Funding is useless if Democrat judges can still hold ICE hostage



The Trump administration refused to allow FISA Section 702 to lapse for even one day, calling it a vital tool for counterterrorism. However, when it comes to ensuring Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the necessary tools to remove alien criminals without enduring endless lawfare by sanctuary judges, there seems to be no such reservation.

Simply throwing more money at ICE in the budget reconciliation bill without changing policy will not alter the current landscape of failed deportation promises.

Trump has won numerous cases from the Supreme Court on issues pertaining to due process, detention, and bond hearings, yet the lower courts continue to defy those rulings.

On the same day House Republicans, at the behest of the White House, rushed passage of the FISA reauthorization, they passed the Senate budget reconciliation bill, which offers ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection $75 billion in mandatory funding for the remainder of the presidency.

It is understandable why Trump would want to use his last party-line bill to front-load ICE funding in the face of Democrat opposition, but what is the purpose of funding ICE if it can’t even deport violent illegal aliens without lawfare? Why is the White House opposing efforts from House conservatives to expand reconciliation?

Sadly, the Trump administration has signaled that it is largely done with mass deportations and seeks to focus on what it refers to as "the worst of the worst." So we will certainly remove all of the criminal aliens before his term expires, right?

Wrong!

Bryan Rafael Gomez, a Dominican illegal alien who was released into the country in 2022, was arrested by ICE Boston on April 4, following a warrant for murder charges in his home country. Yet Judge Melissa DuBose, a radical Biden appointee, ordered him released and claimed his detention was unlawful.

Cases like this one are occurring on a daily basis, and despite the unambiguous language of statute and endless Supreme Court victories stating that ICE is permitted or even required to apprehend, detain, and remove these people, radical lower court judges just come back with slightly different plaintiffs and rule the same way.

As of February, illegal aliens have filed more than 18,000 habeas petitions during Trump’s second term challenging their detention in federal courts. It’s more than the number of such challenges filed over the last three administrations put together.

What these filings are designed to do is remove cases from immigration courts and bring them into Article III courts where American rights are often erroneously applied to people litigating their way into status after final removal orders.

RELATED: The founders gave us the remedy for rogue state judges: Impeach

BrianAJackson/Getty Images

The entire purpose of a habeas petition was to give people a safety valve if they have a prima facie claim of being a citizen or a case of mistaken identity. But illegal aliens are now using habeas to block every removal, no matter how clear it is that the person is here illegally and even when they have a criminal record.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge John deGravelles granted habeas petitions and ordered the immediate release of four illegal aliens from ICE custody at Louisiana State Penitentiary, despite final removal orders. Who were the cast of characters?

  • Ibrahim Ali Mohamed (Ethiopia): Convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor (child sex crime/pedophilia). Entered/released into the U.S. under Biden policies; removed order issued September 2024.
  • Luis Gaston-Sanchez (Cuba): Convictions for homicide, assault, resisting an officer, concealing stolen property, and two counts of robbery. Removed order from 2001.
  • Ricardo Blanco Chomat (Cuba): Convictions for homicide, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a firearm, burglary, robbery, larceny, and selling cocaine. Removed order from 2002.
  • Francisco Rodriguez-Romero: Convictions for homicide and a weapons offense. Removed order from 1995.

Three months later, these individuals, with convictions of rape, murder, assault, and robbery, remain in the country indefinitely.

In March, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered the release of Carlos Antonio Flores-Miguel, a confirmed MS-13 gang member, from ICE custody. He had multiple illegal re-entries/deportations and was initially released into the U.S. under Biden policies in 2022.

ICE arrested him in Minneapolis on January 20, after he violently resisted (punching/kicking officers and grabbing an ICE officer’s gun holster).

Trump cannot spend the remainder of his term counting the number of the worst of the worst being deported on one hand, and even having many of those deportations hampered.

The time has come to use budget reconciliation to defund any federal court case granting a habeas petition to illegal aliens unless there is a claim the individual is a citizen or of mistaken identity. Why has Trump never supported Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s effort to include this in reconciliation?

RELATED: How Republicans have failed to defund sanctuary cities for a generation

J. David Ake/Getty Images

To the extent this provision was ignored in last year’s bill, it is indefensible not to include it in this year’s bill now that we see deportations being ground to a halt.

Even if Trump or congressional Republicans are squeamish about applying this to every case, at a minimum they must block review of cases involving criminal aliens — at least for lower courts.

The notion that we can rely on the Supreme Court is absurd. Trump has won numerous cases from the Supreme Court on issues pertaining to due process, detention, and bond hearings, yet the lower courts continue to defy those rulings.

Years after the Trump v. Hawaii ruling made it clear the president can suspend immigration and visas from various countries, a new lower court judge issued an injunction against it. The same thing is happening with judges granting Temporary Protected Status despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary.

So far, in neither Trump term has there been an effort from the White House to use reconciliation or any other must-pass bill to defund sanctuary cities, change any immigration laws, or jurisdiction-strip the courts.

These are all fiscal provisions that should be included in reconciliation. What is the point in throwing funding at ICE if it is legally hampered and the White House continues to abide by lawless lower court orders?

Then again, as we saw with FISA reauthorization, Trump seems to fight for what he wants. Perhaps if conservatives reallocated the defunded monies from sanctuary cities and judges to an ICE ballroom, it would get the attention of the man who promised 10 years ago to end illegal immigration.

Uncle Sam wants YOU — to obey immigration laws



Economist Thomas Sowell once noted, “Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them.” The story of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Matthew Blank and his illegal alien wife, Annie Ramos, is a perfect example of Sowell’s assertion.

According to CBS News, Ramos — who is now 22 — was illegally brought to the United States by her family in 2005. Staff Sergeant Blank married Ramos, knowing full well that she was an illegal alien. He stated to the New York Times, “I knew she didn’t have status. [But] we were doing everything the right way.” Ramos was eventually arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a few days after the couple was married, at the military base where Blank was stationed.

If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart.

Of course, despite Blank’s assertions to the contrary, nothing was done “the right way” in this case. After entering the United States unlawfully, the Ramos family was scheduled for an appearance before the U.S. Immigration Court. They failed to appear. When a respondent in immigration proceedings defaults, the immigration judge is required pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) to enter an in absentia order of removal. This is clearly conveyed to all illegal aliens placed in immigration proceedings, both verbally by the immigration officers handling their cases and in all written notices issued by the court.

In absentia removal notices may seem harsh to the casual observer, but they are not. Courts engage in serious business. And running legal tribunals costs taxpayers a significant amount of money. If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart. Accordingly, courts expect litigants to appear for scheduled hearings, on time, every time. That is why every court in the United States imposes penalties, ranging from monetary fines to additional criminal charges and extended sentences, when litigants fail to appear.

Moreover, the above-mentioned statute governing in absentia removal orders provides an “out” for individuals who missed their hearings due to exigent circumstances. It specifically states that such an order may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances” or “upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice” of the hearing.

There is no indication that Ms. Ramos or her family ever made any attempt to reopen immigration proceedings and seek rescission of the order of removal entered against them. That is likely because the Ramos clan was fully aware they were likely to be deported. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not qualify for any form of relief from removal, with 79% to 80% being either ordered removed or granted voluntary departure. Instead, Ms. Ramos waited approximately 15 years and applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama administration’s ill-fated attempt to impose an immigration amnesty by executive fiat.

And what of Staff Sergeant Blank’s status as a member of America’s armed forces? In 2022, the Biden administration unilaterally and arbitrarily directed the Department of Homeland Security “to generally refrain from seeking the deportation of U.S. military veterans or service members and their immediate family members.” Of course, that policy was unlawful. Neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the statute governing the actions of members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force) nor the Immigration and Nationality Act has any provisions exempting either service members, or their families, from the laws governing the admission of foreign nationals into the United States. And only Congress has the authority to enact such exemptions, which it has never done.

Accordingly, the Trump administration rescinded team Biden’s illegal policy. It began applying the provisions of the INA to service members in the same manner as to everyone else. This is as it should be. Pro forma leniency toward alien immigration violators merely because they are related to a military member is bad policy. It makes our service members targets for foreign intelligence agents. And the presence of illegal aliens on military installations undermines the security of those facilities.

Recently, Annie Ramos was released from immigration detention. It remains to see how ICE will proceed with her case. But both our political leaders and the generals in charge of our armed forces should tread carefully. Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and guardian commences his or her military career by taking an oath that begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same.” If military service becomes a free pass to violate the very laws that preserve our national sovereignty, then service members are not bearing true faith and allegiance to our Constitution — they are claiming to be exempt from it.

Trump’s Amnesty For Illegal Workers Punishes Employers Who Follow The Law

If the cost of maintaining a sovereign nation is paying, in the short term, slightly more for food grown and harvested by American hands, then it's a price worth paying.

Six years to removal? Inside America’s broken immigration courts



In drab, windowless rooms strung along a tight corridor, migrants who have flooded into the United States in recent years trickle before immigration judges each weekday morning.

These makeshift courtrooms are a far cry from the scorched border with Mexico and busy ports and airports through which these millions of immigrants have entered the United States, almost all illegally. But despite the differences in miles, atmosphere, and often language, the people appearing in U.S. immigration court (“alien respondents,” in legal terms) know what is afoot.

Migrants displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.

In many cases, they are making their first appearance after being in the U.S. for years, and with careful pleadings and use of appeals, many know they can stay here for years to come. While Trump administration immigration tactics — such as arrests and deportations — dominate the headlines, the situation in court, where most of the final decisions will be made, is another thing the administration is trying to change.

“A surprising number of the aliens know how to work the system in an attempt to run out the clock on the Trump administration, by requesting serial continuances and filing frivolous or otherwise questionable appeals and by motions to reopen,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge now with the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes wide-open immigration. “Some will be successful, but as the recent immigration court arrests indicate, the administration is attempting to limit those efforts.”

Recently, RealClearInvestigations observed days of immigration court proceedings to gain insight into the current state of a system with a backlog of more than 3.6 million people, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks immigration court figures through monthly Freedom of Information Act requests. New Orleans is but one thread in a sprawling web of often obscure courts, stretching from Massachusetts to Washington and from Saipan to Puerto Rico.

From a first appearance to an asylum hearing, the New Orleans courts seemed busy. This reflects the fact that historically, most immigrants to the U.S. follow their legal schedule, which begins with a “Notice to Appear” being issued to them either when they are apprehended at the border or subsequently after they have been paroled into the 48 contiguous states.

RELATED: Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right

Photo by VERONICA G. CARDENAS/AFP via Getty Images

“It’s never been the case that people aren’t showing up en masse,” said Kevin A. Gregg, an immigration attorney in California who hosts the weekly “Immigration Review” podcast. “The number of those who show up has always been very high, especially among people who have been in the U.S. a very long time.”

Paradoxically, however, the Trump administration’s recent vow to push arrests of illegal immigrants to 3,000 a day, along with some changes it has made to how it handles court cases, could serve to make attendance less regular, according to Gregg and others critical of Trump’s push. As attorneys and court officials told RealClearInvestigations, “Never underestimate the community,” meaning arrivals know the system from those who have gone through it before them. Now, if conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the U.S., those here illegally will shy away.

“With immigration court specifically, ICE has been dismissing court proceedings in order to then immediately detain noncitizens and place them in expedited removal proceedings where they have far less rights and no eligibility for bond,” Gregg said. “Whether correct or not, many noncitizens will likely begin to view this as a trap and may not show up to immigration court out of fear. I don’t condone not showing up, of course, but I believe it’s a possible foreseeable consequence of what ICE is doing right now.”

Already, the Trump administration’s aggressive approach has sparked litigation and civil disturbances, from a Milwaukee judge allegedly helping “alien respondents” escape criminal proceedings to the recent riots in Los Angeles.

A long process

One late May morning, there were four New Orleans immigration courts operating, with a total of nearly 140 people on the docket, most of them first appearances. On this day, no-shows composed a very small percentage of those on the “master calendars,” as the morning dockets are known. In Judge Joseph La Rocca’s courtroom, for instance, only five of the more than 30 respondents listed on the master calendar did not appear; they were quickly handled “in absentia” and deemed removable.

That same day, in Judge Alberto A. De Puy’s courtroom, as many as six languages were used. The court has a Spanish translator present at all times, but for other languages, interpreters on the East Coast join by phone. In the hearings RealClearInvestigations witnessed, these involved Arabic, Hindi, Hassaniya, Turkish, and Konkani, reflecting a large percentage of Middle Eastern or Asian immigrants. Paperwork in the court’s small waiting room is available in seven languages, including Creole and Wolof, an African tongue.

De Puy’s master calendar hearing was a Zoom session with migrants at the federal detention center in Jena, Louisiana. There, men in dull gray scrubs sat in rows, while De Puy scrambled to find translators. This proceeding was further complicated by a protest outside the Jena facility, which has gained notoriety by holding the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and other foreign nationals arrested by federal authorities since President Trump took office.

No one knows exactly how many people appear in U.S. immigration court each day. “That would be a great statistic, wouldn’t it?” said Susan Long, director of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. But there are more than 700 U.S. immigration judges, whom the attorney general appoints to the administrative posts under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. If somehow the New Orleans morning sessions RealClearInvestigations followed could be extended daily to each judge’s courtroom, perhaps a dent could be made in the backlog, which includes more than 2 million pending asylum cases, according to TRAC.

That’s a fanciful assumption, of course, and at first glance, the looming numbers seem daunting to the Trump administration’s goal of sharply reducing or clearing the dockets. Still, some experts see promising signs as the figures for illegal crossings plummet.

If conventional wisdom says court appearances could lead to an earlier expulsion from the US, those here illegally will shy away.

“The situation is improving,” Arthur said. “It’s as if Trump patched a hole in the side of a boat, and now he’s bailing out the water the boat took in.”

For all the hue and cry about due process protections that have captivated activists and the federal bench over the past four months, the migrants appearing in New Orleans displayed a savvy understanding of immigration law that allows the adjudication of the proceedings to stretch for years.

The respondents sat quietly on wooden benches, in some cases accompanied by children. Most were neatly dressed and with their hair carefully braided or combed. The children appeared to be something of a prop, as each time they appeared, the judge asked that they attend school instead of court. Even on a first appearance, many of the respondents seemed to have a good idea of what would happen.

Most master calendar cases involved a “notice to appear,” and few of those were recent. For example, most of the people RCI observed in court the morning of May 22 had received their notice to appear a year and a half ago, in 2023, although a handful had received them as recently as last December.

Few of the immigrants had lawyers, which court observers called a wise move. If it was a first appearance, the judge asked if they wanted representation, noting that while the Sixth Amendment does not entitle them to an attorney, the court maintains a list of immigration attorneys who may offer their services at affordable rates or pro bono. Invariably, the person requested time to find a lawyer and thus received another court date — on these May days, that was set for seven months later in December.

For the others not requesting more time to find a lawyer, the judge rapidly read boilerplate language and determined that the person had entered the U.S. illegally and was subject to removal. At that point, the judge asked the respondents if they wanted to “designate a country for removal should removal become necessary.” Here, the respondents or their attorneys invariably declined.

This is a well-understood delay tactic that often fails. Despite the lack of response, the judge quickly set a country for removal and moved to do the same for a removal hearing. The judges perused their computer screens, presumably for scheduling purposes, and in some cases then scheduled that hearing for 2029.

In other words, almost all the “alien respondents” were given a lot more time. It was not unusual to see people having six years or more in the U.S. between the day of their arrival and a removal proceeding.

‘A lot more detention’

The legal process is different for those in detention, and attorneys and court officials told RCI that “there is a lot more detention” now under the Trump administration. Judge De Puy’s master calendar involved the detained men in Jena on one screen, with the occasional immigration lawyer cutting in from a separate office and a government lawyer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor appearing on yet another video screen.

De Puy gave those making a first appearance months to try to obtain counsel, but he was less forgiving of those who were making a second appearance and asked for more time after failing to obtain representation. Several men — all those appearing were men — requested more time, but De Puy did not grant it in the cases RCI observed.

Some men requested “voluntary departure.” Arthur said this is a ploy that, in the past, allowed immigrants to melt into the interior, thereby delaying their cases, and the government lawyer seemed to have that in mind as he agreed to “voluntary departure” only “with safeguards,” which meant the men would remain in detention until their travel arrangements were made. Just how that might happen and when, given that the migrant is responsible for them, was unclear.

RELATED: Katy Perry drops weird post in support of ICE rioters and gets nailed with a history lesson

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

There were other oddities. For example, De Puy twice asked a man from India, who entered the U.S. in December 2023, if he would like to “designate a country of removal.” After not answering the first time, the man then replied, “I can’t go back to India.”

“The court is going to designate India as the country of removal,” De Puy said immediately, at which point the man said he would “like to go back to India” and requested “voluntary departure.”

Of those migrants held at Jena who appeared that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the U.S. soon.

The emphasis on detention is not the only major change the proceedings appeared to have under Trump, compared to when RealClearInvestigations first visited immigration court in 2022. Then, the government attorney would often offer what was dubbed “prosecutorial discretion.”

This amounted to a “get out of court free” pass. The judge told the person receiving prosecutorial discretion, “You are free to go and live your life, and the government has no interest in removing you from the country.”

Biden-era prosecutorial discretion

It’s not clear how many illegal immigrants benefited from the Biden-era prosecutorial discretion, as the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions about it in 2022 or now. Those who received it were in addition to the more than 2.8 million the Biden administration simply paroled into the country immediately, a novel twist to immigration law subsequently ruled illegal by federal judges.

Under Trump, a similar step is taken with a different tone. In some instances, the Department of Homeland Security’s lawyer announced the government was “dropping charges” as the person is “no longer an enforcement priority.” Doing so does not change the fact that these people have previously been ruled “removable,” and by dropping the charges, the Department of Homeland Security can arrest and deport the illegal immigrant.

Of those migrants who appeared in court that morning, only those seeking voluntary departure seemed destined to leave the US soon.

That has led to arrests right outside immigration courts from Boston to New Orleans and elsewhere. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can’t be outside every courtroom every day, this emphatic new move is precisely the one that could lead immigrants to eschew court as word spreads in the community about what is happening.

Judge La Rocca seemed concerned about this development, which, like some of the novel twists to immigration law under the Biden administration, has sparked federal litigation. At one point, when the government suddenly moved to drop the charges, La Rocca asked the immigrant if he wanted to accept that arrangement, which would leave him “without status” and still eligible for removal, or if he wished to continue to a removal proceeding. The overarching message was that the U.S. may move to deport the person.

La Rocca warned the government to be up front about what this might mean for the respondent, saying he “had heard of cases where he walked out the door and was arrested.”

Although the administration has endured criticism over the lack of due process for migrants deported on planes to El Salvador, judges in New Orleans unfailingly made clear to those in court the options available to them. In nearly every case, when the judge asked a person if he wanted to request asylum, the answer was “yes.”

Seeking asylum

That requires another future court date, usually years down the road. Asylum proceedings are not open to the public absent approval from the judge and the seeker, but RCI obtained such permission to witness two hearings.

In the first, a couple from Honduras who came to the United States in April 2022 had requested asylum on the grounds that they were afraid to return. The woman testified that her brother had been murdered and that when they tried to bring information about the case to Honduran police, in a town hours away from their hometown, a masked man brandished a gun at them. Suspicious cars then began to lurk around their home.

The government attorney asked why they could not move somewhere else in Honduras, or if they had tried to go anywhere other than the U.S. They had not, they testified. The husband said his sister is associated with drug gangs, and consequently, the couple did not feel safe anywhere in Honduras. The woman testified she never planned to immigrate, but for their family’s welfare, they fled here.

La Rocca considered the case privately for some 90 minutes, then denied the asylum application. He told the couple he believed their testimony, but that their case did not meet the asylum requirements, which specify credible evidence that the applicant fears discrimination at home because of race, sex, religion, membership in social groups, or fear of torture.

RELATED: Majority of Americans support deportation of all illegal immigrants

Photo by Karen Ducey/Getty Images

But that does not end the couple’s immigration court odyssey. La Rocca asked if they wished to appeal his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. When they said they did, La Rocca told them they must file that appeal in the next 30 days, which would lead to yet another court appearance.

The second hearing RCI witnessed was before Judge Eric Marsteller. That case involved a 2022 application from an El Salvador woman and her two sons, who have each also filed separate asylum claims.

For unclear reasons, the woman’s attorneys withdrew in February, and she told Marsteller that she had been unable to find a replacement since then. Although she has family in the U.S. — a sister who has been granted asylum, a brother, and her mother — all of the supporting evidence for her claim of horrific abuse from her father came from a letter sent by a former partner in El Salvador.

Marsteller accepted the letter but told her it couldn’t be entered into the record because it was in Spanish. A man in court, identified as her stepfather, stated that the woman and her sons live with him in Louisiana, and he informed the judge that he would be responsible for them.

After more than an hour of the hearing, during which the sons departed the courtroom when the woman described her allegations of abuse, Marsteller asked the government for its position. The government attorney informed the court that the notice the woman had received was for a master calendar appearance, not an asylum hearing. Startled, Marsteller was forced to schedule another hearing. It will be in December 2026.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Mass deportations are the Christian thing to do



Right now, leftists are using the power of the pulpit, twisting Scripture, and blasting Christians for supporting President Donald Trump’s immigration raids.

President Trump, of course, promised to deport millions of illegal aliens who have entered the country. Most Americans support these endeavors.

As part of an effort to stop Trump, leftists say that mass deportations and the restriction of immigration violate core Christian principles of caring for the poor and needy. Even certain Catholic bishops are claiming we cannot deport illegal aliens.

That assertion is entirely false.

Don't let leftists twist Scripture to make you feel bad for wanting violent freaks out of your country and for being concerned with America's common good.

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? Well, it is clear about Christians' duty of care to migrants.

In paragraph 2241 of the Catechism, it says, “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”

The key phrase here is “to the extent they are able.” The United States is a very prosperous nation. Yes, we are. But are we really able to welcome everyone in the world? No, of course not.

We are trillions of dollars in debt. Thousands upon thousands of Americans die from drug overdoses every year. We have rampant poverty in many parts of the U.S., broken families in rural and inner cities, and social degradation across the board.

The U.S. government has a duty first and foremost to protect its own citizens. Allowing mass migration exacerbates all those issues and harms U.S. citizens.

So what should political authorities do regarding immigration? They are called to consider the “common good” in all that they do.

To get more content like this direct to your inbox, sign up for the Liz Wheeler Newsletter. Click here to sign up.

The Catechism goes on to say, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption.”

So what does this mean? Countries have a right to secure their borders. We have a right to self-definition. We have a right to enforce our laws. We have a right to enforce our immigration laws.

And we have a right to condition immigration laws upon immigrants assimilating into our American values. This is Christian teaching.

Christians are not called to implement an open-borders policy. We are not morally obligated to redistribute wealth. We are not morally obligated to allow our daughters to be assaulted and raped by illegal aliens who reside in our communities or to allow members of gangs like MS-13 to infiltrate our cities and cause crime to skyrocket.

So what does the Catholic Church teach regarding immigrants?

It says that immigrants “are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

That means the Church says that immigrants should not violate the law by coming across the border illegally. It means all immigrants are called to respect America’s Christian and capitalist heritage.

We are not called to allow immigration to run wild without concern for our common good.

Just last week, President Trump arrested at least 538 violent criminals of the worst kind. You’re telling me it’s the Christian thing to let them stay in your town? Would you want them as your neighbor?

No, you’re not a bad person for wanting to keep yourself and your family safe. You’re not a bad person for wanting to preserve America’s sovereignty and national identity and to improve our immigration system so that it truly benefits U.S. citizens.

Don't let leftists twist Scripture to make you feel bad for wanting violent freaks out of your country and for being concerned with America's common good.

Horowitz: Texas should secure its own border. Here’s how.



"Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?"

That was the question Justice Antonin Scalia posed in his partial concurrence in Arizona v. U.S. in 2012, when there were 357,000 apprehensions at our southern border. With four months left in this fiscal year, there have already been 900,000 apprehensions, with the numbers from the past three months nearly tying the all-time record.

But the situation at the border is even worse than those numbers suggest. The number of gotaways, which are usually the worst criminals, is higher than ever. Also, this comes at a time when Border Patrol and border infrastructure are much larger and more robust than they were during the greatest previous waves of illegal immigration 20 years ago, which makes the lack of deterrent behind those numbers all the more remarkable.

The reason why things are worse than ever despite more agents on the ground is because our Border Patrol is now being used to actively work with the cartel smugglers. Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies reports that CBP has prohibited agents from catching the smuggler who steers the rafts across the Rio Grande River.

"So established is this non-belligerence arrangement that cops and smugglers often banter with one another across the water or at the Texas shore about the weather, or how long the boats might be running tonight," reports Bensman. "Scenes play out where Border Patrol agents simply watch from five or six feet away as smugglers stand on the Texas riverbank or in shallow Rio Grande waters helping their illegal-alien customers out of boats."

From his conversations with high-ranking officials at the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Bensman, who worked at the Texas DPS for 10 years, reports that CBP is warning Texas officials that they should also refrain from nabbing the smugglers as well.

Taken together, this strategy ensures that all the assets of Border Patrol are actually being harnessed to facilitate a more efficient invasion, which is why the numbers are sky high.

Which brings us back to the original question posed by Scalia in 2012: Are states really at the mercy of DHS' criminal behavior in not only leaving the border wide open but downright facilitating human smuggling into the states?

In 2006, then-Sen. Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for the Secure Fence Act. It required the secretary of homeland security to "take all actions" necessary within 18 months of passage to "achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States" (emphasis added). Section 2(b) of the bill defined "operational control" as "the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband."

What has ever come of this requirement? Why should a state be constrained by "federal powers," if they are suffering from the results of the feds violating those very federal powers?

Article I, § 10, cl. 3 (the Compact Clause) states:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Constitution is clear that, all things equal, states shouldn't engage in warfare with other countries. But all things are not equal in this case, and the Constitution made an exception for those times when states are invaded and in imminent danger.

John Marshall, during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, made it clear that this section affirms that the power given to the states by the people to repel an invasion "is not taken away" by the federal war powers. "When invaded, they [can] engage in war, as also when in imminent danger," asserted the future chief justice during the debate over the Compact Clause on Monday, June 16, 1788. "This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary."

Joseph Story in his commentary on the Compact Clause writes that while the prohibition on states making war is obviously necessary, it was "wisely guarded by exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."

Still, a state may be so situated, that it may become indispensable to possess military forces, to resist an expected invasion, or insurrection. The danger may be too imminent for delay; and under such circumstances, a state will have a right to raise troops for its own safety, even without the consent of Congress.

Haven't the border states (the ones that still care) waited long enough, with too much delay, to act unilaterally?

Some might suggest that caravans and groups of illegal aliens coming north are obviously not part of a declared war. But if you look at the original language of Article IV's guarantee clause protecting states from invasion, Madison originally drafted its language to be read as protecting against "foreign violence." It's clear that this was not necessarily referring to formal warfare with a nation-state, but repelling violent incursions from Indian tribes. If a state can't protect against foreign violence, then what can a state do?

Remember, in addition to telling CBP to stand down at the border, the Biden administration is handcuffing ICE from removing even the most violent foreign criminals. Does that mean a state is forced to allow illegal alien rapists to remain within its borders with no recourse? There has been a 900% increase in apprehension of criminal aliens just in the Laredo Sector alone. Is Texas without any right to stop the untold numbers who are likely getting away and cutting through the ranches of its citizens?

As always, the Lone Star State needs to go it alone and lead the way. Governor Greg Abbott should call a special session to bolster the resources and legal authority of state and local law enforcement to deter and punish illegal aliens. The following issues should be addressed:

  • A surge in funding for an entire division of the Texas DPS to focus solely on deterring illegal immigration.
  • A surge in resources to build or repurpose jail space to hold illegal aliens who are charged on state crimes.
  • Severe mandatory minimum sentences for human smuggling, criminal trespassing, child endangerment, and other existing state crimes that can be used to hit those coming over the border. Also, make them ineligible for bail because they are, by definition, the ultimate flight risk.
  • Pass Rep. Bryan Slaton's bill to have Texas build the border wall. This can be done with a public crowdsourcing campaign as well.
  • In addition, it's time to make illegal immigration a state crime. Many federal crimes are doubled up as state crimes, and there's no reason why illegal immigration should be any different. With a new Supreme Court, it's time to challenge some of the premises behind the erroneous legal theory of the 2012 Arizona v. U.S. decision.
Throughout the Trump tenure, blue states successfully thwarted the enforcement of immigration law with sanctuary policies. Why then shouldn't red states be able to enforce the laws the feds refuse to abide by? The Constitution was designed for the federal government to protect the states from invasion. At some point, that principle can no longer be contorted to such an extent that it becomes a suicide pact,s whereby states are bound by the federal government's own malfeasance.

Illegal alien who could have been deported admits to years of child sex abuse

How is it that so many illegal aliens who go on to commit heinous crimes were caught by law enforcement for previous infractions but never removed? That is the question that should be the subject of endless hearings by Senate Republicans, as House Democrats hold a string of hearings on the welfare of illegal aliens. The case of an illegal alien who just admitted to sexually assaulting two minors for many years should serve as the latest example of the need for aggressively enforcing the laws on the books.

On Saturday, Palm Beach County, Florida, officials arrested Dilson Mejia-Licona, an illegal alien from Honduras, on two counts of lewd behavior with a minor. He is accused of sexually assaulting a child between 2012 and 2017 while the girl was 6 to 11 years old. He is also charged with sexually assaulting her older sister who is now an adult when she was about 13 years old.

The details of the domestic relationship surrounding the alleged assaults, first reported by the Palm Beach Post, appear to be murky. The police report doesn’t really describe Mejia-Licona’s relationship to the victims, but it appears that he was a boyfriend of the mother of these girls. The police report is extremely graphic and describes them all sleeping in the same room, with Mejia-Licona admitting to touching them in terribly graphic ways over an extended period of time. When the female detective who is fluent in Spanish asked him why he acted this way, he replied, “I don’t know, I guess I am just perverted.”

As we’ve reported before, the child molestation problem is not just a criminal alien issue, but is systemically part of the culture in some parts of Central America where child marriages are the rule, not the exception. Roughly one quarter of pregnancies in Honduras are to teen mothers, the second highest rate in Latin America. While the Honduran government has taken steps to ban child marriages, they are still commonplace particularly in the rural areas and among the poorer residents, precisely the people who come here illegally. With hundreds of thousands coming from those villages in rural Central America, it’s no surprise we are seeing an epidemic of child sex cases with illegal aliens.

However, there is something more disturbing about this. What if these alleged molestations could have been prevented? Our laws are designed so that illegal aliens are supposed to be detected upon their first interaction with a government entity. They are required to register with DHS (8 U.S. Code §1304), and their status is not supposed to be shielded from detection (§1324). According to court records, Mejia-Licona had been caught at least three times driving without a license in 2012, 2017, and 2018. How is someone like that caught without a license and not asked about his citizenship?

Those of us who live in the real world are asked all the time whether we are citizens for the most mundane private or public services, irrespective of how we look. How is it, then, that illegal aliens can be pulled over by cops and cycle in and out of county courts without their illegal status ever being discovered and turned over to the proper authorities? Yet, Mejia-Licona appeared in court several times during these cases and even got a Spanish-language interpreter paid for by taxpayers. Had he been removed after the first incident of driving without a license, these girls would never have been harmed.

Driving without a license is a serious problem and the fact that he was on the roads without one and was caught three times over a period of 6 1/2 years, according to court records, demonstrates the lawlessness in immigration enforcement. Congress needs to work with state officials on creating a process for always asking citizenship status when an officer pulls someone over for a driving violation or at least in the forms in court. Some of the worst criminals are often initially engaged by law enforcement or the court system through traffic citations, and if they are here illegally, that should be their last infraction in this country.

Even absent new congressional action, there is no reason why politicians on a local level shouldn’t be more proactive in enforcing immigration laws the same way localities enforce so many other federal laws. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in Arizona v U.S. (2010), “States, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to conduct arrests for violations of federal law, unless and until Congress removes that authority.” There is nothing in federal statute that prohibits local law enforcement from inquiring about citizenship status as a standard for every interaction with a resident.

Indeed, it is preposterous for anyone to assert that local law enforcement can’t arrest someone who must be deported by federal law. Quite the contrary: 8 U. S. C. §1644 unambiguously says that “no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from” federal immigration officials “information regarding the immigration status” of a foreign national. And, of course, §1373(c) says that ICE “shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency.”

Florida no longer permits counties to be sanctuary jurisdictions, thanks to Gov. Ron DeSantis. However, the horrific alleged crimes of Dilson Mejia-Licona should prompt more aggressive action to actively ensure that citizenship of anyone who cycles into the justice system is known and conveyed to the right authorities. After all, why should we harbor other countries’ criminals when we have enough of our own?

Keep reading...Show less