Democrats’ Open Border Policies Will Import A Revolution

The alien population is the means via which Democratic socialism, an entirely alien form of government, will be ushered into this country.

Democrats Revive Nullification With Refusals To Assist Federal Immigration Enforcement

What a state cannot be permitted to do is transform a policy disagreement into an exercise of state power to nullify federal authority.

Democrats have a political violence problem



They say politics can be murder. Recent polling suggests a disturbing share of Democratic and left-of-center voters are becoming far too comfortable with the idea.

A new survey from Liberal Currents and the Center for Strategic Politics asked 683 Democratic voters how they would feel about five hypothetical ways President Donald Trump might leave office before his term ends.

Apparently protecting democracy now includes the occasional military junta.

The lawful options drew predictably lopsided reactions: 86% said they would feel positively if Trump were impeached and convicted, and 84% said the same about removal under the 25th Amendment.

Then the poll got darker.

Fifty-nine percent said they would react positively to a headline announcing that military leaders had removed Trump and assumed control of the government to “safeguard the Constitution.” Another 56% said they would react positively if Trump simply died in his sleep.

The only scenario in which negative reactions outnumbered positive ones was assassination. Even there, 31% said they would feel very or somewhat positive if Trump were killed while speaking at a rally; 26% were neutral, and 43% reacted negatively.

The survey measured emotional reaction, not willingness to carry out or personally endorse violence. Still, a positive reaction to an assassination or a military takeover is an ugly result for a party that presents itself as the guardian of democracy.

Apparently protecting democracy now includes the occasional military junta.

Those findings do not stand alone. In April 2025, the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers Social Perception Lab surveyed 1,264 U.S. adults and found that 55.2% of respondents who identified as left of center considered the murder of Trump at least somewhat justified. Nearly 50% said the same about Elon Musk. The researchers described an emerging “assassination culture” among segments of the political left.

Five months later, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors allege that the accused killer targeted Kirk because of his political and religious beliefs.

RELATED: Where was God? Frank Turek asks the question after Charlie Kirk

Owen Anderson

The online reaction exposed something broader than one alleged killer’s motive. Social media filled with people celebrating Kirk’s death, mocking his widow, and arguing that he had deserved to die because of his politics.

A YouGov poll conducted after Kirk’s killing found that 16% of liberals said it was usually or always acceptable to be happy about the death of a public figure they opposed. Among the “very liberal,” the number rose to 24%.

Conservatives registered at just 4%.

Cheering a death is not the same thing as committing violence. But political violence becomes easier to rationalize when the target has first been reduced to someone whose death is funny, deserved, or morally cleansing.

I have watched that permission structure develop in my native Portland, Oregon

During the summer of 2020, rioters repeatedly attacked the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse with fireworks, incendiary devices, rocks, bottles, and other attempts to set fires. Federal prosecutors charged one man after an incendiary object exploded at the courthouse entrance.

The pattern did not disappear. Beginning in 2025, the Portland ICE facility became another center of unrest. Court records describe protesters throwing rocks and bricks at officers, damaging security equipment, trying to breach the building, and using an upended stop sign as a makeshift battering ram. One participant who struck a federal officer in the head with a rock was later sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.

RELATED: ‘Reign of terror’: One-third of Democrats give thumbs-up to Trump assassination

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

There is a difference between peaceful protest and political violence. Democrats should be able to draw it without hesitation.

It’s why then-Senator Kamala Harris took flak during the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots when she urged followers to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” In the middle of widespread disorder, a future Democratic vice president used her platform to promote bail assistance for protesters rather than draw a sharper distinction between lawful protest and criminal violence.

Political violence thrives on permission — explicit or subtle. That permission can come from celebrating an assassination, describing violence as justified, excusing riots because the cause is righteous, or treating the rule of law as optional when the target is sufficiently hated.

Democrats have spent the better part of a decade warning that American democracy is endangered by Trump and the right. They cannot demand that the country take political violence seriously while refusing to confront the appetite for it inside their own coalition.

You cannot save democracy by cheering when your political opponents are removed from it.

That is, in fact, how democracies die.

DOJ Brings Complaint Against Minnesota Judges For ‘Pandering’ To NYT About Deportations

The Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against several Minnesota-based federal judges for “pander[ing]” to legacy media about ICE operations in the state. “Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of […]

AOC’s latest ICE rant sounds like a campaign launch



Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent speech demonizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement not only infuriates the “Pat Gray Unleashed" panel, it makes them think the democratic socialist is gearing up for a presidential run.

On September 27 during More Perfect University’s “Students vs. Billionaires” series, AOC compared ICE to a black-box surveillance stack.

“ICE is an agency that has not even existed for as long as many of us have even been alive. They are a new agency created in the surveillance state establishment after 9/11,” she said. “ICE is Palantir; ICE is AI; ICE is facial recognition; ICE is surveillance — and ICE is coming after you regardless of your status.”

Pat is incensed at her calling ICE a new agency.

“They’re 25 years old — 25!” he exclaims. “That's a new agency? ... Compared to what? The fall of Rome?”

“She's also trying to pin this on Trump for starting ICE. That's what they desperately want to do,” he adds.

But it’s the progressive's comparison of ICE to Palantir, AI, facial recognition, and surveillance that really ticks him off.

“Wow, is that irresponsible,” he sighs. “It's just a flat-out communist lie. ... This is what gets people killed.”

“How she's saying it just made me think she's running for higher [office],” adds co-host Jeffy. “She’s not screeching about it.”

Pat agrees, mocking, “This darn Donald Trump and his new agencies.”

To hear more of the panel’s commentary and see the clip of AOC’s speech, watch the video above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The promise was mass deportation. The policy is carve-outs.



Voters were not confused about what they were choosing in 2024. "Mass deportation" was not a line buried in a white paper. It was printed on signs, chanted at rallies, and repeated by the candidate himself. Americans who cast their ballots on that promise had every reason to believe it meant what it said.

Nearly two years into this administration, it is fair to ask whether that promise is being kept. By the government's own numbers, it is falling short. Those numbers are not a failure of the men and women in the field. They are the result of decisions made well above them.

As long as the jobs are there and the penalties for employers are weak, no amount of border rhetoric will change the math.

I spent 24 years in federal immigration enforcement and retired as deputy field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in New York City, the largest field office in the country. I know what it takes to move removal numbers, and it is not rhetoric.

Removals are a pipeline: locating the person, arresting him, detaining him, getting a final order through an overwhelmed court system, and putting him on a plane. The pipeline moves only as fast as its narrowest point.

When an administration is serious, it widens every one of those points at once, through detention space, fugitive operations teams, cooperation from local jails, immigration judges, and flights.

When it is not serious, you see press releases instead.

Consider what happens after an arrest. Many people assume a deportation is nearly complete once an officer puts someone in handcuffs. In reality, the foreign government has to be notified, and it has to confirm the person's identity and issue a travel document. Some countries turn those documents around quickly, while others slow-walk them or refuse outright.

Every day of delay is a day in a detention bed that could hold someone else, and if the wait runs long enough, the person may have to be released back into the community. Even when the document arrives, the flight still has to be coordinated, whether that is a seat on a commercial flight with escorting officers or a spot on a charter that has to be filled and scheduled.

So where is the pressure against mass deportation coming from? Look at who benefits from enforcement that stops at the factory door. Agriculture, hospitality, construction, and meatpacking interests have lobbied openly for exemptions and slower worksite enforcement.

Each carve-out is defended as practical. Taken together, they amount to a policy of enforcing the law against individuals while protecting the employers who hired them.

RELATED: Kansas Republicans muddy the waters on ICE enforcement

Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Worksite enforcement is the one measure that shows whether an administration means business, precisely because it is the one measure that impacts the political donor class. As long as the jobs are there and the penalties for employers are weak, no amount of border rhetoric will change the math.

We should also call things by their proper names. Issuing work-authorization workarounds, or declining to pursue people with final orders of removal, are just amnesty by other names. Every one of these moves is a message to the world that American immigration law is negotiable if you wait long enough.

The people most insulted by this message are the immigrants who did it the right way. Every fraudulent case that clears is a slot, a court date, or a benefit taken from someone who waited in line and told the truth.

Critics say mass removals would disrupt the labor market and raise prices. The answer to that concern is simple: An economy built on a permanent pool of workers without legal status, who cannot report abuse and undercut wages for citizens and legal residents alike, is not a model worth defending.

Regardless of how it is covered, a substantial share of Americans support mass deportation. The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll surveyed 1,725 registered voters from May 29 to 30, 2026, with a margin of error of ±2.4 points. It found that 80% support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes, up five points from 75% in April. That includes 71% of Democrats, 90% of Republicans, and 79% of independents.

They are not asking for cruelty. They are asking for a system that works, one with no amnesty, no fraud, and no exemptions for the well-connected.

Here is what keeping the promise would look like: mandatory E-Verify for every employer, funding for detention capacity and fugitive operations that matches the stated goal, worksite enforcement without industry carve-outs, and immigration judges and attorneys to clear a backlog that currently stretches for years.

The president made a promise, and voters took him at his word. The officers in the field are ready to do the job. What is missing is the will to let them do it.