(Daily Signal)—I want to talk about illegal immigration. You know, this is the point in our history that we’ve never been before. We have not a porous border, but no border at all. We’ve had somewhere between 10 [million] to 12 million illegal entrants since the Biden administration began.

There is no real corpus of immigration law. It’s been destroyed. We’re at a historical period in our country, where 55 million people, never such a large number of people born outside the United States, that are residing here. In terms of percentages, almost 16% of the population was not born in the United States.

That’s an enormous task of assimilation, integration, [and] civic education, and we just haven’t been doing any of that. So, what are we going to do? Well, the first thing is: We need to stop “catch and release.” We need to make entrants, legal entrants, go back to their country if they’re applying for refugee status. You cannot come here, and then say you’re a refugee. You must ascertain that and prove that at the consulate overseas.

We’ve got to finish the walls. It’s a 2,000-mile border, and we’ve never quite been able to continue. We’ve got a wall or fence or somehow obstruct the entire 2,000-mile border. That will save manpower. It will save time and cost, and it will have an enormous deterrent effect.

The next couple of things are a little bit trickier. I think that whatever your status is, if you are sending money back to a foreign country from the United States that is singled out as a source of illegal immigration—Mexico, Latin America, for example—then the United States government should put a 10% to 20% or 30% tax on all the remittances.

That would earn us up to maybe somewhere around $20 billion. And that would also deter Mexico, to take one example, that depends on remittances as its largest source of foreign exchange—greater than tourism, greater than its oil revenues. And yet, so often the American taxpayer—state, local, federal—through generous subsidies, free up the cash so that the illegal resident can send it back for social necessities that the Mexican government itself is responsible for, so we’re subsidizing everybody but ourselves.

I think it’s very important that we start looking at the countries that are the source of illegal immigration in terms of security. A Sudan, a Syria, terrorist countries that support, countries that support terrorism like Venezuela, the Middle East, especially Iran. Russia, as well.

Why would we let them send people here that we have no background checks, have not adjudicated their status? So, we should have a travel ban, an immediate deportation, and immediate consequences for the mother country that knowingly sends these people here. And that, too, would be a deterrent.

We’ve got to also look at anchor babies.

The 14th Amendment didn’t really ever say, as sometimes [is] alleged, that if you’re born in the United States, then you’re an automatic citizen. It says if you’re born in the United States, and not subject to the laws of another country. All the people coming, in some sense, are subject to the laws of another country.

So, we have to redefine that, either through legislation or renewed attempts in the courts.

Europe, the Left always looks for guidance—17 [European] countries don’t even allow it. And the other 13 or 14 have restrictions that qualify it. So, we’re the only country in the world that gives unqualified citizenship to people who happen to be born here and then anchor an entire family.

Why not also put a 10-, 20-year ban on people who have been detained here illegally and stop them from applying for a green card or legal readmissions for 20 years? That would be a very powerful deterrent.

In other words, we would announce sometime in February and say, “We want all of you to know, all 12 million who came here during the Biden administration, to take the first iteration of cohort, you have 30 days to go back. If you do not go back to your country, and you are detained, arrested here in the United States, you will be deported, but you will not be given any chance to get a green card for 10 to 20 years,” depending on how the courts or legislation adjudicates it.

And finally, I think it’s time to look at how we deport people. The first 500,000 who have committed a crime, it will be no problem. There’s unanimous consent. They should be deported immediately. They’re wreaking havoc on the American population.

The next iteration, the 1.5 [million], 1.7 million people who have already gone through the system, they’ve been adjudicated, they failed to show up for the court hearings. Or they left detention when they were facing deportation.

Those would be the next group that would face deportation. The third group of people, as I said earlier, from terrorist countries or terrorist-supporting countries, no one is going to sympathize with their residents here.

The fourth group is a little trickier, but I think we could pretty easily find hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of able-bodied residents who are on public assistance and who have not been here five years. If you haven’t been here five years, you came during the Biden open-borders era.

You were on welfare of some sort, and you’re able to work. You should go back home. That would leave a large group of people who have been here five years. They’ve never committed a crime. They’re not on public assistance. And they want to get a green card, not citizenship, a green card.

I think if we had won public opinion and support by deporting the most egregious offenders, say 10 [million] to 12 million, then I think in a bipartisan fashion, we could work out a system for the law-abiding, the productive, and the long-residing American residents and allow them to pay a fine to recapture legality and stay in the United States.

It’s going to be a tough road to restore border security, because the prior administration didn’t believe in it. But I think now that the White House, the Senate, and the House are in Republican hands, it’s absolutely possible. It can be done rather quickly.

Thank you very much. I’m Victor Hanson for The Daily Signal. Please subscribe to The Daily Signal for our next episode.

What Is the Laken and Riley Act?

HR29 permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-citizens arrested—though not necessarily convicted—for crimes like burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. It also provides states the right to sue the federal government if states like California refuse to enforce existing immigration laws. This new authority adds muscle to federal immigration enforcement by enabling DHS to act on arrests without awaiting convictions.

Supporters see this as an essential step to ensure the safety of American citizens. Critics, however, have raised constitutional concerns, particularly regarding due process. Arrests, rather than convictions, now serve as grounds for detaining individuals. Opponents argue this distinction risks compromising constitutional protections.

Partisan Divide Over the Bill

Despite its passage in the House, the voting breakdown showed a clear partisan split. While all House Republicans supported it, 159 Democrats voted against the measure. However, 48 Democrats joined in favor—indicating some bipartisan agreement on the need for stricter immigration enforcement.

Critics argue that the bill’s provisions undermine due process by focusing on arrests instead of proven guilt. However, advocates highlight the urgency of removing potentially dangerous individuals before further harm occurs. This tug-of-war emphasizes the ongoing national debate over immigration and public safety.

Implications for the Senate

Next, the Laken and Riley Act moves to the Senate, where another heated debate is expected. Given the growing frustration among Americans over public safety concerns, many observers believe it will pass. Senators opposing the act could face political consequences, as many voters demand stricter measures to address immigration and crime.

If it clears the Senate, the bill will head to President Trump, who has indicated he’ll sign it. This would mark a significant victory for advocates of tougher immigration enforcement and give the DHS broader authority to detain and deport individuals deemed dangerous.

Comparison to Kate’s Law

The Laken and Riley Act is substantial, but it’s not as far-reaching as Kate’s Law—a measure previously introduced by Bill O’Reilly. Under Kate’s Law, foreign nationals convicted of a crime, deported, and later re-entering the U.S. would face a mandatory 10-year prison sentence. Kate’s Law targets individuals who repeatedly flout U.S. immigration laws, focusing on convicted criminals rather than arrests.

The Laken and Riley Act, on the other hand, gives DHS the power to act earlier in the legal process. This distinction makes it a useful tool for immigration enforcement but invites criticism over its focus on arrests rather than proven guilt.

Broader Public Impact

The passage of this bill reflects growing public frustration with crime and immigration issues. Many Americans demand stronger tools to protect their communities. By detaining individuals arrested for certain crimes, DHS can act quickly to remove those who may pose a danger.

The opposition to the bill highlights ongoing concerns about balancing enforcement and constitutional rights. Some fear it sets a precedent for action without sufficient evidence, raising questions about fairness in the legal system.

Conclusion

The Laken and Riley Act represents a bold step in addressing immigration enforcement and public safety. While its supporters argue it ensures swift action against potential threats, critics warn of potential constitutional challenges. With its passage in the House, the spotlight now shifts to the Senate, where its fate will be determined.

As Americans remain divided over the balance between security and civil liberties, this legislation underscores the broader national debate over how to handle immigration effectively while upholding legal protections. One thing is clear: the demand for action on these issues will only grow in the months ahead.

Video summary generated with the assistance of AI.

Perhaps The New Yorker magazine is more comfortable with local police officials who defy such laws because their jurisdiction is in sanctuary cities. However, when faced with the reality that many sheriffs around the nation are more than willing to comply with federal law in order to protect their citizens, the New Yorker finds this problematic as you can see in their Thursday story by Jessica Pishko, “How Sheriffs Might Power Trump’s Deportation Machine.”

Pishko finds it highly problematic that local sheriffs are willing to cooperate with the deportation policies of incoming President Donald Trump and his designated no-nonsense “Border Czar” Tom Homan.

Both Trump and Homan have indicated that local law enforcement would be involved in carrying out the mass-deportation plan. Ryan Zinke, a Republican representative for Montana, who served as Trump’s first Secretary of the Interior, declared, “The sheriffs know the bad characters.” And there’s an advantage to the county sheriff in particular: nearly all of them are elected officers who are not beholden to other officials, even blue-state governors, many of whom have shown a willingness to work with Trump anyway.

Because immigration is in the realm of federal law, the role of local law enforcement in policing the border has historically been limited. But, in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which expanded the criminal charges for which a person could be subject to deportation. As immigration became linked to criminal law, local law enforcement—especially county sheriffs, who enjoy relative autonomy free from direct oversight and have jurisdiction over much larger areas than, say, urban police departments—began to play a critical role in the deportation machine. In counties along the U.S. border, sheriffs receive funding, through a FEMA grant program called Operation Stonegarden, to purchase equipment such as snowmobiles and squad cars for use in conjunction with Border Patrol.

Ironic that it was a Democrat president who made it easier for sheriff’s to aid in the deportation of those in the USA illegally. Of course, that was an era before Democrats encouraged open border policies to the extent of defying federal immigration law via sanctuary cities.

Because most sheriffs are elected, governors or attorneys general have little power over them. They are excluded from the Hatch Act, which bars some government employees from engaging in political activity while on the job, and largely permitted to campaign in uniform. They can make decisions about department policy without seeking approval and with low risk of public opprobrium. They often voice political opinions; before the Presidential election, one Ohio sheriff went so far as to threaten residents who publicly supported Kamala Harris. In a 2021 fund-raising letter, the Claremont Institute—a conservative think tank that the Times has called a “nerve center of the American right,” and a part of the advisory board for Project 2025—asserted that sheriffs have “jurisdictional latitude.” In the institute’s view, this “places them on the front lines of the defense of civilization.”

For that reason, Claremont—alongside other anti-immigration groups, such as FAIR, whose new “law enforcement advisor” is Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, a Homan collaborator—has turned its focus to recruiting and training sheriffs to help execute its agenda. In 2021, it created an annual weeklong retreat called the Sheriffs Fellowship, which received funding from Betsy DeVos, “to study and discuss the political-philosophical, institutional, and historical arc leading from the American Founding to today’s militant progressivism and multiculturalism,” according to a promotional brochure sent to potential applicants.

Notice that conflation of “anti-immigration” with enforcing immigration law by Pishko? We saw what you did there. Oh, and nice touch by nefariously describing Sheriff Mark Lamb as a “Homan collaborator.” You can almost read swastikas between the lines.

Trump made mass deportation of illegal immigrants a key part of his campaign to win a second term as almost 11 million people flooded into the country illegally since 2021.

The president-elect’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has signaled a new era of federal, state, and local cooperation when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.

Homan, the former acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), indicated he will first target those who have criminal convictions or are wanted for crimes.

“The nation wants a safe country. We’ve had enough crime in this country,” Homan said during a stop at the Texas border in November.

Sheriffs in the nation’s 3,100 counties could play an essential role in helping ICE to identify and detain illegal immigrants, said Sam Bushman, CEO of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a conservative organization that opposes “unconstitutional” government overreach.

As chief law enforcement officers in their counties, elected sheriffs have more latitude than appointed police chiefs. They have authority over criminal investigations, serving warrants, managing county jails, and providing court security within the county.

Bushman foresees cooperation between willing county, state, and federal authorities to deport illegal immigrants, possibly through the creation of a new coordination agency or command center.

“I think that we could create an organization that communicates with this trifecta, and that would be very effective,” he said.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and founder of CSPOA, has been in contact with Homan and believes sheriffs will be an integral part of border security and deportation efforts because of their unique understanding of their jurisdictions.

“Who in this country knows their counties better than the sheriff?” he asked.

Because of their local knowledge, sheriffs are in a unique position to help make deportation safer and easier, Mack told The Epoch Times.

Regardless of politics, sheriffs must protect their constituents from crime and criminals, both tied to illegal immigration in terms of drug and human smuggling along with violent gang activity, he said.

Policy experts have suggested that the federal government could deputize local law enforcement under its 287(g) program to aid ICE because the agency likely doesn’t have the manpower to do so alone.

The 287(g) program currently provides a framework of cooperation wherein local jails work with ICE to identify illegal immigrants as they are booked for a crime. ICE and designated local law enforcement can then hold that inmate for up to an additional 48 hours so that ICE can take custody of the inmate.

Homan has touted the program as a safe deportation pipeline, as ICE officers can pick up deportees within the safety of a jail setting, rather than having to organize an operation out in the community.

ICE has about 20,000 employees, including support personnel. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has 6,100 deportation officers and more than 750 enforcement removal assistants who are assigned to 24 field offices, according to an agency website.

Former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol Rodney Scott, who served under both Trump and Biden, said in a previous interview with The Epoch Times that Trump could expand the 287(g) program to help with deportations, as he did during his first term.

Scott was recently nominated by Trump to serve as the incoming Customs and Border Protection commissioner.

He said the 287(g) program also allows the creation of a task force and hybrid model that would enable local and state law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants.

In the blue state of Maryland, Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, a longtime Republican, recalls when the task force model was operational in 2008.

“We had deputies on the street that could work at the direction of ICE and with ICE to take into custody people who had deportation warrants and so forth,” Jenkins told The Epoch Times.

Reinstating the task force model would help expedite the deportation of criminals in the country illegally, he said.

The Trump administration could also send representatives to local sheriff departments to recruit them to join the program, he said.

“ICE can’t do it alone, or certainly not enough,” Jenkins said. “We need to be a force multiplier for them.”

Tying federal grant money to sheriff department cooperation with ICE would likely convince many to come on board, he said.

Even if sheriffs don’t participate in arresting illegal immigrants, they could help in other ways, such as providing transportation and logistical support and workspace for ICE, he said.

Jenkins said Frederick County’s jail-based detainer program has been successful, resulting in the removal of about 2,000 illegal immigrant criminals in the county.

Under the 287(g) program, sheriff’s office employees are trained to file a detainer and prepare the paperwork under the supervision of ICE in an effort to streamline the process, he said.

San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez, who serves in the nation’s fifth most populous county, has vowed to defy a new county policy to limit cooperation with federal deportation efforts.

Earlier this month, San Diego County supervisors voted to ban its sheriff department from working with ICE on the federal agency’s enforcement of civil immigration laws, including those that allow for deportations.

California law generally prohibits cooperation but makes exceptions for those convicted of certain violent crimes.

Martinez, whose office is nonpartisan but considers herself a Democrat, said she wouldn’t honor the new policy and that the county government doesn’t oversee her office.

“Current state law strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust,” Martinez said.

In the blue state of Michigan, Barry County Sheriff Dar Lief said it is important to remove violent criminals from the streets.

“I’m on board with that,” he told The Epoch Times.

Lief echoed the belief of Trump and his surrogates during the presidential campaign that many of the illegal immigrants coming into the country were from prison systems or asylums.

“Nonetheless, our governor here asked residents to take in illegal immigrants,” he said. “Who are you opening up your house to?”

Lief said he warned the citizens of Barry County against taking in illegal immigrants, which Gov. Gretchen Whitmer called “new Americans,” because there was no guarantee they were properly vetted.

Not all blue states or city leaders are against Trump’s deportation plan to remove criminal illegal immigrants.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams met with Homan recently to discuss deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes in the Democrat-run city.

“We will not be a safe haven for those who commit violent acts. We don’t do it for those who are citizens, and we’re not going to do it for those who are undocumented,” Adams said during a press conference.

Adams said law-abiding illegal immigrants are welcome in the city. Still, it was a “terrible mistake” to allow those in the country unlawfully to commit violent crimes repeatedly, especially those associated with gangs.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in November during a press conference that she supports “legal” immigrants, including asylum-seekers, but not criminals here illegally or those committing crimes.

“Someone breaks the law—I‘ll be the first one to call up ICE and say, ’Get them out of here,’” she said.

Homan said blue city officials don’t have to cooperate, but he has repeatedly warned them not to stand in his way.

Homan recently announced he would begin deportations in Chicago, criticizing Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker for resisting the removal of criminal immigrants.

“If he impedes us, if he knowingly harbors and conceals an illegal alien, I will prosecute him,” Homan said of the Chicago mayor.

Texas Model

Homan said during a visit to the Texas border town of Eagle Pass before Thanksgiving that the state’s operation to stop illegal immigration could become a national model.

He praised Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s Operation Lone Star, a $10-billion border mission to string razor wire along the border, place buoy barriers in the Rio Grande, help build a border wall, and bus illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities.

The operation consists of Department of Public Safety law enforcement and Texas National Guard members.

The program also focuses on arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing on private ranchland along the border—offering a unique roadmap for how counties could help deport illegal immigrants.

Brent Smith, the county attorney for Kinney County, has plenty of experience dealing with illegal immigrants in his county, which sits along the Texas–Mexico border.

Kinney County has prosecuted the largest number of illegal immigrants for trespass and related misdemeanors under Operation Lone Star.

In 2019 and 2020, the small, rural county dealt with just 254 and 132 misdemeanor cases, respectively, mostly involving U.S. citizens.

The U.S. citizen caseload has remained somewhat constant, but because of illegal immigration, the total number of misdemeanor cases shot up to 6,799 in 2022 and 5,826 in 2023, according to numbers obtained from the county attorney’s office.

Smith told The Epoch Times that trespassing arrests in Kinney County under Operation Lone Star offered valuable lessons on how to run a border security initiative.

At first, funding went to provide law enforcement, but Smith said it became clear that there needed to be more funding for the entire county justice system for prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, and judges to process illegal immigrants charged with trespassing.

“What I foresee is some very strong 287(g) agreements being entered into, and state and local law enforcement actually becoming an arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration enforcement,” he said.

He said that after undergoing a DHS training program, local officers are considered immigration officers under the supervision of an ICE agent.

He pointed to former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was known for implementing the 287(g) task force successfully to arrest illegal immigrants in Arizona but came under fire during the Obama administration.

Maricopa County’s 287(g) program was canceled in 2011 after a Department of Justice investigation accused the sheriff of racial profiling.

In 2012, the Obama administration discontinued the task force and hybrid models of the program altogether.

Trump expanded the program in his first term to 150 agreements with local law enforcement and broadened the removal criteria to include misdemeanors.

Under the Biden administration, new 287(g) agreements were paused.

Smith said that once Trump ends the Biden administration’s catch-and-release policy, there will be more “gotaways,” which will require a shift in resources to focus on apprehension instead of processing those claiming asylum.

Money—or the lack of it—will be an essential tool in deportation and border security, he said.

On the state level, he has been discussing a bill with Texas lawmakers that would require sheriffs to apply for 287(g) agreements before receiving state grant funding.

The same principle could be applied to federal grant money for cities such as Chicago, he said.

“How much is your political leanings worth to you? Is it worth $1,000, or $100,000, or $2 million?” he said. “We’re going to find out.”

Mass Deportations: A National Security Priority

According to Homan, mass deportations are a cornerstone of the administration’s immigration strategy. He emphasized that the issue transcends financial considerations, framing it as a matter of national security. The administration aims to ensure strict enforcement of immigration laws, including apprehending illegal aliens in locations previously deemed off-limits such as hospitals and other sensitive areas.

Homan explained that while current policies restrict immigration enforcement in such spaces, exceptions exist in cases involving significant public safety threats or national security issues. These exceptions might become the foundation for expanding enforcement efforts. The administration is actively evaluating ways to address these limits and proceed within the bounds of the law.

Addressing Sanctuary Policies: A Key Roadblock

Sanctuary jurisdictions present an obvious obstacle in the administration’s deportation goals. Currently, 13 states across the United States operate under sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Homan expressed his belief that these policies inadvertently invite more arrests by providing havens for illegal aliens.

His message was firm: if sanctuary policies force agents to look for specific individuals, they may apprehend others during their operations. The result, according to Homan, is an increase in arrests. He stressed that these actions aren’t intended as threats but reflect the natural outcome of enforcing immigration laws in areas unwilling to cooperate.

Economic Pressure on Sanctuary Cities

The administration plans to counter sanctuary jurisdictions using economic measures. Homan revealed that cities refusing to align with federal guidelines could face financial repercussions, including cuts to federal funding. America First Legal, a conservative legal organization, has already notified over 150 elected officials in sanctuary jurisdictions about potential legal consequences for obstructing federal law enforcement or harboring illegal aliens.

Homan made it clear that violators—whether they’re public officials or private individuals—will face prosecution if laws are broken. This tough stance is aimed at holding those who interfere with federal enforcement accountable while ensuring the law is upheld.

Tensions Along the Border

San Diego County’s recent decision to become the first sanctuary county in the U.S. highlights the growing divide. While some local leaders have vowed to resist federal actions, others have hesitated to actively block them. Homan shared concerns from southern border sheriffs who feel unprepared to provide additional support for the administration’s plans. Stretching limited resources further seems impractical, given how long these agencies have operated under strain.

The reality is clear—while some counties and sheriffs align with the administration’s priorities, resource constraints could hinder full participation in these efforts.

Looking Ahead

The Trump administration’s immigration strategy sets the stage for a legal and political standoff between federal authorities and sanctuary cities. Homan’s priorities suggest a relentless pursuit of enforcing immigration laws while addressing challenges posed by sanctuary policies, limited resources, and public opposition.

What remains uncertain is how these plans will play out on the ground. Will financial pressure force sanctuary cities to comply, or will legal battles stall these efforts? As the new administration advances its immigration agenda, the coming months will be pivotal in shaping the nation’s approach to enforcement and policy.

Article generated with the assistance of AI.

Earlier in December, the Democrat-controlled San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to expand on a California sanctuary policy that already limits local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The county-wide ordinance now prohibits law enforcement from notifying ICE agents, even in cases when a foreign national has committed severe crimes such as as rape, child abuse, burglary, gang violence or other heinous acts.

Homan, who has been tasked with fulfilling President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of mass apprehensions and deportations of illegal migrants across the United States, blasted the lawmakers involved with the vote and said they can simply expect more ICE agents in their neighborhoods as a result.

“Rather than arresting an illegal alien criminal in the safety and security of a county jail where we know he doesn’t have weapons, they’re forcing ICE officers into the streets, into neighborhoods to find these people,” Homan said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s ridiculous.”

“[Sanctuary laws] make it more difficult, but it doesn’t mean we’re not going to do it,” Homan said. “It just means we’ll have more agents in San Diego because rather than one guy arresting a guy in a jail — we have to send a whole team to safely arrest a guy, so they can expect a lot more agents in that jurisdiction.”

In her proposal for the policy change, Democrat Supervisor Nora Vargas referred to the provision within California law that made exceptions for foreign nationals with serious criminal histories as a “loophole” that “fell short of protecting all residents.” The proposal passed by a vote of 3-1, with GOP Supervisor Jim Desmond being the lone vote against it.

The resolution calls on San Diego County to no longer allow ICE agents use of county facilities for any purposes, no longer respond to ICE inquiries, or otherwise assist in any civil immigration enforcement matter.

In a scathing public statement after its passage, Desmond referred to the policy as a “super” sanctuary law that serves to protect illegal migrant criminals.

“This reckless measure not only goes far beyond California’s already extreme Sanctuary State laws but actively endangers our communities by shielding illegal immigrant criminals from deportation. Consider this: under this policy, law enforcement is prohibited from notifying ICE about individuals, in custody, who have committed violent and heinous crimes, including: Rape and stalking, Assault and battery, Burglary, Child abuse and more,” Desmond said in a statement provided to the DCNF earlier in December.

During an interview in December, former Democrat California Gov. Jerry Brown — who signed SB 54 into law in 2017, which prohibits some cooperation between ICE and local authorities — said he believes some cities across the state have now gone “way, way beyond” what he put on the books, and noted that his statewide policy made exceptions for migrants convicted of violent crimes.

The vote in San Diego County was just one of several moves by Democrat-controlled jurisdictions to tighten sanctuary policy in the wake of Trump’s election victory. Lawmakers in Los Angeles, Boston, Arlington County, Virginia and elsewhere have all voted to either make their sanctuary laws official or reaffirm what laws they already had in the books, and other Democrat mayors have voiced public opposition to Trump’s pledges of a hardline immigration enforcement agenda.

These efforts to refuse cooperation could prove to be problematic for the Trump administration’s plans for mass enforcement actions. The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for stricter immigration laws, estimates that are nearly eight million illegal migrants currently live within sanctuary jurisdictions.

Homan expressed confusion at politicians who wouldn’t rather have heinous criminals handed over to ICE, rendering them a threat no longer to their constituents.

“I’ve been clear and President Trump’s been clear, we’re going to concentrate on public safety threats right out of the gate,” Homan said to the DCNF. “What elected official doesn’t want public safety threats removed from their community?”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Homan said, “[Y]ou think about it, this illegal alien that burned this young lady alive, he probably had a free hotel room, three squares a day, … gets free medical attention, … but this young homeless person, she [doesn’t] have anything and she died a horrendous death.”

He continued, “So, I want Hochul, I want the mayor of Chicago, the governor, all these sanctuary cities that are speaking out against President Trump and myself running this deportation operation, I want you to watch that video and know how this young lady suffered, … I want you to listen to the Laken Riley tape…how she fought for her life, that young lady didn’t want to die. I want you to realize how these people died, and tell me you still support sanctuary cities, tell me that you don’t want to help me remove public safety threats from the community.”

He released millions of illegal aliens at the border, paroled over a million more using programs Congress never authorized, and allowed at least 2 million more to evade the Border Patrol.

That resulted in the fastest illegal influx in U.S. history. The foreign-born population now exceeds the previous high from the 1890s—over 15%.

The legacy media did its best to hide all this, habitually “gaslighting” their audience—telling many smaller lies in the hopes that eventually people will believe one big lie.

The big lie Biden and his media allies told America is that open borders bring unmitigated good. To prepare the public to swallow this, they told many little lies.

1. They Pretended Legal and Illegal Immigration Are the Same

They aren’t. Congress authorized around 850,000 legal immigrants a year, based on family relationships and labor needs. The millions Biden has paroled, released, or given “temporary” protection to under dubious programs are outside what Congress intended. And unless Congress changes it, the law should be upheld.

2. They Said Illegal Aliens Commit Fewer Crimes Than Americans

The methodology of studies claiming this is suspect, but we know some illegal aliens do commit additional crimes, every one of which is preventable if laws are enforced. One report estimates that “crime by illegal aliens … cost the country some $166.5 billion.” But the cost in victims assaulted or murdered, and a declining sense of public safety, is incalculable.

3. They Told You That All Immigrants Boost the Economy

Which ones? Those under 30 with doctorates in rocket science do. But those without a high school degree, skills, or English don’t. Almost 60% of families headed by an illegal immigrant are on a federal welfare program. Illegal aliens are less educated than U.S. citizens. Over their lifetimes, most of those let in under Biden’s border boom will be a fiscal burden to the country, not a benefit.

4. They Told You Illegal Immigrants Cost Nothing

According to one congressional estimate, illegal immigrants cost over $150 billion a year. To take but one example, the Biden administration wrote a rule forcing Americans to pay for health insurance for people here illegally. “Congress never intended that illegal aliens should receive Obamacare benefits,” said Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, after a federal court overturned Biden’s rule this week.

5. They Told You It Was Inevitable

While the Biden administration undid every effective policy of previous eras, it asked you to believe that mass illegal migration wasn’t its fault. But it was not earthquakes, wars, or feckless governments that attracted the world’s economic migrants to our borders. This week, even The New York Times admitted: “The Biden administration’s policy appears to have been the biggest factor.”

Some of us have been saying that for years. But the legacy media only turned the lights back up when their favorite team lost an election.

The people elected Donald Trump to fix Biden’s mistake. How? The recipe is clear, and with Tom Homan as border czar, the cook is in the kitchen.

1. Reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols

Also known as “Remain in Mexico,” this policy discourages fraudulent asylum claims by keeping applicants outside the U.S. until their claims are decided. We also need to conclude Asylum Cooperative Agreements with every possible country, to deal with refugee claimants closest to their homes.

2. Turn Off the Cash Spigot

Mass movement of people from the Third World to the First is facilitated by the U.N. and globalist elites—elected and unelected. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to bring inadmissible aliens to and into the U.S. We can reverse the polarity of this flow by defunding nongovernmental organizations that facilitate the process and by funding law enforcement.

3. Seal the Border

Authorize Border Patrol to remove or detain illegal entrants, not process and release them. Re-activate lights, sensors, and other measures Biden’s Department of Homeland Security sidelined. Close gaps in the border wall. Barriers don’t stop everyone, but they channel illegal crossing to ports of entry. And, given that both sides of the wall are generally in the United States, we can prosecute anyone cutting or climbing it.

4. Enforce Laws in the US Interior

The Biden administration hamstrung Immigration and Customs Enforcement with prohibitions, arbitrary limits, and paperwork. Biden’s dereliction of duty has created a huge backlog in enforcement, including deportations, that needs a major effort to reduce.

5. Get States on Board

States and cities need to hand over illegal aliens in their custody to federal authorities when asked. They need to stop giving out jobs, driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, welfare, and other benefits to people here illegally.

Biden broke the border. America saw the results and voted accordingly. It’s time to restore the rule of law, the value of American citizenship, and legal immigration that puts Americans first.

(Natural News)—President-elect Donald Trump has revealed his picks for the top roles at two key immigration enforcement agencies, attesting to his choices’ track records in immigration policy.

The real estate mogul announced his nominations on Truth Social. Rodney Scott, a veteran with nearly three decades in the U.S. Border Patrol, has been chosen to lead Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Meanwhile, Caleb Vitello – currently assistant director at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement‘s (ICE) Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs – will head the agency itself.

“Caleb’s exceptional leadership, extensive experience, and commitment to ICE’s mission make him an excellent choice to implement my efforts to enhance the safety and security of American communities who have been victimized by illegal alien crime,” Trump wrote of Vitello.

He also lauded Scott for his almost 30 years of service in the Border Patrol, “building vast experience and knowledge in law enforcement and border security.” The president-elect continued: “Rodney served as the 24th chief of the U.S. Border Patrol – where he implemented Remain in Mexico, Title 42 [and] Safe Third Agreements – and achieved record low levels of illegal immigration.”

A strong team for BORDER SECURITY

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to bolster the country’s immigration enforcement by completing the border wall, reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy and conducting the “largest deportation program in American history.” He also pledged end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal migrants in the United States. (Related: Trump seeks to end BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP when he returns to the White House next month.)

To achieve these goals, Trump appointed former Acting ICE Director Tom Homan as border czar. Homan’s position, which does not require Senate confirmation, grants him significant authority over the second Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. Longtime Trump aide and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller will serve as White House deputy chief of staff for policy, further signaling the administration’s intent to pursue aggressive immigration measures.

Meanwhile, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has been nominated to lead the Department of Homeland Security. The department oversees ICE, CBP and other critical immigration agencies. Her leadership, coupled with Vitello and Scott’s appointments, underscores Trump’s commitment to his hardline immigration agenda.

As Trump prepares to take office, his administration’s focus on these issues is expected to spark significant debate in Congress and beyond. The nominations set the stage for an ambitious overhaul of U.S. immigration enforcement under Trump’s leadership, prioritizing border security and immigration reform as he promised during his run for the presidency.

Watch this video from Fox News about President-elect Trump’s picks for his “border security dream team.” This video is from the TrendingNews channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Homan reveals Trump plans for investigating foreign nations, NGOs fueling border crisis.
• U.S. farm industry groups urge Trump to exempt illegal immigrant agricultural workers from mass deportation orders.
• Trump’s incoming “border czar” claims the Biden administration “has blood on their hands” for the murder of Laken Riley.
• Trump confirms a national emergency is coming so he can carry out mass deportations with the help of the U.S. military.
• Time for state governors and legislators to be carted-off in federal hand cuffs for aiding and abetting ILLEGAL immigration.

Sources include:

• YourNews.com
• TruthSocial.com 1
• TruthSocial.com 2
• Brighteon.com

The book Overrun is a deep dive into how the Biden administration created an illegal migration crisis in only four years.

In recent days I have had time enough to think deeply about what generated this huge mess in a country that had it all. I have a good idea of the whole picture, which I want to share here.

Weaponized migration

However, in recent years, there has been a growing recognition that migration can also be deliberately engineered as a tool of political coercion and destabilization.

Under certain contexts, migration can be weaponized, functioning as a form of “slow violence” that inflicts widespread suffering and undermines the stability of states and societies.

The concept of migration as a weapon of mass destruction may seem hyperbolic, but it is grounded in a growing body of evidence. The infiltration of criminal groups in the migration wave is one of the most blatant pieces of evidence.

By systematically targeting civilian populations, undermining state institutions, and provoking social unrest, actors can exploit migration to achieve a spectrum of strategic objectives. These objectives may include territorial expansion, regime change, or distracting attention from domestic problems.

This has been a behavioral pattern, and the free media and social networks continuously unmask it.

We have in recent history two perfect examples: the displacement of Venezuelan migrants, resulting in turmoil in the streets under the government of President Duque (a known enemy of the Venezuelan regime) in 2017-2018. This chaos disappeared once the guerrilla chief Petro and his gang took over the Presidency.

The same pattern was generated in Chile, with such unrest in the streets never seen in years, only to produce problems in the government of President Piñera (compared by the Venezuelan regime with Pinochet, a known dictator). Once again, as President Boric assumed office, all the turmoil ceased, and there has not been a serious demonstration ever since.

Historically, forced migration has been used also as a tool for ethnic cleansing. In the case of the most recent regimes, the rogue States use it to expel opposition and enemies. The Colombian guerrilla expelled and displaced almost 5 million people only to use their territory as a sanctuary. The leftist ideology once exhibited by these groups lost all the “coating” they had. Their real purpose of existing is to serve as guardians of the humungous drug production business and the corresponding trafficking routes.

Which can be considered an act of war.

Demographic changes

The expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II, the displacement of Palestinians in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar are all examples of how migration has been used to engineer demographic change and consolidate power.

Sadly, the weaponization of migration has evolved in recent years, with new technologies and globalization facilitating more sophisticated forms of population displacement. It is even considered an “asymmetric” kind of weapon. This term means that smaller and weaker parts can use it against the strong opponents and generate in their territory a massive disruption of normality for a prolonged time.

The Syrian civil war provides a particularly striking example of how migration can be used as a weapon of mass destruction. The Assad regime, with the support of Russia, has employed a range of tactics, including indiscriminate bombing, siege warfare, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure, to force millions of Syrians to flee their homes. This mass displacement has not only created a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions but has also had a destabilizing effect on neighboring countries and Europe.

The weaponization of migration is often facilitated by the failure of states to protect their favorite groups of popular revolts, for instance, (Venezuela’s case) with the complicity of external actors (Turkey, Russia, Iran). It’s not the same controlling a population of 35 million instead of one of 28MM.

Weak or failing states are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, as their inability to provide basic services and security can create conditions that are ripe for mass displacement. Moreover, external actors, such as great powers and regional rivals, may support or even instigate conflict to create refugee flows that can be used as leverage.

Managing the influx

The receiving states need to dedicate resources, time, and money to solve problems that they shouldn’t have in the first place.

Just like Venezuelans experienced first-hand, the international community has been slow to respond to the threat posed by the weaponization of migration. While numerous international legal instruments protect refugees and internally displaced persons, these instruments have often proven inadequate in the face of large-scale displacement crises.

Moreover, the global governance system has been unable to develop effective mechanisms for preventing and responding to the deliberate engineering of migration.

In the article that inspired this entry, Dr. Greenhill explains that both migration and refugee flows are the most significant causes of serious armed conflicts in the post-Cold War period.

It is important to remember that despotic regimes have mostly used forced migration: Cuba in the 1965 and 1994 waves and the most famous “shipping” of Mariel refugees in 1980, including all the imprisoned thugs. Jails were emptied.

In other latitudes, extremist groups and authoritarian governments have used the refugee crisis for their political ends, fostering fear and xenophobia. The Syrian crisis is acknowledged as one of the main drivers of Muslim migration to Europe.

The parallelism of the coercion of Turkey to the European Union with the Venezuelan rule attitude is remarkable. The Turkish officials in charge of the deal to include Turkey in the EU made a rude statement to their counterparts to “face the consequences of migration” if they voted against the incorporation of Turkey into the EU. Of course, opening borders to a creeping dictator like Erdogan is not to be taken lightly.

The Venezuelan regime angrily threatened with the “Bolivarian Hurricane”, and Duque, before 2018, as well as Piñera, had to face serious turmoils, including the destruction of public property.

If there is a book and classroom example of weaponized migration, it is this one.

Another painful example is found in the analogies between the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges that he directed a campaign of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity during the country’s Darfur conflict and certain South American bus driver we all know by now. Mind you, the Horn of Africa deal with the EU included this despotic Sudanese’s demands.

Look at the mess Europe is heading now.

How to deal with the consequences of forced migration in your area

Migration is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that challenges our societies. The situation gets even more complex when it is used by unscrupulous people as a weapon.

The added value of your regular Joe writing life experiences in worldwide media is that you get the real data you need.

Most of the consequences of uncontrolled migration generated in the short term are petty felonies, homelessness, street begging, drugs, and go as far as home squatting, and serious violent crimes.

We Venezuelans have been dealing with these effects for so long that it’s almost automatic to proceed with the installation of gratings and bars on windows, doors, and other openings where an undesired scoundrel could fit through. Padlocks, CCTV cameras, motion sensors, and all these systems are good tools, but there is another dimension with migrants, and I will explain it.

Talking by experience, we humans like to be part of a clan. It’s part of our brain wiring to feel safe between those we share bonds with.

It’s regrettable that those “clans” sometimes can be nosy, and thugs love to band up, too. Most of the time, the good people in the group don´t even know some of the guys hanging out next to them, perhaps were in jail once or a runaway somewhere else.

That’s why it’s so hard to combat these situations. If you suddenly stumble into a band of migrants, the wisest thing to do is avoid confrontation. No matter how resentful you can be, it’s not the moment to show it. Things can get out of control, and all of the “witnesses” will be against you. Politicians would have a field day exploiting all this. Don’t allow your taxes to be wasted on this.

There are some good people in those groups, also. The familiarity with a language or way of behaving is what makes the bonds within a migrant group strong. If you can bypass the crowd and become invisible, so much better. I just watched a video of one of the major concentrations of Venezuelan migrants in Chile, Calle La Puente, Cal y Canto Metro Station. This is the same crowd that once polluted the Caracas downtown and many other places, like the Boulevard, once an emblematic and high-end restaurant and cafe route. If you cross paths with a group of migrants, open your eyes, and don’t show fear or discomfort. Do what you do as usual. Young guys in numbers can be annoying and total j*rks, no matter the origin. Trust me, I know. But it’s not the moment to be a Karen.

If you want to help someone knocking at your door, ask for some references first (and verify them!) before offering landscaping chores or other jobs. If you have been seeing the same people around for some time, it’s because they will stick to a place where there are jobs. That means they probably have a place to stay and can provide an address.

Don’t allow a guy you see for the first time to get into your backyard. That’s dumb, and if the guy steals your Roomba, it means more work on the desk of an officer. Keep your eyes wide open and analyze facts before conceding trust.

We are facing significant challenges from weaponized migration

In conclusion, the weaponization of migration is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that poses a significant challenge to international security, democracy, and human rights. By understanding the mechanisms through which migration can be used as a tool of political coercion, the Americas can develop more effective strategies for prevention, response, and, especially, protection. The actors involved in the weaponized migration need to understand that implications can and will be punished by international law and policy.

Thanks for your reading and your much-needed donations to keep writing and sharing this journey with such a fabulous community.

Stay safe, and keep tuned!

J.

Have you seen evidence of weaponized migration?

Is your area home to a large number of migrants?  Has it caused problems? What other ways do you see this being weaponized?

Let’s discuss it in the comments section.

About Jose

Jose is an upper middle class professional. He is a former worker of the oil state company with a Bachelor’s degree from one of the best national Universities. He has an old but in good shape SUV, a good 150 square meters house in a nice neighborhood, in a small but (formerly) prosperous city with two middle size malls. Jose is a prepper and shares his eyewitness accounts and survival stories from the collapse of his beloved Venezuela. Jose and his younger kid are currently back in Venezuela, after the intention of setting up a new life in another country didn’t  go well. The SARSCOV2 re-shaped the labor market and South American economy so he decided to give it a try to homestead in the mountains, and make a living as best as possible. But this time in his own land, and surrounded by family, friends and acquaintances, with all the gear and equipment collected, as the initial plan was.

 Follow Jose on YouTube and gain access to his exclusive content on Patreon. Donations: paypal.me/JoseM151