Exclusive: Brandon Gill unveils key legislation to accelerate deportations for criminal aliens



Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas is doing his part to ramp up deportation efforts across the country.

Gill introduced landmark legislation on Wednesday that would effectively close loopholes and expand expedited removal authority to cover violent criminal aliens, according to bill text obtained exclusively by Blaze News. The bill also mandates the detention and expedited removal of violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists while also ensuring they are unable to abuse asylum protections.

'Democrat leaders invited them to invade our county en masse.'

The current law primarily limits expedited removal to migrants who recently crossed within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entry. Because of existing loopholes and procedures, criminal aliens are often sorted into slower and more standard removal proceedings.

In contrast, Gill's legislation addresses the removal of criminal aliens with urgency.

RELATED: Inside the Portland ICE facility under siege by Antifa extremists

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

"Our number one priority should be to protect American communities," Gill told Blaze News. "America should never be a safe haven for gang members, terrorists, or violent offenders."

"Yet, Democrat leaders invited them to invade our county en masse," Gill added. "Serious crimes require decisive consequences. My bill backs President Trump's efforts to capture and deport violent illegal aliens quickly at the behest of Americans across the nation who want their families to thrive in a safe society."

RELATED: Federal agents clash with mob of Antifa-fueled, anti-ICE protesters in Portland

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Over the course of President Joe Biden's administration, there were over 10 million migrant encounters in the United States, according to Customs and Border Protection.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, migrant encounters have plummeted to historic lows, with illegal crossings across the United States-Mexico border dropping to the lowest levels in over half a century. Gill indicated his legislation would continue this trend and help codify Trump's immigration policy.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Jean Raspail’s notorious — and prophetic — novel returns to America



“The Camp of the Saints” by Jean Raspail is one of the most interesting and controversial novels of the 20th century — which is why it’s good news that Vauban Books, a small publishing house, is coming out with a new edition, complete with a fresh translation by scholar Ethan Rundell.

English-language copies of the book, first published in the United States in 1975, have been passed around like samizdat. “The Camp of the Saints” became popular again in the 2010s, but the original publisher refused to reprint it — that is, until Vauban managed to secure the rights.

In the era of the Great Replacement, it is the most politically incorrect and the most vital lesson we need to hear.

“The Camp of the Saints” depicts mass immigration destroying European civilization. In the novel, a gigantic flotilla of boats filled with destitute Indians sets course for France to seek refugee status. After much hand-wringing, the government allows them to land rather than take the only other option available, which is to massacre them. France — and very quickly all of Europe — turns into a dystopian third-world slum.

Raspail’s novel was written in the 1970s when the “boat people” fled Vietnam for Europe. The book caused an enormous sensation. It was a best-seller in France and the U.S. and eventually globally. Many have hailed it as a great and important work of prophecy. But, predictably, it was then — and is now — denounced as a horribly racist screed that only white supremacists would be interested in reading.

Contrary to the critics, “The Camp of the Saints” is a great novel, and Jean Raspail is a great writer. You should do yourself a favor and read it.

What of the book’s supposed racism? Well, it certainly contains much imagery that will shock the American reader. The Indian refugees are portrayed in vivid passages as wholly disgusting and bestial.

However, here I must point out a number of things. First, it seems that American and French cultures have different definitions of what counts as “racist.” To this Frenchman, it has always seemed puzzling that Americans seem to separate the signified and the signifier, or the thing itself and the intent.

In American culture, any grossly negative or caricatured portrayal of a non-white person is seen as “racist,” regardless of what was meant by it. “Blackface” is considered malum in se, regardless of whether it’s done to wound or express contempt for a group of people or whether one just decided to attend a costume party. (A French athlete was recently embroiled in controversy when he proudly posted photos of himself dressed up as a Harlem Globetrotter, in what he clearly intended to be a laudatory homage to a group he admired.)

This bizarre American form of Tourette’s can sometimes become downright vile: While the bodies of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who had been murdered by Islamic terrorists for their refusal to stop mocking Islam, were still warm, American cultural commentators denounced their drawings as racist. A French person would have pointed out that while their caricatures of minorities were certainly unflattering, so were their caricatures of everyone else — and therefore concluded that there was no racism.

In fact, in “The Camp of the Saints,” nobody looks good. Indeed, the novel’s central topic is not the refugees themselves but the bizarre form of cowardice and self-hate of Europeans that leads them to consent to their own replacement. In this sense, it is like Evelyn Waugh’s “Black Mischief,” whose portrayal of Africans is decidedly “racist” by our contemporary standards but whose portrayal of whites — and everybody else — is equally savage and outlandish.

Everything in “The Camp of the Saints”is over the top, not just its unflattering portrayal of refugees. It has a dreamlike quality, complete with baroque imagery, which is integral to the artistic style of the novel. This is what makes it such a powerful and fascinating work of art. To dismiss it as “racist” is not just inaccurate — it is Philistinic.

It’s also worth pointing out that Raspail was not some caveman pumping out racist tirades from some cave somewhere. He wrote dozens of novels and received some of the most prestigious literary awards France can confer, including the Grand prix de littérature of the Académie française and the Prix Jean-Walter for historical writing. Raspail was made a knight and an officer of the Legion of Honor. Of course, France has historically been much more open-minded when it comes to honoring artists and intellectuals who may be politically incorrect.

Getting past the caricatures

As a young man, Raspail started out as a travel writer. His first publishing success was a recounting of a trip he took following in the footsteps of Father Marquette, the French Jesuit who discovered the Mississippi.

Raspail kayaked down the length of the river, from Trois-Rivières in Québec all the way to New Orleans, exploring the history of a region that was once New France. He would later return to America and write ethnographies of remaining American Indian tribes in reservations and would be a lifelong activist for protecting indigenous peoples — a strange pursuit for a “racist.”

In France, Raspail is better known for his historical adventure novels, which young teenage males of a certain Catholic conservative persuasion tend to read avidly.

Many of them involve the fictional Pikkendorff family, penniless aristocrats from Bavaria who end up as knights-errant, mercenaries, or colonial administrators in the service of other great families. One of his novels has members of the French and German branches of the Pikkendorffs secretly meeting in Switzerland to try to negotiate an armistice during World War I.

Another leverages some fourth-wall-breaking postmodern tools, since it ostensibly presents itself as a first-person work of nonfiction written by Raspail in his own name. That novel features Raspail’s research into the Pikkendorff family, complete with extensive footnotes referring to nonexistent tomes of historical research. It ends with the depressing discovery that the last heir of the Pikkendorffs runs a successful chain of pizza restaurants.

RELATED: The philosopher pulverizing 'Progressive Myths'

Photo by skynesher via Getty Images

Another novel, “The Fisherman’s Ring,” starts with the premise that the Council of Constance, which ended the Great Western Schism that had sundered the Catholic Church in two, picked the wrong pope and that ever since, there has been a succession of secret, true popes.

“Seven Riders” takes place in a fictional, nameless country somewhere at the edge of Europe at some unspecified time, though the fact that people move either by horse or steam train gives a hint. The country has been stricken by a series of unexplained events, including plagues and destructive madness circulating among the youth. The Margrave, the ruler of this broken kingdom, sends out seven riders to try to find the outside world and discover a remedy for the bizarre afflictions affecting the country. Above all, he wants to find his daughter Princess Myriam, with whom the head of the expedition, Colonel-major Silve de Pikkendorff, is secretly in love.

Perhaps Raspail’s most ambitious novel is 2003’s “The Kingdoms of Borea,” which is hard not to read as an implicit reply to critics of “The Camp of the Saints.” The work, which stretches over several centuries, takes place in a fictional country at the northeastern edge of Europe, by the Russian steppes and Scandinavian fjords. In the deep forests unexplored by the white man, at least until the modern era, lives “the little man with bark-colored skin,” an indigenous people of the forest who fear the white man.

A French person would have pointed out that while their caricatures of minorities were certainly unflattering, so were their caricatures of everyone else — and therefore concluded that there was no racism.

The mystery of the true identity and nature of the little man, who is always elusive, is the running thread of the plot. As European civilization and industry keep encroaching on the little man’s forest over the centuries, turning timber into factories, his people and their way of life are doomed to extinction.

This is another story about demographic replacement — but one in which the whites are the clear villains and the non-whites are the clear victims. The novel is a tour de force, with contemporary descendants of 17th-century nobles and Jewish merchants somehow ending up on the path of their forebears and a stunning halfway reveal about the narrator’s true identity. It is a great historical fresco, a panorama of history’s greatest crimes.

A peaceful and prosperous Jewish community is ravaged by pogroms fomented by the kingdom’s evil ruler. One character immigrates to the Antebellum South, where he becomes a wealthy planter and happily joins the South’s rebellion, but not before freeing all his slaves. Upon returning to his home after the war, he is confronted by the devastation the Union Army caused and sets up schools and workshops for his former slaves.

Another trace of the little man is found in East Prussia in 1945. Then, Raspail reminds us vividly, the ethnic German populations of Eastern Europe were systematically butchered by Stalin’s troops, a World War II genocide that is remembered by no memorial or museum.

All genocides are bad

“All genocides are bad,” Raspail seemingly wants to say through this book. This sounds like the most trite thing imaginable until you remember that some genocides are more politically useful than others. “Don’t you understand? It’s always bad,” he seems to be screaming, grabbing us by the lapels. It’s bad when white people are the perpetrators, and it’s bad when white people are the victims, says Jean Raspail, a lifelong anthropologist and activist on behalf of Native American tribes.

For Raspail, it is clear that pogroms of Jews are bad and massacres of civilian German populations are bad. Antebellum slavery was bad, but so was destroying the South to stop it. It’s bad regardless of your politics. It’s bad even when the victim population cannot be held up as a politically convenient totem. Which is the least racist message imaginable. But in the era of the Great Replacement, it is the most politically incorrect and the most vital one we need to hear.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

No perp walks, no peace



Mexico. Washington, D.C. Minneapolis. Three places, one message: what our enemies believe and how we must respond if we don’t want to become their chattel.

Start with Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum openly prefers her own citizens — the so-called salt-of-the-earth workers — to remain north of the Rio Grande rather than return home. Mexico is so badly broken that demanding the right to export its people into a country that increasingly resents the burden has become a viable political position.

The angry young men Trump just won over demand accountability. Without it, no economic boom, no culture war victory, no campaign slogan will hold them.

Now move to Washington, D.C. How broken do you have to be to protest against safer streets? President Donald Trump has vowed to bring order to the nation’s capital, yet Democrats bristle at the one federal action they’ve apparently never wanted to seize for themselves. For decades they told us D.C. deserved statehood. Now that Trump is taking responsibility for law and order, suddenly they retreat.

The irony runs deeper. Mexico refuses to take back its “working class,” while Democrats refuse to federalize D.C. policing. The one time they might welcome federal control, they balk — because Trump is the guy enforcing it.

D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith even admitted she doesn’t understand what “chain of command” means. This is the same woman who served as the department’s chief equity officer before becoming chief. If she can’t figure out who’s in charge, how can anyone else? This is what happens when the left prizes ideology over competence. Throw away your Bibles and your Constitution, kids — we’re going for a ride!

Next stop: Minneapolis. Mayoral candidate Omar Fateh campaigns openly for a Marxist revolution, joining voices like New York’s Zohran Mamdani. They no longer bother to hide their intent. They say the quiet part loud: They want a world where you live under chains.

A decade ago, such a platform would have been a political death wish. Suggesting Democrats were headed down that road would have branded you a “conspiracy theorist.” Today, Democrats think they can win elections on it.

So here’s the pattern: Mexico won’t take back its own “industrious” citizens. Washington, D.C., Democrats prefer their largely black constituency to live under siege by criminals rather than accept Trump’s help. And in Minneapolis, a leading candidate runs on a platform of putting Somalia first.

RELATED:Stop calling Zohran Mamdani a communist — he’s something worse

Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

We tell ourselves we can laugh this off as fringe madness — as long as it’s not in our back yard. But that’s denial. The threat is real, and it’s aimed at our children, if we last that long. This is invasion by increments: more foreigners, more crime, more leaders pretending they don’t know what a chain of command is. Like drums in the deep, the orcs are coming.

What should we do? Whether foreign enemies or domestic ones, whether illegal aliens or corrupt bureaucrats, the answer is the same.

Arrests.

The angry young men Trump just won over demand accountability. Without it, no economic boom, no culture war victory, no campaign slogan will hold them. Fail here and Republicans risk losing the House, neutering Trump’s presidency, and unleashing the very invasion already being planned.

Those who shrug at the chain of command will happily discard the Declaration of Independence next. They will crush the laws of nature and nature’s God. They will trample the Creator’s endowments under a mob now warming up and waiting in the wings.

There must be consequences. There must be arrests.

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?

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

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

Photo by Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

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.

It’s not a riot, it’s an invasion



While Americans like to imagine the United States as a nation defined by the rule of law and civil discourse, riots have long been a regular feature of our political life. From the unrest tied to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and ’70s to the Los Angeles riots of 1992 and the Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots in 2020, anyone surveying the past 60 years would come away stunned by the sheer volume of civil disorder. These uprisings typically centered on tensions between the black community and law enforcement — a reckoning, however painful, internal to the country.

What’s happening in Los Angeles this week is something else entirely. This isn’t domestic unrest. It’s an invasion. Illegal aliens have flooded the streets, waving foreign flags and openly declaring their intent to reclaim California in the name of Mexico. This isn’t just ideological subversion or economic pressure. It’s open confrontation, and it’s playing out on American soil.

These agitators know something mainstream conservatives do not: A nation is its people, not just a place.

Illegal immigration has pushed the United States to the brink. Everyone can feel it. Democrats have adopted open borders as de facto policy, aiming to replace the current population with more reliable voters while reshaping American culture. Republicans haven’t done much better. They offer amnesty and ignore conservative concerns about crime, jobs, and demographic collapse.

Parallel cultures — not assimilation

Communities that stood intact for generations now find themselves surrounded by strangers who neither speak the language nor express interest in assimilating. Ghettoization, not integration, has become the norm. That’s why voters gave Trump a second term. And that’s why his administration must finally deliver on immigration. A second failure to act would not just be political malpractice — it would be a civilizational betrayal.

We’re told illegal immigrants are hardworking dreamers who want a better life. Some are. But more come seeking access to welfare and jobs that allow them to send remittances home. The sheer volume of illegal aliens from countries like Mexico means they face little pressure to assimilate. They don’t need to. In many cities, they can live their entire lives inside self-sustaining ethnic enclaves.

The Trump administration has promised large-scale deportations. But for now, ICE has focused on the worst offenders: gang members, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. In Los Angeles, agents targeted those exact threats. There were no mass sweeps. But facts didn’t matter. Leftist nonprofits rallied protesters to the streets, ready to block arrests, assault officers, and ignite another round of mayhem.

As always, the progressive playbook called for riots. But this time, the optics changed. They don’t look like concerned citizens. They look like an invading army. And while media outlets still insist on calling it a protest, Americans watching footage of police cars in flames see something else.

Mexico-first loyalties

The truth cuts through the narrative: Most illegal immigrants are young, single, military-age men. That fact alone should reframe the entire debate. Any progressive organizer can choreograph a protest, but when idle, aggrieved men view it as an ethnic struggle, violence escalates. These men rally around the Mexican flag, shout slogans of vengeance, and praise “La Raza” with open hostility.

Some conservative commentators have mocked the spectacle: rioters waving the flag of a country they refuse to return to. But the joke reveals a blind spot. These agitators know something mainstream conservatives do not: A nation is its people, not just a place.

Many on the right have bought into a liberal fiction — that the U.S. is a territory defined by abstractions. The moment an illegal immigrant steps on “magic soil,” we’re told, he becomes American. But that’s not how immigrants think. Mexico is not just a location. It is an identity. Wherever Mexicans go, they carry Mexico with them. They do not wish to become Americans. They wish to conquer Americans.

And now, Mexico has made that agenda explicit.

President Claudia Sheinbaum responded to proposed remittance taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by declaring, “If necessary, we’ll mobilize. We don’t want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen, from the U.S. to Mexico.”

That statement says it all. Sheinbaum considers Mexicans in the United States her people. Their first loyalty, in her view, belongs to Mexico. She called on them to rise up and defend the 5% of Mexico’s economy that relies on remittances — a figure larger than tourism or most exports.

RELATED: No, you’re not a ‘xenophobe.’ You’re just awake.

Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

If Mexico calling on its expatriate population to riot doesn’t count as hostile foreign interference, what does? The Mexican diaspora is not just a collection of humble workers sending money home. It is a pressure valve, a political weapon, and a massive revenue stream — and Mexico will fight to protect it.

In 2020, Trump paid a price for not cracking down on domestic unrest. This time, he hasn’t hesitated. ICE continues its operations. National Guard troops and U.S. Marines have been deployed to protect federal agents.

Stephen Miller and other Trump officials have made it clear: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Mayor Karen Bass (D) have facilitated this violence, and ICE won’t back down. Every riot is a powder keg, and this one is no different. But the footage is damning. Americans see military-age foreigners vowing to retake California for Mexico.

— (@)

Deportations: A national mandate

Trump didn’t manufacture this crisis. But he now has the clearest mandate imaginable to solve it. Mass deportations are not a talking point any more. They’re a national imperative. The window to act is narrow. But if he acts decisively, history will mark this moment as the one in which sovereignty was restored, not the one in which it finally slipped away.

To meet the moment, the Trump administration must do more than restore order. It must articulate a vision of national renewal. The American people have grown weary of half measures and cosmetic fixes. They want to know their leaders take the concept of citizenship seriously — and will defend it at all costs.

The riots in Los Angeles should be treated as a turning point. What began as a border crisis has become a test of national will. Trump’s legacy and the republic’s future depend on what happens next.

History affirms Trump’s right to use the Alien Enemies Act against gangs



President Donald Trump on Friday issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Predictably, this move drew the ire of anti-borders activists, who classified it as an attempt to circumvent due process protections for illegal aliens. Critics claimed that the legislation can be used only in times of war, but do they have a legal leg to stand on? For several significant reasons, they do not.

The Alien Enemies Act was first passed in 1798 as one of four pieces of legislation collectively — and erroneously — referred to as the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” These laws were implemented in response to the undeclared Quasi-War with France — bolstering the federal government’s power to react to national security threats.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the US unlawfully.

Contrary to popular open-border narratives, these laws were not originally universally reviled. Many Americans saw them as necessary measures to ensure the safety and sovereignty of their newly established nation. Out of the four laws, however, only the Alien Enemies Act survived; the others either expired or were replaced before the Supreme Court established judicial review in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.

Where does that leave the Trump administration today? Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used during wartime or in response to an invasion, such as the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II. The law itself was written broadly, however. It states that when the United States is at war with a foreign nation — or when an “invasion or predatory incursion” occurs — the president has the authority to detain and remove citizens of the hostile country.

The key question now is whether the law applies to foreign nationals like Tren de Aragua and other non-military individuals who have entered the country illegally. That hinges on the definition of “invade” or "predatory incursion.” Interestingly, neither term is defined explicitly in U.S. law, nor has the Supreme Court clarified it.

However, history offers some clues. Colonial-era legal documents allowed British subjects to defend themselves against foreign threats described as "destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance.” In Federalist 41, James Madison referred to the need to protect against "pirates and barbarians," suggesting that non-state actors engaged in criminal activities could qualify as invaders. Similarly, in Federalist 43, Madison warned of threats from hostile nations and the “ambitious or vindictive enterprises of [a state’s] more powerful neighbors.”

Based on these historical interpretations, two conclusions emerge. First, an invasion doesn’t have to come from a foreign government’s military. Second, as the Texas Public Policy Foundation notes, criminal organizations like cartel-linked gangs could be classified as engaging in an invasion or predatory incursion if their activities undermine U.S. sovereignty. That’s exactly what Tren de Aragua is doing.

Trump justified his decision by pointing out that Tren de Aragua is a designated foreign terrorist organization with thousands of members who have illegally entered the U.S. According to his statement, the gang is engaging in "irregular warfare and hostile actions" aimed at harming Americans, destabilizing communities, and furthering the Maduro regime’s influence.

The U.S. Constitution gives the government broad powers to respond to evolving global threats, and the Supreme Court has historically limited its review of immigration-related decisions. Additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that noncitizens have no constitutional right to stay in the U.S. unlawfully.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, the court ruled that unadmitted, nonresident foreigners have no right to entry or continued presence in the country. Similarly, Mathews v. Diaz upheld congressional authority to make laws for noncitizens that would never apply to U.S. citizens.

Given such precedent, it is hard to argue that the president lacks the authority to remove gang members who threaten American security just because Venezuela hasn’t formally declared war. But never underestimate the extent to which those manifesting “Trump derangement syndrome” will interfere with legitimate attempts to protect U.S. citizens from the likes of Tren de Aragua.

Trump just empowered states to fight back against illegal immigration



Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark in his return to the White House.

In less than a week, the president has signed dozens of new executive orders and repealed nearly 80 orders and memorandums from the Biden era.

If the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

One of the most notable orders, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” introduced immediate changes to immigration law.

The order suspends temporarily a contentious policy that allows immigrants to enter the United States by claiming asylum.

Additionally, it directs federal agents to block entry for immigrants who fail to provide sufficient medical information or reliable criminal and background records.

Perhaps the most important change, however, is one that has received little attention from the media — the classification of the ongoing border crisis as an “invasion.”

Many of Trump’s critics have classified the “invasion” rhetoric as xenophobic or racist, but in doing so, they have completely missed an important policy justification for using the term. By calling what’s occurring at the southern border an “invasion,” Trump has effectively given states the right to take drastic action against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution prioritizes federal authority over state authority in immigration matters.

The court has determined that Article II grants the president the power to regulate many aspects of foreign affairs, including issues connected to immigration.

Article I empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” governing the process of becoming a citizen.

The Constitution provides little mention of states’ rights regarding immigration, a lack often interpreted as justification for federal control of the issue.

However, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution declares, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, although states cannot determine citizenship or set a foreign affairs agenda that’s out of step with the president, they can defend themselves from an invasion.

During the Biden administration, officials reported more than 8 million illegal border “encounters,” a figure that captures the number of people caught by officials while trying to illegally enter the United States. Importantly, data on “encounters” do not reflect the potentially millions of other immigrants who have come to America illegally over the same period but weren’t caught.

Some states have argued that this wave of illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” and that because the Constitution allows states to combat an invasion, state officials should have the right to take action.

For example, in 2023, Texas lawmakers claimed the state had been invaded and then passed Senate Bill 4, which, among other things, gave Texas police the power to arrest illegal immigrants.

The law has been tied up in court since it was passed, largely because of courts’ reluctance to give states power over immigration and because claims of an “invasion” depend on the Constitution’s meaning of the term, which has been in dispute for years among legal scholars.

Now that the Trump administration has officially declared that the recent immigration crisis is an “invasion,” there should be no doubt that states have the legal authority to defend themselves. This would be a significant enhancement of states’ rights, assuming the designation and subsequent actions on the part of states survive legal challenges.

Regardless of your position on immigration, we should all be able to agree that states ought to have the power to defend themselves in the event of an invasion. And if the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

If you disagree, then who, exactly, should have the right to decide when an “invasion” has occurred?

Although opponents of the new order won’t want to hear it, elections do, indeed, have consequences.

10 bold moves red states can make to end the illegal immigration surge



Do we not already have enough criminals in this country? When will we finally reach the point where we say “no more” to repeat offenders, including drunk drivers, sex offenders, drug traffickers, and gangbangers from other countries? The time has come for states — especially those led by Republicans — to take a firm and unified stand. Holding a special session right before the election, as early voting begins, offers the perfect opportunity to bring this issue to the forefront.

We could fill pages daily with stories about repeat violent criminal aliens committing horrific rapes, murders, and DUI homicides, taking the lives of Americans in their prime through entirely avoidable crimes. We are also beginning to see the effects of bringing in millions of migrants, particularly in small towns like Springfield, Ohio, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Sylacauga, Alabama. Time and again, we hear this is a federal issue and that states lack the power to combat or deter this invasion. Not so. It’s time for Republican governors and legislatures to step up and address this issue once and for all.

States must stand firm and refuse to recognize any amnesty Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attempt to grant in the final months of their administration.

With the November election approaching, every Republican governor should convene a special legislative session aimed at deterring illegal aliens from entering red states. Here are 10 strategies:

Declare an invasion: The session should start by passing a resolution that acknowledges the state is facing an invasion and invokes powers under the Constitution’s compact clause. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 allows states to engage in defensive actions if “actually invaded” or facing “imminent danger” that requires immediate response. After four years of inaction from the federal government, states can’t wait any longer. Criminal aliens, transnational gangs, fentanyl trafficking, human trafficking, and the strain on public services pose an undeniable danger. While states don’t need to wage war, they can use their authority over internal order, policing, and public health to restrict, deter, and, when possible, encourage illegal aliens to deport themselves voluntarily.

Declare a public health emergency: Large numbers of illegal aliens are arriving from countries with diseases not common in the United States, including Haiti, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We all remember the extent to which states exercised police powers over public health during the pandemic, shutting down churches, businesses, and even restricting breathing to prevent disease spread. States even imposed travel bans on residents of other states. If they could do that, they can certainly apply similar restrictions to foreign invaders who are gathering en masse under chaotic conditions and creating a public health threat. We’ve already seen outbreaks in migrant shelters. What happened to the public health concerns that overrode natural rights in 2020?

Incarcerate or expel criminal aliens: Stories of illegal aliens with records of drunk driving, drug and weapons charges, and robbery committing additional serious crimes appear daily across every state. GOP governors should adopt a clear policy: The first crime an illegal alien commits in a state should be his last.

In a letter to a GOP congressman, ICE revealed that its non-detained docket includes 7.6 million aliens, among them individuals with 662,566 total criminal convictions or charges. This group includes aliens convicted of more than 13,000 homicides, 15,811 sexual assaults (plus 9,461 convicted of other sex offenses), 851 kidnappings, nearly 3,400 weapon offenses, over 2,000 robberies, 56,533 dangerous drug convictions, 14,301 burglaries, and 62,231 assaults.

Many of the most serious offenders are currently in state or local prisons, but others remain free on the streets. This is especially true for "low-level" offenders, such as roughly 130,000 traffic offenders, 70,000 drug offenders, 31,000 charged or convicted of larceny, 17,000 weapons offenders, and 17,500 burglars. The federal government has not removed these people, including 1.3 million who already have final removal orders. This is where states must step in.

Each legislature should impose significant sentencing enhancements for those who commit any crime after entering the United States illegally. For aliens arrested for minor crimes that don’t require incarceration for justice, states should offer a diversion program. This program could provide a suspended sentence in exchange for self-repatriation. States could even cover the cost of a plane ticket and grant leniency, as long as the person doesn’t return to the state.

This approach combines incentives and consequences to encourage self-repatriation without risking accusations of states actively engaging in deportation. Federal law implicitly supports the idea of self-removal during or outside a criminal trial under either federal or state law.

Outlaw illegal presence in states: The above approach would target criminal aliens caught committing additional offenses. To deter all illegal aliens, states need to make illegal presence itself a crime. Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156, passed last session, aimed to do just that, though a federal judge has currently enjoined it. As a contingency, states should strengthen penalties and enforcement of related crimes involving illegal immigrants, such as trespassing, criminal vagrancy, identity theft, tax fraud, human trafficking, and harboring illegal aliens.

States should leverage enhanced sentences to encourage self-repatriation, avoiding judicial interference. State agencies should rigorously investigate identity theft by cross-referencing welfare benefits, driver’s licenses, and employment records for duplicates. Additionally, individuals arrested for offenses tied to transnational gangs like MS-13 or Tren de Aragua should face even harsher sentencing enhancements.

Beef up employment enforcement: If illegal aliens cannot get jobs, they will not come. That’s the bottom line. Right now, only six southeastern states and Arizona require universal E-Verify, and even these states often fail to enforce the law vigorously. Additionally, many employers use labor brokers, who officially hire these workers on behalf of local companies, to sidestep regulations. States must start prosecuting these labor brokers for human trafficking and evading state laws against employing illegal workers. Eliminating job opportunities will significantly reduce illegal immigration.

Reject Biden’s amnesty: Joe Biden continues to offer various forms of quasi-legal status to illegal aliens through unlawful parole programs or by expanding Temporary Protected Status. States must stand firm and refuse to recognize any amnesty Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attempt to grant in the final months of their administration. For state purposes, they should treat those individuals as illegal aliens.

Bar illegal aliens from public schools: It’s unfair for American children and parents to see their schools overwhelmed by illegal immigrants with different cultures and languages, who may pose security risks. This issue has even reached small, rural districts facing a surge in such enrollments. The right to K-12 education for illegal immigrants stems from the activist court ruling 42 years ago in Plyler v. Doe, which applied the equal protection clause to illegal aliens. The current Supreme Court might rule differently. At the very least, states should bar all prospective illegal immigrants or those who can't prove they arrived before 2021.

Or states could require a state-issued photo ID (rather than just a utility bill) to prove residency in a school district, applying the same standard to all residents, similar to voter ID requirements in many red states. Since most red states, except Utah, don’t issue photo IDs to illegal immigrants, those individuals would be ineligible to register for school under a residency verification law applied equally to everyone.

States should also require disclosure of immigration status during interactions like motor vehicle registrations, business license applications, welfare benefits, financial transactions, and arrests. State agencies should maintain a database of this information, including names, addresses, and Social Security numbers, for informational purposes. Florida has already implemented such a policy in hospitals and has reported a decline in illegal immigrants using those services. States could share this information with ICE, enabling federal action if a future administration takes a tougher stance on immigration.

Use zoning laws to limit town transformations: Small towns like Springfield, Ohio, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, Colony Ridge, Texas, and Sylacauga, Alabama, have faced rapid changes due to an influx of immigrants. While some claim that small towns have no power to stop this, a reporter on my podcast noted that Charleroi’s transformation stemmed from local business interests buying homes on Main Street and converting them into de facto “labor barracks.”

Local governments can use zoning laws to ban multi-unit dwellings and other living arrangements that attract illegal immigration. Although localities can’t make immigration law, they can use housing, transportation, and criminal vagrancy ordinances to discourage settlement in their areas.

End the 'unaccompanied minor' scam: Hundreds of thousands of volatile and violent teens enter our communities under humanitarian statutes, aided by sponsors who often lack legal status themselves. States should require sponsors of unaccompanied alien children to register with state child welfare departments, which must verify any claimed family relationship. This step would deter bad actors from perpetuating child trafficking and immigration status manipulation.

Revoke licenses of nonprofits aiding illegal immigration: A Florida Grand Jury found that several federally funded NGOs provide illegal immigrants with cash cards, cell phones, and even “safari-style guide maps,” aiding the invasion. States should criminalize activities that facilitate illegal immigration, similar to the unenforced federal law that makes it illegal to encourage or induce unlawful entry into the United States. States should also revoke business licenses and state recognition of NGOs that violate these laws.

Republicans at the national level have given up key leverage points in addressing this issue. States where Republicans control the executive and legislative branches need to act now.

New Report Details Hefty Price Americans Are Paying For Biden-Harris’ Open Border Mayhem

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy's office has detailed the 'breadth and depth' of the destruction in the report titled, 'America Invaded.'
Invaded in Every Way
play icon

Invaded in Every Way