Send Violent Illegal Aliens To Live With Judge Concerned About Their Safety
Rogue federal judge wants robbers, rapists and murderers to have 'time to express any concerns they might have.'Rogue federal judge wants robbers, rapists and murderers to have 'time to express any concerns they might have.'Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win
The GOP doesn’t resemble a big tent any more — it looks more like a boundless landfill. No shared vision or coherent guiding principles bind the party’s disparate factions beyond not having a “D” next to their names. That’s why it’s impossible to pass a reasonable budget bill that cuts spending without including massive subsidies for high-tax blue states.
The rift between the Freedom Caucus, the K Street crowd, RINOs, and the Trump White House remains unbridgeable. So what’s the realistic path forward on budget reconciliation?
With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in LA.
Focus on the one issue that unites the base: immigration enforcement.
Riots in Los Angeles this week have made the case for an immigration-only reconciliation bill even stronger. The public sees the connection. The urgency is obvious. And President Trump, understandably frustrated by the calendar — it’s June and he hasn’t signed a single major legislative win — wants action now.
But cramming unrelated tax and health care provisions into one big, bloated bill guarantees disaster. Good members will face a bad vote. So why not act decisively?
Split the immigration provisions from the rest. Make them tougher. Pass the bill right away, while the chaos in L.A. is still at the front of everyone’s mind. Save the fiscal brawls for later.
The math of an immigration-focused bill
The current draft of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes about $185 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and new and improved border infrastructure. It also tacks on another $150 billion in defense spending — a top White House priority.
Even strong provisions need offsets. But in a party this fractured, cutting spending isn’t just difficult — it’s practically taboo.
Still, by limiting the bill to the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon spending and scrapping the tax components, Republicans would only need to offset $335 billion over 10 years.
RELATED: How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?
That’s well within the realm of possibility. They could hit that number using the consensus cuts and immigration reforms already in the bill. No gimmicks. No sleight of hand. Just political will and a sense of timing.
The current bill would generate about $77 billion in new revenue from immigration-related fees and taxes on remittances. It saves hundreds of billions more over the next decade by cutting off illegal aliens from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.
Republicans should go farther and ban illegal aliens from claiming the child tax credit — a move that could save another $50 billion.
Instead of loading the first reconciliation bill with a jumble of unrelated and divisive provisions, Republicans should focus on consensus items: national security, enforcement of sovereignty, and policies that put Americans first.
If the Republicans were more ambitious, they would use this bill to repeal the Green New Deal. Funding illegal immigration and the Green New Deal were the Biden administration’s two most transformative and unpopular policies. Target both. Pass the bill right away. Deliver a win that matches the mandate voters gave Trump — and give the president a badly needed legislative victory.
Enforcement money isn’t enough
Throwing $180 billion more at enforcement won’t solve the immigration crisis. Spend a trillion on deportations, and it still won’t matter if courts continue to block action.
Even in Trump’s rare Supreme Court wins on immigration, the justices insisted every illegal alien must receive due process — despite deportation being a civil process, not a punishment.
No president can litigate his way out of an invasion. Even with favorable rulings, Trump won’t deport enough illegal immigrants before the next Democrat takes office. That’s the hard truth.
Now is the moment to fix it.
Americans are watching a violent, coordinated invasion unfold in real time. The bill should formally declare an invasion — and include an amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to strip judicial review from deportation cases involving noncitizens and, ideally, legal permanent residents.
Under that reform, the administration’s removal decisions would stand. No federal judge could second-guess them. No more delays, appeals, or lawfare.
Roy’s amendment would transform the first reconciliation bill into a singular focus on Trump’s most unifying, necessary, and popular campaign promise. It would hand him a quick, clean victory while the nation remains fixated on the border invasion.
RELATED: Americans didn’t elect Trump to bust SALT caps or overhaul Medicaid
So why not just split the agenda into two bills and get on with it?
Here come the usual GOP excuses. Let’s knock them down one by one.
Excuse 1: “We only get one bite at the apple.”
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claims Republicans must use reconciliation just once to avoid the Senate filibuster.
But Democrats already broke that precedent in 2021, pushing through two separate reconciliation bills with a green light from the Senate parliamentarian, who noted that reconciliation should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”
But ultimately, this isn’t the parliamentarian’s call. The decision rests with President Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). If Biden’s team could do it, so can we.
Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans face massive tax hikes.”
This line is pure fearmongering. The 2024 election wasn’t about taxes. MAGA never revolved around tax cuts for their own sake — that was the old GOP. Yet somehow, this bill morphed into another tax-centered mess.
The truth? Most tax provisions in the current draft — from an expanded child tax credit and higher standard deduction to new breaks for seniors, overtime, and tips — enjoy broad bipartisan support.
No Democrat wants to get blamed for letting these expire. Even in a lame-duck session, they wouldn’t allow a public tax hike. The only serious dispute involves the top marginal rate. Trump has already signaled he’s open to a modest increase if it means getting the rest of the agenda passed.
And let’s be honest: The current bill isn’t exactly Reaganesque. It’s loaded with progressive goodies, including an obscene expansion of the SALT deduction.
Even the pro-tax-cut Tax Foundation calls the bill’s economic impact weak and overly complicated. This isn’t a bold, pro-growth package — it’s a muddled compromise.
The irony is that ending taxes on tips — perhaps Trump’s most prized tax provision — already passed the Senate 100-0. Why not pass that and similar provisions in the House and place it on Trump’s desk without wasting budget reconciliation?
Excuse 3: “We can’t include policy provisions in a budget bill.”
Critics claim the Byrd Rule blocks the inclusion of policy reforms — like immigration or judicial changes — in a reconciliation bill. That excuse doesn’t hold up.
The original House-passed bill included a provision that barred states from regulating artificial intelligence. That isn’t budget-related. That is pure policy.
By comparison, a provision removing judicial review from deportation cases would directly cut costs by eliminating thousands of court hearings. That’s a legitimate budgetary angle — and far more defensible than regulating AI through backdoor channels.
The Byrd Rule exists, yes. But the party in power determines what gets through. The president and Senate leadership can overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats did it. So can we.
Fast-forward to this week: The streets of Los Angeles are on fire again. And instead of seizing the moment to deliver on the most urgent national priority, Miller is using anti-ICE violence to ram through a bloated mega-bill — all because it includes ICE funding.
But if solving immigration were the real goal, Republicans would just split the bill already. They’d put the judicial reform language in the first package. And they’d pass it immediately.
With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in L.A.
No, you’re not a ‘xenophobe.’ You’re just awake.
America is on fire — again. But this time, it’s not just cities burning — it’s our identity.
In Los Angeles, mobs of masked agitators — many waving the Mexican flag, others clutching Palestinian flags, and some burning the American flag — have taken to the streets, firing guns into the air, hurling rocks at ICE vehicles, blocking traffic, and setting fires.
America doesn’t need a savior. It needs a reckoning.
Where is the outrage from the media? Where are the helicopters? The FBI raids? The solitary confinement cells? When a handful of peaceful Americans entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a great many politely walking between velvet ropes, they were branded “insurrectionists.” Grandmothers were hunted down. Veterans were jailed without bail. But in Los Angeles, when foreign nationals tear through city streets waving foreign flags, they’re “demonstrators.”
Give me a break.
Illegal alien anarchy
What we saw in California over the weekend was the result of an illegal invasion. And it isn’t new. These aren’t “immigrants.” A great many are illegal aliens — a term defined by law — who have broken federal immigration law, ignored due process, and poured over our borders with the help of a regime that has openly defied the Constitution.
I personally know families who have tried for years to bring a spouse or child to America the legal way. They wait. They pay. They follow the rules. But if you’re an educated Christian refugee from Africa or a skilled engineer from India, you’re told to stand in line. Meanwhile, if you’re a cartel mule from Honduras or a “gotaway” with a gang affiliation, you get flown around the country on the taxpayers’ dime.
We’ve abandoned every principle that once defined American immigration: Learn English. Pledge allegiance. Assimilate. Respect the flag.
Instead, we have mobs chanting slogans that would have triggered national security alerts a decade ago. Now they trigger hashtags. And while President Trump is calling out the National Guard, California’s “leaders” stall, the courts shrug, and citizens remain unprotected.
This isn’t incompetence. It’s sabotage.
Our rights usurped
And the most dangerous part? We’ve been living under a kind of soft martial law for decades.
Since 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure quietly restructured the judiciary under a corporate framework that operates outside the Constitution. These rules merged law and equity courts, nullifying constitutional guarantees and opening the door for administrative tyranny in family courts, juvenile courts, and beyond.
Don’t believe me? Try asserting your First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights in a family court. You’ll be laughed out of the room — if your children haven’t already been taken based on an anonymous tip and a judge’s rubber stamp.
If martial law is officially declared, the Constitution is suspended. That’s not conjecture — that’s legal doctrine. Read Ex parte Milligan (1866), in which the Supreme Court ruled that martial law cannot be imposed where civilian courts are open. Guess what? They’re not “open” any more — they’re rigged, corrupt, and run by private bar guilds with no accountability to the people.
RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front
It’s an old tactic. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag fire to suspend civil liberties and pass the Enabling Act. In 1992, Peru’s President Alberto Fujimori used a wave of urban chaos and domestic terrorism to declare martial law and dissolve the legislature. In post-9/11 America, we got the Patriot Act, a surveillance dragnet sold to us under the guise of “security.” Now we’re watching the same script play out again — engineered chaos followed by calls for federalized control and, eventually, constitutional suspension under the banner of “safety.”
Welcome to the final phase of the coup.
While MAGA people wait for Trump to ride in on a white horse, they miss the point: He’s not going to save us. He can’t. No one man can reverse decades of infiltration, judicial fraud, and corporatist collusion.
And note to MAGA: Trump gave immunity to the creators of the COVID-19 vaccine, and his “one big, beautiful bill” is fraught with overspending and a government AI takeover, in which all participants have been granted immunity for wrongdoing for a decade.
We’re done being silent
America doesn’t need a savior. It needs a reckoning.
It needs state nullification, legal rebellion, and mass resistance.
If waving a Mexican or Palestinian flag while burning the Stars and Stripes makes you feel at home, then I’ve got a simple solution: Go home.
Because this isn’t your country. You didn’t build it. You’re not assimilating. You’re here to take, not contribute.
And to my liberal neighbors still crying about how “un-American” it is not to allow these criminals to stay: What’s un-American is letting our Constitution be shredded. What’s un-American is flooding our cities with criminals while veterans sleep under bridges.
What’s un-American is weaponizing immigration to collapse a sovereign nation.
We’re not xenophobes. We’re patriots, and we’re done being silent.
Democrats’ due process ploy EXPOSED: Mark Levin slams their agenda of one-party rule
Democrats are screaming incessantly about “due process” these days. Every time the Trump administration moves to deport an illegal immigrant — even one with the most egregious criminal history — suddenly, they’re all about individual rights and the Constitution.
“If you're a multi-time wife-beater, MS-13 member, human trafficker, like this guy Garcia that the Democrats circled around — due process. If you're hundreds of Venezuelan gang members, terrorists sent here by Maduro, the Marxist genocidal maniac in Venezuela — due process,” sighs Mark Levin. “Except when Donald Trump was in that star chamber of a courtroom … in Manhattan.”
Nobody cared about due process then.
“[Trump] was denied due process repeatedly. He didn't even know exactly what he was being charged with,” Levin reminds us.
The truth is glaringly evident: Democrats are for due process only when it suits their agenda, and in the case of illegal immigration, it does.
“They opened our borders; they brought in every kind of person on the face of the earth into this country, including the worst of the worst … because their goal is to change America. If that means a little bit of despotism and crime and little bit of raping and murdering and people dying from drugs, so be it,” says Levin. “The goal is one-party rule by the Democrat Party.”
But with every deportation, the goal of “altering the citizenry so the citizenry supports the Democrat Party” slips a little farther away.
Blubbering over the constitutional right of due process has become the weapon they’re using to fight back, and Democrat-appointed “rogue judges” are wielding it.
“A lot of these judges are trying to deliver for the Democrat Party because they were appointed purposely by Biden and Obama with the help of Schumer … to thwart Trump, and that's exactly what they're trying to do,” Levin explains, calling it "judicial despotism.”
And as for due process for illegal aliens, it “isn't in the Constitution,” says Levin, arguing that the clause “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” applies to American citizens.
Unfortunately, our Supreme Court has been wishy-washy on this issue — sometimes ruling in favor of the Trump administration, sometimes in favor of the left-wing judges.
“It depends if you're 25 yards from the beach that you came in on or the border; depends how long you've been here; it depends on this; it depends on that,” says Levin. “You would think such a fundamental right as they explained to us of due process would be pretty clear, pretty simple, pretty understandable, but it's not.”
“And so what the Democrats are trying to convince you to do” is “support is the broadest possible due process rights," he adds.
But it has nothing to do with freedom or rights.
“Power — that’s what they want,” Levin warns.
To hear more of his commentary, watch the clip above.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Progressive Democrat sits down with Glenn Beck despite disagreements: 'We're all Team America'
Glenn Beck hosted Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California on "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday, where the two reached across the aisle to share some friendly disagreement, as well as some areas of common ground.
Khanna is one of few Democrats who refrains from acting as an ideologue and is willing to talk to those he will likely disagree with. Whether it's DOGE cuts or nuclear energy, Khanna has no problem breaking from his party's messaging.
"You've got a lot of followers, and look, at the end of the day, we're all Team America," Khanna told Beck. "We have differences of opinion, but this country has gone down a place of greater and greater division. And I do hope that the next generation, whether that's JD Vance, Rubio, myself, others, that we find some way of turning that around."
'They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.'
RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to 'get serious' about codifying DOGE cuts
Khanna's veneration for our country's founding makes him stand out within his party. Rather than condemning the roots and the history of our nation like some of his fellow Democrats, Khanna says he was raised to appreciate and value America.
"Our common, defining moment as a nation is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Declaration of Independence," Khanna said. "The biggest blessing I had, as a son of immigrants born in Philadelphia in our bicentenary, is I got to go to a school that taught American history and gave me a reverence for this country."
"My parents said, 'Ro, you won the lottery,'" Khanna added. "They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities."
Beck and Khanna had their fair share of respectful back-and-forth on subjects such as the 14th Amendment and immigration. One area of agreement Khanna pointed out was about the role of government with respect to asset forfeiture.
"Progressive Democrats like me and libertarians in the Freedom Caucus often align, saying that the government shouldn't come in and be able to take things from citizens without due process," Khanna said. "I believe that's the essence of who we are as a people, that yes, you have inalienable rights endowed by God, and that's who makes citizens."
RELATED: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson
Khanna also departed from his Democratic colleagues on the border, admitting that it was a weak point of their party platform.
"Someone said it's like a knock-knock joke," Khanna said. "You say, 'Knock, knock. Who's there?' The American people just want to know who's there, who's at the border, just like you would when coming to someone's house and making sure that people are vetted before they come in. That seems to be a very reasonable a place. We can agree."
"But I also believe that people here, now that they're here, if they're paying taxes, and you and I may disagree with this, if they're paying taxes, if they're working hard, and ... if they've been here that there should be some path to at least legalization," Khanna added.
Khanna insists that, above party, all people should be skeptical of their politicians. At the same time, Khanna said that the state of our divided politics is not due to a lack of skepticism, but rather to a lack of trust.
"Skepticism is healthy," Khanna said. "I get concerned if there were town halls and people weren't asking hard questions, weren't criticizing their politicians. But I think there's a difference between skepticism and what's happened now, which is just the loss of trust, the sense that people aren't in it for the country, aren't in it for the public good."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Exclusive: New Title IX Proposal Could End Gender Theory ‘Whiplash’ Forever
DFI's RESPECT Title IX Act would codify 'core protections' of the statute to their original purpose.Trump’s Latest Order Could Keep You Out Of Prison For Crimes You Didn’t Even Know You Committed
A new executive order targets hidden criminal laws and restores basic due process to federal enforcement.Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said
When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.
“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”
That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.
Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.
The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.
That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”
The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.
Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.
Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”
Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”
But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.
What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution say
The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:
1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):
“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”
2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):
“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”
3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):
“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”
4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):
“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.”
5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):
“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”
6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):
“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”
The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude
7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):
“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”
8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):
“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”
9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):
“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”
Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere
10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):
“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”
11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):
“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”
12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):
“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”
13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):
“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”
Due process does not guarantee entry or residency
14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):
“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”
15. Galvan v. Press (1954):
“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”
16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):
“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”
Deportation is not punishment
17. Turner v. Williams (1904):
“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”
18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893):
“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”
Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.
The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.
Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play
“Sovereignty” may have won the Kentucky Derby. But if it’s going to win in Washington, Republicans need to stop stalling and start delivering.
Many of us backed Donald Trump in 2024 with a clear, urgent checklist of national priorities. None matter more than mass deportations. Only one real legislative vehicle remains to force the issue: budget reconciliation.
If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.
Let’s be blunt. Republicans have no plan to cut spending. The only debate is how much debt they’ll add. That leaves mass deportations as the last major policy goal still backed by both the White House and much of the GOP.
Yet under current judicial norms, each of the 20 million deportations could require a court fight. At this pace, Trump would remove fewer than 1 million people by the end of his term — only to be followed by a radical Democrat ready to usher in 20 million more.
What’s the solution?
The House Judiciary Committee earmarked $81.4 billion for ICE and deportation-related activities in its reconciliation bill. But that money means nothing — worse, it only inflates the debt — if we don’t fix the lawfare loopholes and end the legal incentives that fuel this invasion.
This isn’t just about funding. It’s a matter of policy. The final reconciliation bill must include structural legal reforms. Otherwise, the invasion continues — with billions wasted in the process.
According to sources, congressional allies plan to attach an amendment to upcoming legislation that would put an end to immigration-related lawfare once and for all.
The proposal would bar anyone who isn’t a green card holder — including all illegal aliens and temporary visa holders — from gaining standing in Article III courts to challenge their deportation. In other words, rulings by immigration judges would be final. Unless the government seeks to imprison someone on criminal charges, no foreign national has a due-process right to remain in the country against the national will. The bill simply reaffirms long-standing principles that activist judges have chipped away at for years.
The amendment also tackles lawfare targeting red states trying to enforce immigration laws. Once Trump leaves office, a legal backstop must be in place to prevent a fresh wave of illegal immigration from overrunning states like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Idaho.
Federal judges have repeatedly blocked these states from criminalizing illegal presence. This bill would strip federal courts of jurisdiction in such cases. Any legal challenge would go through state courts instead, making state supreme court rulings final and beyond the reach of federal review.
Unless Trump starts ignoring rogue judicial rulings, this legislation is his only realistic path to carrying out mass deportations.
He must go all in and make it clear to Congress that he won’t accept procedural excuses about the Byrd Rule or Senate parliamentarian objections. The Senate majority can overrule the parliamentarian — something they already plan to do to pass tax cuts.
This is Trump’s moment to force the issue. No more delays. No more legal sabotage. No more excuses.
The House Judiciary Committee’s draft of the major spending bill includes a provision aimed at curbing judicial abuse — but it doesn’t go far enough.
The measure would require judges to collect a bond from plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the federal government. If they fail to collect it, their rulings would be void under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
But the reform is too narrow to matter. The NGOs suing to block immigration enforcement have deep pockets. Judges can easily set token bond amounts that do nothing to deter meritless lawsuits.
Still, the provision proves a vital point: Republican leadership is willing to include policy-related language in a reconciliation bill when it suits them. That means nothing prevents them from going further and defunding litigation aimed at sabotaging deportations.
This is Trump’s last real chance to salvage his immigration agenda. Reconciliation offers his clearest shot at using party control to pursue an objective he can’t afford to lose.
If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.
The Left’s Sudden Crusade For ‘Due Process’ Is A Political Smokescreen To Defend Mass Migration
Democrats' real aim is to preserve the political dividends of mass illegal migration by delegitimizing and undermining the very policies that voters overwhelmingly support.Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com