that an immigration detainer was filed by the agency on July 16 with the Polk County Jail. That would allow ICE to apprehend him so he can’t flee if he were to post bond with the local jail, which was set at $3 million.

According to the Des Moines Register, Esquivel-Lopez, which is the alias listed on all of the suspect’s public records, had numerous traffic tickets. He even appeared in court the day before the shootings to pay “more than $1,400 in fines and fees related to a May traffic incident in which he was cited for failure to maintain control and driving without a license or proof of insurance.”

It should be standard procedure for police to immediately ask the citizenship status of someone involved in a traffic accidents, especially those who drive without licenses. As a result of localities violating 8 U.S.C. 1324 by shielding illegal aliens from detection, Rossibeth Flores-Rodriguez, 29; Grecia Daniela Alvarado-Flores, 11; and Ever Jose Mejia-Flores, 5 are now dead.

It’s not more evil for an illegal alien to commit murder than it is for an American. But illegal aliens, if our laws were followed, should be gone immediately upon their first encounter with police so that they can’t harm more Americans.

This alien gave a false identity to police. ICE had his real identity. The police could have worked with ICE to determine his real identity and prevent future crimes.

According to the Epoch Times, one citizen in North Carolina collated criminal data from just 30 percent of North Carolina counties and found that in just the past 18 months, “more than 331 illegal aliens have been charged with 1,172 child rapes and child sexual assaults.”

Even after removing illegal aliens, we must keep them from coming back. This criminal was able to come in twice before, and that was at a time when Border Patrol was not nearly as distracted as it is today. Just this year, Border Patrol caught 19,000 with previous convictions already in America coming to our border. Can you imagine how many they don’t catch? Because current policy is putting the illegal aliens before America’s security, Border Patrol is drawn off to serving illegal aliens so that the cartels can strategically bring the worst criminal elements back into the country.

Border Patrol must actually patrol our frontier and ensure that people like Escobar-Orellana don’t return. How many of the 1.8 million criminal aliens ICE has deported over the past decade made it back in because they know we are often down to a handful of agents for a 60-mile stretch of border?

Every time an illegal alien dies of natural causes, it is an impetus for Congress to hold endless hearings berating immigration officials. Why is a murder like this not an impetus to address how current law is not being applied in defense of Americans? (For more from the author of “Previously Deported Guatemalan Accused of Killing Mother and Two Daughters” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit

Could a third-party organization get standing to select any district court it wants to control and determine who is admitted into this country at the international border? That is the question in light of the ACLU’s lawsuit against Trump’s asylum regulation. It is also the question the Trump administration needs to emphatically answer right now before lending legitimacy to this abuse of separation of powers.

On Tuesday, like clockwork, the ACLU and a bunch of open-borders groups sued the Department of Justice’s latest asylum regulation that simply affirms the integrity of the system. The proposed rule would limit asylum to those who didn’t game the system and pass up other countries that are a party to the asylum treaty before seeking asylum in the U.S. The lawsuit was so contrived that it was likely drafted even before the regulation was published, because it erroneously names John Sanders as head of Customs and Border Protection when the current acting commissioner is Mark Morgan.

Trump has the opportunity to cut this off and call upon his attorney general to declare that there is no legitimacy to this lawsuit and decline to send lawyers to the San Francisco court for this dog-and-pony show.

Forum-shopping and nationwide injunctions are illegitimate

It is simply absurd and illegal for a district court not on the border to rule on a national – even international – issue affecting entry at the border. Most of the family units are coming in at the Texas border, and none of them are in the Northern District of California. Only two percent coming in at the California border at all. Why did the ACLU go there? Because it has a 13-1 majority of Democrat appointees, and that is the district that has single-handedly vitiated the rest of our existing immigration laws.

It’s time for the Trump administration to once and for all declare that nationwide and universal injunctions by district judges are unconstitutional and violate the inherent limitation of “cases and controversies” spelled out in Article III powers. This will affect the rest of his presidency and the future of the republic on every issue, but most certainly on border security. Now is the time to force that issue.

There is no judicial jurisdiction over foreign affairs

It is momentous that the ACLU chose the Northern District of California, a point that must be publicized by the president and his attorney general. This is the very district court that, in 1996, said that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. (Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, N.D. Cal. 1996.) There is nothing more to talk about. Even if the Left is correct about the reading of base asylum statutes, which it is not because asylum is discretionary and never supersedes national security concerns, the president always has the authority to shut it off. It’s not just from statutory 1182(f) delegated authority, but as this very court said, from his own Article II authority over entry at the border. The president can deny entry to anyone he wants, certainly when we are seeing dozens of terrible effects on the American people and on the migrants themselves because of the rush at the border and the empowerment of the cartels and MS-13.

Once Trump establishes this is a foreign affairs issue, it destroys the Left’s next argument. The ACLU alleges that the DOJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not waiting 30 days to potentially implement the policy. Aside from the numerous reasons why the APA doesn’t apply here (see Alito’s partial dissent in the census case), 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) explicitly exempts a “foreign affairs function” from the APA.

The Courts have zero jurisdiction to give standing

If the Trump administration agrees to legitimize this case, it will not only give our sovereignty over immigration to the courts, something the Supreme Court has rejected for 130 years, it would be allowing courts to veto any policy without any requirement for Article III standing.

Courts don’t veto policies or laws. There is no judicial veto in the Constitution. What courts can do is grant relief to plaintiffs with valid standing when a cognizable injury is evident as a result of the denial of a constitutional right or a legally protected interest. As the Supreme Court said in 2013, “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” (Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.)

7.8 billion people in the world simply don’t have standing to sue for the right to come here. That has long been settled. In Lem Moon Sing (1895), the court said that not only does Congress have full authority to exclude without judicial intervention, but the executive branch officials do as well. The court noted that one could not argue that if an “alien is entitled of right, by some law or treaty, to enter this country, but is nevertheless excluded by such officers” that the courts could get involved.

“That view, if sustained, would bring into the courts every case of an alien claiming the right to come into the United States under some law or treaty, but who was prevented from doing so by the executive branch of the government. This would defeat the manifest purpose of Congress in committing to subordinate immigration officers and to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive authority to determine whether a particular alien seeking admission into this country belongs to the class entitled by some law or treaty to come into the country, or to a class forbidden to enter the United States.”

So, the new tactic of these refugee or open-borders agitation groups is to sue as if they, not the aliens, are the aggrieved party. Typically, the ACLU or another NGO will sue on behalf of a real plaintiff. In this case, they are asserting that they are the aggrieved party because, according to the brief filed in the N.D. of California, “The new Rule frustrates Al Otro Lado’s mission and will force Al Otro Lado to divert significant resources away from its other programs.” They claim they will lose revenue from taxpayer funds or have to strain their staff to function.

Folks, if the court were to legitimize this avenue of standing, then there is not a single policy of any sort that can’t be sued by anyone. Say you have an organization that offers legal help to tax cheats. Then government resolves to more aggressively clamp down on tax fraud. Can your tax cheat law firm get standing to sue the government because now there will be fewer clients and your revenue will be reduced? That is quite literally what the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, one of the litigants, claimed in support of obtaining standing to sue in this case.

The ACLU is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otri Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.

The president or the attorney general should deliver a national address and read some of the ACLU’s brief word for word, and the American people will see the absurdity on their own. They already understand the absurdity of forum-shopping, nationwide injunctions, and judicial tyranny of one of 94 federal courts. Trump’s advisers and lawyers need to step outside to the real America and turn away from political Twitter, and they will see the American people do not want this swarm at the border, nor do they want the ACLU and California judges usurping power. It’s time they actually fight for the forgotten American taxpayer who never gets standing in any court to uphold the rule of law and sovereignty.

We either have three branches of government, or we have 1/94th of the unelected weakest branch determining foreign affairs. (For more from the author of “The President Should Not Play Ball With Illegitimate Border Lawsuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Assaults Against Border Agents Rising; Few Attackers Are Prosecuted

While Republicans trip over themselves to condemn President Trump’s tweets attacking Hamas supporter Ilhan Omar, they continue to do nothing for victims of illegal immigration or for law enforcement. The more they allow Democrats to focus on the needs of illegal aliens rather than those of Americans, the more border agents are being assaulted without any response from our government. Very few illegal aliens are being prosecuted for anything, including assaulting border agents.

What is the message being sent to the cartels and illegal aliens? That they are now a protected class here and we will do nothing to counter their behavior. Sergio Tinoco, a supervisor border agent in the Rio Grande Valley, tells me that agents patrolling the river are getting attacked with rocks as the smugglers become emboldened by the lack of response or prosecutions.

“I work in the area in south Texas where of course we have the Rio Grande River as our actual border,” said Tinoco on my podcast last Thursday. “We have a riverine unit, a boat crew that patrols up and down the river. Mind you, the border is directly somewhere in the center or quasi-center of that river, so we ourselves and our agents cannot engage with anyone on the Mexican riverbank. We just can’t. Our rules of engagement do not allow that. The cartels know this; the smugglers know this. And of course, there’s a lot of high brush here in south Texas, and daily, we have smugglers, we have coyotes that will throw rocks at our riverine crews, at our agents, do everything they possibly can to harm them and to hurt them because they want them out of the area so that they can either bring their illicit drugs through or they can bring in the illegal immigrants across the river.”

You read that correctly. Belligerent terrorist groups that the State Department refuses to designate as such can now throw rocks at our agents knowing that it will cause them to retreat in our own territory, thereby allowing them to get in their human and drug contraband. They are certain we will not retaliate.

Agent Tinoco says they are left with few options. They must either retreat or try to
“pepper them with some type of CS gas pellets” and hope they will disperse. “This is a dangerous task that we encounter every single day.”

Tinoco also told me that not enough of these people are being prosecuted. “If any of us is assaulted, we would want that individual to be punished. I’m sure that if a citizen in … another part of America … I’m sure that if that individual was assaulted, everybody in that community would be seeking justice. And that’s all our agents … that’s all we ask for. We ask for the exact same thing that any other citizen that we’re protecting would ask for, and sadly we don’t get that as often as we would like. “

Tinoco noted that this is what “lends to the downfall of our morality where eventually you’ll start hearing agents say, ‘Why even report this to someone? Nothing’s going to happen.’ And that’s a very bad situation to be in because you want to still encourage our agents to report everything.”

Jaeson Jones, retired captain of the Texas Rangers’ Border Security Operations Center (BSOC) , told me that border agents are often told to go to Texas authorities to push for prosecutions because the feds won’t take the cases. “Today, it is routine to see state charges filed in border-related cases not taken by the feds – everything from pursuits, assaults, aggravated assaults, and smuggling charges etc.”

Jones recalled an incident in south Texas involving a Border Patrol agent who had been assaulted by an illegal alien during an apprehension. The agent was injured, yet federal prosecutors didn’t take the case. “The Texas Ranger captain who was commanding the one-week joint border mission learned of this assault and was incredulous, “What do mean they won’t accept charges?” he asked loudly with clear anger in his voice. When he heard the news from the supervising agent assigned to the command post, the captain turned to his lieutenant and said go find out if one of our men has been injured, then that suspect is going to jail … do you understand? Within a few hours, the suspect was booked into the Hidalgo County, Texas, jail for assault on a police officer.”

It turns out, according to CBP data, that assaults on CBP personnel have roughly doubled over the past two fiscal years relative to the previous few years. Yet, surprisingly, the use of force against illegal aliens is down. Those two stats are no coincidence, according to one agent in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley who must remain anonymous because he’s not authorized to speak to the media.

“The cartel scouts are telling the illegal immigrants to fight us. If they win, great, they get away or enable others in the area to get away. If they lose, they claim excessive use of force. I was just recently attacked by a Salvadoran couple at the river as part of a group of several dozen who got away while they tussled with me. My military and jujitsu training kicked in and I overpowered them, but I sustained minor injuries to my face. In this case, they were charged, but only received time served. They do not fear prosecution, and they know we have weak rules of engagement. If you don’t know how to fight hand-to-hand, you are out of luck.”

Indeed, the entire impetus for this border crisis was when the politicians and media supplanted the rule of law with virtue-signaling to ensure that illegal aliens are exempted from prosecution because they will be separated from their children, even though in many cases, they children are not theirs.

There might be no consequences for illegal aliens and their smugglers invading our border. But the American people and the border agents are feeling all of the consequences. (For more from the author of “Assaults Against Border Agents Rising; Few Attackers Are Prosecuted” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Illegal Alien in Sanctuary City Charged With Sexually Assaulting 6-Year-Old

An illegal alien has been arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a six-year-old child in Johnston County, North Carolina.

Alejandro Duarte Aldama, 32 years old, was charged last week on a number of child sex crime charges involving the alleged sexual assault of a six-year-old, according to records obtained by CBS 17.

Aldama, a law enforcement official told Breitbart News, entered the U.S. without inspection, which indicates that he is in the country illegally, most likely arriving from across the southern border. Aldama had been living in Raleigh, North Carolina — a sanctuary city that shields illegal aliens from deportation.

The illegal alien has been charged with a statutory sex offense and indecent liberties with a child. Aldama, the warrant claims, attempted “to engage in a sex act” with the six-year-old on January 4, 2019. (Read more from “Illegal Alien in Sanctuary City Charged With Sexually Assaulting 6-Year-Old” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Trump Admin Is Making It a Lot Harder for Border-Crossers to Game America’s Asylum System

A new regulation posted by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Monday morning seeks to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border by making stricter the eligibility requirements for seeking asylum in the United States.

The rule, which was posted for review on Monday morning and goes into effect Tuesday, specifically deals with the asylum eligibility of “aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States across the southern land border after failing to apply for protection from persecution or torture while in a third country through which they transited en route to the United States.”

The concept is simple: Where an applicant seeks asylum should be based on where an applicant first finds safety from whatever they’re fleeing, rather than on personal preference of country.

“In sum, this rule provides that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or arrives in the United States across the southern land border is ineligible for the discretionary benefit of asylum unless he or she applied for and received a final judgment denying protection in at least one third country through which he or she transited en route to the United States,” the rule reads.

If migrants leave a country in Central America and come to the United States, the new rule says they wouldn’t be eligible for asylum here unless they first went through the asylum application process somewhere along the way and were denied.

The authority for making the rule can be found in section 208 0f the Immigration and Nationality Act, which deals with asylum and refugee status. That section of the INA also gives the attorney general and secretary of homeland security to “the authority to promulgate regulations establishing additional bars on eligibility to the extent consistent with the asylum statute, as well as the authority to establish ‘any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum’ that are consistent with the INA,” according to the new rule.

There are exceptions to these new regulations about eligibility. For example, aliens can apply for deferral of removal under the “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” The rule also makes exceptions for victims of human trafficking because they “do not volitionally transit through a third country to reach the United States,” and it also makes exceptions for people who transit through countries that do not recognize international treaties dealing with torture and the proper treatment of refugees.

The rule seeks to cut down on frivolous “credible fear” claims that keep aliens in the United States until their claims for asylum can be heard and ruled on.

“This rule does not change the credible-fear standard for asylum claims,” the document explains, “although the regulation would expand the scope of the inquiry in the process. An alien who is subject to the third-country-transit bar and nonetheless has entered the United States along the southern land border after the effective date of this rule creating the bar would be ineligible for asylum and would thus not be able to establish a ‘significant possibility . . . [of] eligibility for asylum’” under federal law.

Raising the regulatory bar for asylum claims would also help the administration cut down on the total processing time for the claims while sending a message to the rest of the world that America’s asylum policies are not a “get out of jail free” card for otherwise illegal immigration.

“This Rule is a lawful exercise of authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “This Rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States—while ensuring that no one is removed from the United States who is more likely than not to be tortured or persecuted on account of a protected ground.”

The rule is what’s known as an interim final rule and will go into effect quicker than a normal federal regulation, which typically takes 60 days after first publication. The rule will go into effect immediately on Tuesday morning. (For more from the author of “The Trump Admin Is Making It a Lot Harder for Border-Crossers to Game America’s Asylum System” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The First Person to Stand for Our Sovereignty and Laws Against Sanctuary Policies Is… a Democrat?

We have laws in this country making it illegal for illegal aliens to remain in this country. It’s that simple. They cannot remain here, they cannot work here, and nobody is allowed to induce, encourage, harbor, transport, or shield from detection any illegal immigrant in the act of coming to or remaining in the country. How is it, then, that states, which are often stripped of their rightful powers over marriage and abortion, suddenly become so powerful that they can not only shield aliens from the feds but invite them to work and get benefits? What ever happened to that mighty Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

That is essentially the question one county clerk in New York is asking following the state’s decision to issue driver’s licenses to those here illegally.

For years, state and federal officials have been openly violating immigration laws to help promote the cause of illegal immigration. It has taken a Democrat official willing to stand up for the rule of law to finally bring this issue to a head. Erie County Clerk Michael Kearns immediately called foul on the decision of the state government by noting that because he is an official charged with issuing driver’s licenses, the new state law would place him at odds with federal law.

Kearns argues that issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens would force him to violate federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1324), which makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts.”

This law has been on the books in some form since 1891. Section 3 of the 1891 Immigration Act made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements. Any alien who came in due to such advertisements was deemed inadmissible, and that law was designed to prevent people from encouraging them.

Clearly, these laws are never followed, as members of Congress transport illegal aliens to the capital and states offer them all sorts of benefits and safe harbor. In this specific case of New York driver’s licenses, Kearns is arguing in a lawsuit before the Western District of New York that “by providing driver’s licenses to individuals illegally in the United States and by prohibiting the disclosure of their records, the Green Light Law shields these individuals from detection and substantially facilities their effort to remain in the United States.”

The Fifth Circuit has ruled that Congress intended for §1324 to “broadly proscribe any knowing or willful conduct fairly within any of these terms that tends to substantially facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.

What can be more squarely within the statute than offering driver’s licenses and barring disclosure of immigration status? This is what New York’s Green Light Law, which was signed into state law last month, does.

Kearns also noted in the formal complaint that one of the rationales given for the Green Light Law was to “get to and from work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need to keep our economy moving.”

There’s just one little problem with that. The entire purpose of the infamous 1986 amnesty bill, Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), was “to combat the employment of illegal aliens. The law specifically makes it “illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers.”

The American people and the Reagan administration reluctantly went along with the first amnesty based on the promise that the ban on illegal aliens working would prevent the next wave. Now we’ve had wave after wave of illegal immigration because those laws are not enforced, and states are even bragging about facilitating their violation of the law.

Chris Hajec, director of litigation for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told me that this case is a no-brainer. “A stated purpose of the Green Light law is to help illegal aliens get to and from work. That flies in the face of the purpose that Congress had in making it illegal to hire illegal aliens – to reduce illegal alien employment and shut off the jobs magnet for further illegal entry. When state and federal law are in conflict, federal law wins under the Supremacy Clause.”

What ever happened to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – that “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”?

These are not just any federal laws placing regulations on Americans. These are foundational sovereignty laws governing the entry of foreigners into the country. Immigration is not only explicitly given over to the federal government, but according to James Madison, it was one of the leading reasons why the Articles of Confederation needed to be swapped out for the new federal union.

An illegal alien first has to violate federal sovereignty – the sovereignty of the whole of the union – before he violates state sovereignty. A state, while definitely reserving the right to protect its own sovereignty, as Justice Scalia strongly asserted, has no power to go in the other direction and violate the federal sovereignty in order to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, where they are then free to live in any state.

As Mr. Kearns fights a lonely battle on behalf of federal powers, one has to wonder why the Department of Justice is not leading the way. (For more from the author of “The First Person to Stand for Our Sovereignty and Laws Against Sanctuary Policies Is… a Democrat?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Will the Desecration of the American Flag at ICE Facility Turn the Tide of the Border Battle?

The overwhelming majority of Americans, including most swing voters, want Republicans to simply enforce our immigration laws and prioritize the needs of Americans over the desires of illegal aliens. Why won’t they?

Republicans will likely miss the powerful symbolism of illegal alien protesters ripping down the American flag at an ICE facility in Aurora, Colorado, and raising the Mexican flag. For those of us who are veterans of the fight for sovereignty, this act conjured up memories of the 2006 fight over amnesty that conservatives successfully turned into a law to protect sovereignty, a law yet to be enforced by our government.

In 2006, the Left, along with Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush, tried to repeat the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens already here. As always, the American people were dead set against it, but they just weren’t activated, because all of the political money and activism is on the other side. That all changed when illegal aliens started publicly attacking our flag, according to Michelle Malkin, who was the leading conservative voice fighting amnesty at the time.

“In the spring of 2006, the illegal alien amnesty mob finally pushed Americans over the edge,” said Malkin in an interview with CR.

“Ethnic grievance-mongers raised the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High School in southern California. The flag wars quickly spread to Florida, Texas, Arizona, and my now-adopted home state of Colorado. At the time, I wrote: ‘I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington.’ I was right. Thanks to these unbridled displays of anti-American hatred, citizens rose fiercely to the defense of our borders and our laws — and the Bush amnesty plan crashed in flames.”

Malkin noted that “P.R. strategists for the sovereignty saboteurs have tried to clean up their act and dress up their endless amnesty campaigns in red, white, and blue” ever since they made that blunder. “They temporarily put down their foreign flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts, and cloaked their radical Reconquista aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of ‘reform,’ ‘opportunity,’ and DREAMers. But they just can’t help themselves. They can never hide their true colors — and the Mexican flag-raising in Aurora this past weekend proved it. Once again, I predict doom for the border-erasers. They’ve crossed a line that Americans have not, cannot, and will not tolerate.”

What did conservatives get for their efforts in 2006? A mandate for at least 850 miles of double-layer fencing and a requirement that DHS achieve full operational control to prevent all illegal immigration and cartel activity at any land or maritime border within 18 months of passage. It’s just that the law was never implemented.

Moreover, President Bush actually started enforcing interior immigration laws and deporting illegal aliens with 287(g) and the Secure Communities program, where deportations were ramped up, an effort that bore fruit even well into the first term of Obama’s precedency, when we were averaging over 400,000 deportations a year. MS-13 was almost eradicated from the country as a result of this successful push by we the people.

The lesson of the flag is that America can survive a conventional invasion that is eventually repelled. At the “dawn’s early light” of September 14, 1814, despite a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, Baltimore, by the British navy, “our flag was still there.” There was no Union Jack flying over the fort, despite the superior British firepower. But when our government subverts our sovereignty laws and brings in millions of illegal aliens who then become the most powerful constituency in the country – with the ability to single-handedly command the legislative agenda of the House of Representatives for the month of July – our flag was easily removed from an ICE detention facility and the Mexican flag was raised for several hours.

An invading army is not counted in the census. An invading army does not steal birthright citizenship for their children. An invading army doesn’t sue us in court and change our language, at least not right away.

In that sense, those who recoil when we refer to the border situation as “an invasion” are correct. This is worse than an invasion. It is subtler, yet more enduring and transformational in the long run.

This very point, missed by the political elites, including many so-called conservative political elites, is understood even by many run-of-the-mill Democrat voters. According to a Harvard-Harris poll, by a margin of 2-1, independent and moderate voters want illegal aliens, even those with questionable asylum claims, “immediately turned back” at the border. That view is held even by 44 percent of self-described Hillary Clinton voters.

While Democrats are holding one hearing after another on how they can shield and encourage more illegal immigration at the border, Republicans are missing in action, not holding hearings in the Senate on all the harms illegal aliens are causing Americans. Most Republicans are clamoring to show that they care more about the treatment of the invaders than the constituents they represent because they think the Twitter bubble is representative of American voters’ sentiments on the issue. They are simply wrong.

According to Axios, a recent focus group of 12 swing voters in the swing state of Michigan demonstrated this point. “Immigration came up many times when these swing voters were asked to discuss their top issue heading into the presidential election,” reports Axios. “Their responses sounded a lot like the ‘America First’ message President Trump has been championing.”

This focus group was composed of the quintessential swing voters – people who voted for both Romney (2012) and Hillary (2016) or both Obama (2012) and Trump (2016). What did they find? “Eight of these participants, including one Romney-Clinton voter, agreed with this statement: “When we give migrants food, clothing, toiletries, and shelter, all we’re doing is encouraging more of them to come to the U.S., and we don’t want that.”

In other words, most moderate voters are to the right of even the messaging of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

Among conservative elites in D.C., going after unqualified birthright citizenship for people who break into the country is considered a no-fly zone. For the average American, on the other hand, it is a no-brainer. “We shouldn’t give away our birthright like candy,” said Shawn M. “Meaning that all they have to do is cross the border illegally, pop out a kid, and they’re a U.S. citizen. Two illegals do not a citizen make,” she added.

Indeed, the American people stood defiant against a naval attack by a superpower 200 years ago. They stood for the flag. They certainly won’t be cowed by an invasion of illegal immigration and social transformation without representation. The only question is whether the elites of the bipartisan oligarch in Washington will catch up to the mainstream of American thought. (For more from the author of “Will the Desecration of the American Flag at Ice Facility Turn the Tide of the Border Battle?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Former ICE Director Stuns Ocasio-Cortez in Fiery Debate on Family Separation

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Calif.) appeared stunned when former ICE Director Thomas Homan hit back hard on the legality of family separations at the border. . .

Ocasio-Cortez pressed him on whether he recommended the family separation policy to former DHS Secretary Nielsen, but he countered that he gave numerous recommendations on how to “secure the border and save lives.” . . .

“If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in the car, I’m gonna be separated,” interrupted Homan. “When I was a police officer in New York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from his home.”

“Mr. Homan with all due respect, legal asylees are not charged with any crime,” Ocasio-Cortez replied.

Homan countered by saying that being present in the U.S. without documentation is illegal.

(Read more from “Former ICE Director Stuns Ocasio-Cortez in Fiery Debate on Family Separation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s How Much Deporting Illegal Aliens Saves Americans in Tax Dollars

Deporting the roughly 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living across the United States saves American taxpayers hundreds of billions in public costs, analysis finds.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is expected to conduct a mass deportation effort next week, where at least 2,000 illegal aliens who have final orders for removal will be arrested, detained, and deported from the U.S.

American taxpayers stand ready to benefit significantly from the deportation of thousands of illegal aliens, all of whom have been ordered deported and have refused to leave.

The latest analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarotta compared and contrasted the cost to American taxpayers of millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. over a lifetime and the cost of deportation.

Based on research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the cost of illegal aliens to American taxpayers over a lifetime is about $746.3 billion. Compare this to the cost of a single deportation, which is about $10,854 per illegal alien based on Fiscal Year 2016 totals.

Overall, deporting every illegal alien in the country would amount to a cost savings of about $622 billion over the course of a lifetime. This indicates that deporting illegal aliens is six times less costly than what it costs American taxpayers to currently subsidize the millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. (Read more from “Here’s How Much Deporting Illegal Aliens Saves Americans in Tax Dollars” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE