In Boulder, Colorado, a peaceful march by the Jewish group Run for Their Lives turned into a war zone on Sunday afternoon. A man armed with a “makeshift flamethrower” blasted fire into the crowd, then hurled Molotov cocktails. His name? Mohamed Sabry Soliman — an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and has remained in the United States illegally since 2023. He injured eight people, ages 52 to 88. One victim, an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor, now fights for her life in critical condition.
Witnesses say Soliman screamed “Free Palestine” and other anti-Israel slogans as he attacked. The FBI now calls it what it clearly was: a politically motivated act of terrorism.
If we fail to draw a moral line now, the question won’t be where the Jews can go — but whether any of us are safe.
This wasn’t just another “incident.” It was a targeted attack on Jews in the public square. In 2025. In the United States of America.
America once stood as a beacon for the Jewish people, a haven when the rest of the world slammed its doors shut. But open-border policies have twisted that haven into something else entirely — a daylight nightmare.
More than two decades after 9/11, after all the promises to close the gaps that allowed terrorists to enter and remain in the United States, the basic failure to enforce immigration law has yet again put innocent lives at risk.
This is not a partisan talking point. It is a moral reckoning.
We have traded hard-won lessons for slogans. Sovereignty for sentiment. Borders for ideology. And now anti-Semitism, long dismissed as a relic of the past or a marginal threat, is burning — literally — on our streets.
We have seen this pattern before. On Kristallnacht in 1938, synagogues were set ablaze. Jewish homes and businesses were destroyed. Ordinary citizens were attacked while the world looked away. It was the beginning of a campaign of annihilation that ended in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Today, we again see Jewish communities targeted with violence. We see Jewish students harassed on campuses. We hear chants of “From the river to the sea” echoing in our cities — not from fringe radicals but from organized coalitions openly embraced by political leaders, university professors, and corporate brands. And now, we witnessed a woman who escaped the concentration camps’ ovens as a little girl nearly burned alive in broad daylight in a so-called “sanctuary city.”
RELATED: The left rages over 59 white refugees — but defends killers
The press continues its singular obsession with Donald Trump and his supporters. We are told that they — builders of factories, champions of border enforcement — are the greatest threat to democracy.
But let me ask plainly: Who is actually committing these acts of violence? Who is calling for the destruction of Israel? Who is throwing firebombs into peaceful protests?
It is not Trump voters. It is radicals animated by an ideology that cloaks hate in the language of justice and casts terrorism as resistance.
The West is not just a place — it is an idea: built on law, liberty, and the belief that all people are created equal. If we permit lawlessness in the name of compassion, if we excuse anti-Semitism under the guise of activism, we are not advancing justice. We are dismantling the very foundations of our society.
The Jewish people have been expelled from nearly every land on Earth. They were told to go back to where they came from — and now, even in Israel, they are told they do not belong. So where are they supposed to go?
If we do not draw a clear moral line now, the question will no longer be where the Jews can go but where any of us will be safe.
Let’s not deceive ourselves: This is not just about Jewish safety. It is about whether the moral architecture of the West can still hold.
Yes, the stakes are that high. America was meant to be a “city on a hill.” But cities burn when no one defends them — when people forget who they are, or worse, when they stop caring. Let us not be the generation that remembers freedom only by the smell of its ashes.
Now is the time to stand. Not in vengeance but in resolve. Not in fear but in truth.
Remember who we are. Remember what we built. And above all, remember what happens when we choose silence over courage.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
With a recent assault on the very federal law enforcement officers they are charged with overseeing, Democrats haven’t just embraced criminals; they’ve become them.
Last month, three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Rob Menendez Jr., Bonnie Watson Coleman, and LaMonica McIver, all from New Jersey — led a mob of protesters in storming the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They waited for a bus full of detainees to arrive, then rushed the open gate and physically clashed with federal officers.
Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.
This wasn’t symbolic. This was an elected mob laying hands on law enforcement.
The video tells the story: shoving, punching, and chaos. These three members of Congress — who represent more than two million Americans — assaulted officers doing their jobs. Then, astonishingly, they claimed they were the victims, despite clear footage proving otherwise.
All of this over what turned out to be nothing.
After the chaos, ICE officials offered the lawmakers a guided tour of the facility. The Democrats quietly admitted they found no signs of mistreatment. Their entire stunt, billed as a protest of conditions, collapsed under the weight of reality. They walked in demanding accountability and walked out with nothing but bad footage and a pending felony charge.
Yes, a felony.
Rep. McIver now faces a federal charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer, announced on May 20 by Acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have made it clear: This administration backs the rule of law. If you punch a cop, you get charged — even if you have a congressional pin on your lapel.
The left tried to frame the incident as “congressional oversight.” But oversight doesn’t mean storming gates or skipping security checks. ICE policy allows members of Congress to tour facilities — even unannounced. But it does not allow them to create security threats, bypass screening, or lead mobs onto federal property. Those procedures exist to protect staff, detainees, and lawmakers alike.
This was not oversight. It was lawlessness, pure and simple.
RELATED: Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card
Since President Trump restored control of the southern border, anti-border Democrats have become unhinged. No longer able to rely on waves of illegal crossings, they’ve begun imitating the tactics of the very criminal aliens they once defended — storming barriers, resisting authority, and attacking officers.
Now, that’s the legacy of the modern Democratic Party.
But legal consequences alone aren’t enough. Congress must act.
The House should censure all three lawmakers involved. Censure is not a punishment; it’s a statement of principle. And lawmakers have been censured for far less than leading an assault on federal agents. The House has a duty to uphold the integrity of its own body. That means sending a message: If you behave like a thug, you’ll be treated like one.
Our republic will not survive if America’s elected leaders are allowed to act like this. They not only committed crimes in public but then hid behind their Article I powers as a shield.
America’s founders warned about this.
In "Federalist 1," Alexander Hamilton posed a choice: Would Americans build a government based on “reflection and choice” — or surrender to “accident and force”? That question remains. If lawmakers now claim the right to break the laws they swore to uphold, we’re no longer living in a constitutional republic. We’re living under mob rule.
And if we let this slide — if Congress fails to hold its own accountable — then we’ll have no one to blame when the next mob storms another federal building under another political banner.
Democrats love to remind us: “No one is above the law.” Fine. Then prove it.
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently launched an unexpectedly harsh attack on Vice President JD Vance in her piece, “Vance Courts Trouble for Trump.” Strassel took issue with Vance’s criticism of the Supreme Court — specifically Chief Justice John Roberts — for refusing to rein in lower courts that continue to block the president’s immigration enforcement efforts. Vance had condemned what he called the “profoundly wrong sentiment” that the judiciary exists to “check the excesses of the executive.” Strassel responded by warning Vance to stop bad-mouthing “Trump’s greatest legacy and biggest asset — the Supreme Court.”
But why should Trump muzzle his vice president? Why should he sit quietly while the very judges he fought tooth and nail to confirm — despite often violent opposition from the Democrats — now obstruct his efforts to secure the border and deport criminal aliens?
Yes, the Wall Street Journal prefers to cast itself as a centrist paper taking aim at both sides. But that posture doesn’t match the moment we’re in.
If Vance’s criticisms count as “political malpractice,” then so did the actions of several American presidents. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, pushed through the Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802, which cut the number of Supreme Court justices and stripped them of their circuit-riding duties. Jefferson acted to dismantle the Federalist “Midnight Appointments” rushed through by outgoing President John Adams.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court claimed the power of judicial review — something not granted by Article III of the Constitution, by the way. Even then, Chief Justice John Marshall, a staunch Federalist, stopped short of challenging Jefferson directly. He didn’t try to compel the president to seat William Marbury, the would-be justice of the peace Adams had appointed in his final hours. Marshall asserted the court’s authority but avoided provoking a constitutional crisis.
Today’s activist judges show no such restraint. Unlike Marshall, they challenge the executive branch at every turn — and always in one direction. Vance’s criticism doesn’t reflect political malpractice. It’s an overdue reality check.
We’re now dealing with a runaway judiciary. Democrat-appointed federal district judges continue to block lawful presidential functions for openly partisan reasons. It’s unclear what authority these judges claim when they prohibit Trump from deporting even violent criminal aliens — many of whom Democrats welcomed in to inflate future voter rolls.
Vance’s expectation — that the Supreme Court, especially the justices Trump fought to confirm, would step in to curb the excesses of lower courts — makes perfect sense. Contrary to Strassel’s framing, Vance isn’t succumbing to some reckless “temptation” by criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts and his Republican colleagues. He’s stating the obvious: The court’s failure to rein in rogue judges undermines the president’s constitutional authority.
Strassel’s shrug-it-off mentality — “win some, lose some” — won’t cut it here. This fight matters. Trump cannot afford to lose.
Consider the hypocrisy. Presidents Clinton and Obama removed removed multitudes of illegal aliens when doing so served their political interests. Back then, Democrats still courted blue-collar workers and didn’t want unskilled illegal labor undercutting their base. They didn’t insist on due process or invite obstruction from the courts. They acted decisively.
RELATED: Trump must defy rogue judges or risk a failed presidency
Now, Strassel insists that Trump must accept lengthy hearings before removing even the most dangerous illegal aliens. That’s a formula for paralysis, not justice. Meanwhile, Democrat judges didn’t blink when the Biden administration opened the floodgates and allowed 10 to 20 million illegals to pour into the country. Trump has every right to expect that the Supreme Court — not least the justices he carried over the finish line — would finally restore order and let him carry out the mission he was elected to complete.
And enough with the double standard. The populist right gets lectured about decorum while the left ignores every rule with impunity. Democrats tried to pack the courts with ideologues, launched smear campaigns against nominees, and encouraged mobs to hound justices who ruled against them. Their media allies cheered them on and still call for removing conservative justices like Clarence Thomas any time the court hands down an opinion they dislike.
This isn’t a fair fight. The right is battling from behind, and Strassel’s call for restraint sounds almost unserious in this context. Yes, the Wall Street Journal prefers to cast itself as a centrist paper taking aim at both sides. But that posture doesn’t match the moment we’re in. Vance’s criticism didn’t go too far — it didn’t go far enough. His comments were mild, measured, and overdue. And if they rattled Strassel’s sensibilities, that says more about her perspective than his.
The left’s radical immigration agenda isn’t just dangerous, it’s hypocritical to the core. Some recent stories show just how radical leftists have become.
Let’s start with a story Blaze News reported this month that should infuriate every law-abiding American. A 42-year-old Venezuelan man — a known hitman tied to the brutal El Chamu gang and accused of four contract killings — was released into the United States after being caught crossing the Arizona border illegally in 2022. That’s right: arrested, deemed inadmissible, then set free.
Leftists' selective outrage reveals a disturbing truth: Their moral compass isn’t guided by justice or suffering. It’s guided by race and politics.
But it gets worse. The Biden administration granted this suspected murderer a work permit because, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t talking to Venezuela about taking back its criminals.
This man walked freely through our communities for nearly three years. He was finally arrested in February 2025 — not thanks to Biden but because President Donald Trump pressured Venezuela to resume accepting deportees. Immigration and Customs Enforcement picked him up in Grapevine, Texas, which happens to be in my backyard.
This is what happens when ideology overrides public safety. And it’s not an isolated case.
In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was just indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade ICE agents. Dugan reportedly got “visibly angry,” confronted federal agents in her courtroom, and then snuck the man — who was facing battery charges and had been deported once before — out a private exit for the jury.
This man is accused of punching one victim 30 times and attacking a woman who tried to intervene. Both victims were hospitalized. But Dugan, a sitting judge, allegedly aided his escape. That’s not just reckless — it’s criminal.
And yet, as usual, the left rushed to glorify her. Some are actually comparing Judge Dugan to Harriet Tubman. I wish I were joking! Leftist lawyer Jeffrey Mandell and his friends at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are likening her actions to a modern Underground Railroad — as if protecting a violent illegal alien compares to the rescue of fugitive slaves.
It’s beyond insulting. Harriet Tubman risked her life to free human beings from bondage. Judge Dugan risked the public’s safety to help a man accused of brutal violence. The left’s delusional moral equivalence here reveals exactly how twisted their priorities have become.
Yet, these priorities don’t apply if you don’t have the left’s approved skin color.
President Trump has made it a priority to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. That’s what this is really about. But instead of recognizing the distinction between lawful immigration and criminal activity, the left screams that Trump wants to “kick out all immigrants” and destroy the American dream.
Then, when the administration offers refugee status to 59 Afrikaners fleeing persecution in South Africa, the same people lose their minds.
These are white farmers and their families — victims of racial violence, land seizures, and targeted killings. The South African government passed a law in 2024 that allows for the confiscation of land without compensation. Political rallies routinely feature chants of “Kill the Boer,” referring to white farmers. A political party leader led one such rally in 2023 — and it wasn’t subtle. The crowd chanted, “Shoot to kill!” with bloodthirsty fervor.
Elon Musk, a South African native, called it open incitement to genocide. He’s right.
You’d think the self-appointed champions of compassion would welcome these families with open arms. But no — they’re furious. MSNBC analyst Richard Stengel dismissed their plight as “apartheid nostalgia.” U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it “global apartheid.” And the Episcopal Church, which has helped resettle more than 100,000 refugees and proudly aids illegal aliens, publicly refused to help these 59 families. It even ended a 40-year partnership with the federal government over it.
Why? Because these refugees are white.
In summary, the left welcomed a Venezuelan gang hitman into the country and handed him a work permit. Leftists are defending a judge who allegedly helped a violent offender escape ICE. They have no problem with 10 million illegal immigrants who flooded the country under President Biden. But when it comes to 59 South African farmers fleeing actual persecution?
They call it racism. They shut down programs. They rage on television.
This isn’t compassion. It’s a radical ideological agenda that says borders should be open to criminals — as long as they fit the narrative — and closed to those who don’t.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so morally bankrupt.
Leftists' selective outrage reveals a disturbing truth: Their moral compass isn’t guided by justice or suffering. It’s guided by race and politics. Some victims are celebrated. Others are ignored, depending entirely on their skin color and the usefulness of their story.
America is at a crossroads. We can continue this reckless, backward approach — or we can choose sanity, security, and fairness. President Trump is trying to restore order, but the radical left is fighting him every step of the way. And if this latest circus has shown us anything, it’s that leftists are just getting started.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.
Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.
Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.
And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.
The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.
But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.
And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.
Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.
America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.
If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.
The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?
This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.
The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.
So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.
This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.
Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.
The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.
RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said
President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.
That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.
Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.
It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Glenn Beck hosted Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California on "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday, where the two reached across the aisle to share some friendly disagreement, as well as some areas of common ground.
Khanna is one of few Democrats who refrains from acting as an ideologue and is willing to talk to those he will likely disagree with. Whether it's DOGE cuts or nuclear energy, Khanna has no problem breaking from his party's messaging.
"You've got a lot of followers, and look, at the end of the day, we're all Team America," Khanna told Beck. "We have differences of opinion, but this country has gone down a place of greater and greater division. And I do hope that the next generation, whether that's JD Vance, Rubio, myself, others, that we find some way of turning that around."
'They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.'
RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to 'get serious' about codifying DOGE cuts
Khanna's veneration for our country's founding makes him stand out within his party. Rather than condemning the roots and the history of our nation like some of his fellow Democrats, Khanna says he was raised to appreciate and value America.
"Our common, defining moment as a nation is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Declaration of Independence," Khanna said. "The biggest blessing I had, as a son of immigrants born in Philadelphia in our bicentenary, is I got to go to a school that taught American history and gave me a reverence for this country."
"My parents said, 'Ro, you won the lottery,'" Khanna added. "They didn't talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities."
Beck and Khanna had their fair share of respectful back-and-forth on subjects such as the 14th Amendment and immigration. One area of agreement Khanna pointed out was about the role of government with respect to asset forfeiture.
"Progressive Democrats like me and libertarians in the Freedom Caucus often align, saying that the government shouldn't come in and be able to take things from citizens without due process," Khanna said. "I believe that's the essence of who we are as a people, that yes, you have inalienable rights endowed by God, and that's who makes citizens."
RELATED: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson
Khanna also departed from his Democratic colleagues on the border, admitting that it was a weak point of their party platform.
"Someone said it's like a knock-knock joke," Khanna said. "You say, 'Knock, knock. Who's there?' The American people just want to know who's there, who's at the border, just like you would when coming to someone's house and making sure that people are vetted before they come in. That seems to be a very reasonable a place. We can agree."
"But I also believe that people here, now that they're here, if they're paying taxes, and you and I may disagree with this, if they're paying taxes, if they're working hard, and ... if they've been here that there should be some path to at least legalization," Khanna added.
Khanna insists that, above party, all people should be skeptical of their politicians. At the same time, Khanna said that the state of our divided politics is not due to a lack of skepticism, but rather to a lack of trust.
"Skepticism is healthy," Khanna said. "I get concerned if there were town halls and people weren't asking hard questions, weren't criticizing their politicians. But I think there's a difference between skepticism and what's happened now, which is just the loss of trust, the sense that people aren't in it for the country, aren't in it for the public good."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
On May 9, President Trump rolled out a self-deportation plan, formally dubbed “Project Homecoming,” that offers illegal immigrants a $1,000 stipend and a free flight to leave the country voluntarily.
The program also relegated the CBP One app to the ash heap of history. Altered by the Biden administration in 2023, the app’s expansion was pitched as an easy way to allow migrants in Central and Northern Mexico to schedule asylum appointments at U.S. border ports of entry. However, it was used as a loophole to usher in illegal immigrants, as it enabled “catch and release.”
But those days are over under President Donald Trump.
CBP One has been replaced with an app called CBP Home, which encourages and helps facilitate self-deportation. It allows illegal immigrants to sign up for self-deportation and notify the Department of Homeland Security of their departure, thus helping the agency keep track of who is leaving the country.
Another added benefit is that self-deporters may be eligible to apply for legal re-entry after a 10-year waiting period, provided they meet other immigration requirements. Those who are forced to leave, however, face much sterner consequences — an extended waiting period or even a lifetime ban.
Some critics of the program argue that it wastes taxpayer dollars, but they’re either part of the radical left that champions illegal immigration or they’re just not looking at the numbers.
Because the truth is it’s another stroke of Trump brilliance.
Mark Levin breaks it down.
“Project Homecoming” naysayers are claiming it’s “a waste of money,” but they’re wrong, Levin argues. “It’s cost-effective” because “going through the process of deporting people is much more expensive” — on average “about $17,000 a person.”
This self-deportation method, however, costs “about $4,000 or $4,500” per person and demands “less manpower,” meaning millions of taxpayer dollars will be saved in the long run.
And it’s working. Already thousands of illegal immigrants have self-deported under the “Project Homecoming” program, with many more thousands on the horizon.
To hear more of Levin’s analysis, watch the clip above.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Democrats and their media allies now argue that members of Congress hold a newly invented constitutional right to storm U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Their claim? Elected office grants them authority to resist arrest, trespass on federal property, and even assault law enforcement — all in the name of “oversight.”
This claim fails both legally and morally. The members involved should face prosecution for any crimes they committed, along with disciplinary action in the House of Representatives. For too long, the political class has treated immigration enforcement as a mere policy disagreement — as if wanting laws enforced and wanting them ignored were morally equivalent. In doing so, the left has normalized the historically abnormal: mass illegal immigration and the sabotage of our deportation systems. It’s time to treat these actions for what they are — criminal subversion of U.S. law.
No one gets to use 'oversight' as a pretext for criminal behavior.
Start with what happened last week in Newark, New Jersey. The instigators included New Jersey Democratic Reps. LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Rob Menendez Jr., along with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. Baraka was arrested for trespassing and defying multiple warnings to leave the premises. According to Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, body camera footage shows “members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body-slamming a female ICE officer.” DHS plans to release the video soon.
The Democrats have mounted two defenses. First, they claim victimhood — insisting they broke no laws. That argument will not survive video evidence.
Second, they assert an absolute right to enter ICE facilities without warning under their oversight authority. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, defended the stunt by denouncing ICE as “Trump’s stormtroopers” and promising “more oversight — and more unannounced visits.”
Thompson and others cite an appropriations law that says, “Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility ... for the purpose of conducting oversight.”
That phrase — “conducting oversight” — is the entire ballgame.
The fact is, oversight powers do not belong to individual members of Congress. They belong to the full House, delegated through formal committees led by majority-party chairmen. Minority members cannot issue subpoenas or demand access on their own. Without authorization from Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee had no legal basis to enter — let alone rush — a secure ICE facility.
ICE’s past policy of accommodating visits reflects executive discretion, not any congressional right. No one gets to use “oversight” as a pretext for criminal behavior. Even with proper authorization, no member of Congress holds the right to use force to conduct an inspection. This is a political argument masquerading as a legal one.
U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba has indicated she will proceed with prosecution. Her decision should rest solely on the facts — not the convenient legal fiction of “oversight amnesty.” As Bennie Thompson himself once said when chairing the January 6 select committee, “No one is above the law.”
Congress should not let this incident pass without consequences. While expulsion may prove unlikely due to the two-thirds vote requirement, the House can and should remove these members from their committee assignments. Rep. McIver currently sits on the Homeland Security Committee, where Secretary Kristi Noem is scheduled to testify this week. Let her watch from the hallway.
When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.
“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”
That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.
Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.
The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.
That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”
The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.
Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.
Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”
Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”
But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.
The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:
1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):
“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”
2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):
“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”
3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):
“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”
4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):
“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”
5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):
“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”
6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):
“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”
7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):
“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”
8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):
“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”
9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):
“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”
10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):
“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”
11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy(1950):
“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”
12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):
“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”
13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):
“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”
14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):
“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”
15. Galvan v. Press(1954):
“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”
16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):
“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”
17. Turner v. Williams (1904):
“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”
18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.(1893):
“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”
Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.
The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.
The media's narrative is telling: immigration law enforcement is only justified if an illegal alien is also a violent felon. Anything less is treated as though it is cruel or excessive.
www.theblaze.com