The news that the deceased suspect of this morning&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-active-shooter-at-pensacola-naval-air-base-at-least-5-rushed-to-hospital-shooter-confirmed-dead">horrific shooting spree</a> at Naval Air Station Pensacola was a Saudi aviation student here to <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/authorities-identify-pensacola-naval-base-shooter-as-saudi-national">train with the Saudi military</a> ought to serve as a wakeup call for American elected officials.
The suspect appears to have been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-attacker-at-florida-military-base-was-member-of-saudi-military-was-an-act-of-terrorism-congressman-says">student officer</a> with the Saudi Air Force and, while it is unclear right now which U.S. visa he obtained to arrive here, an <a href="https://twitter.com/RMConservative/status/1203012127952449541">A-2 visa</a> — <a href="https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/other-visa-categories/visas-diplomats.html">described</a> by the U.S. State Department as appropriate for those &#8220;traveling to the United States on behalf of [his/her] national government to engage solely in official activities for that government&#8221; — is perhaps likely . As The Daily Wire has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-active-shooter-at-pensacola-naval-air-base-at-least-5-rushed-to-hospital-shooter-confirmed-dead">reported</a>, there are at least ten victims injured, including three dead.
There is a lot to unpack and unravel here — especially for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-us-must-side-saudi-arabia-against-iranian-josh-hammer">those of us</a> who have generally encouraged closer U.S.-Saudi military ties in order to help deter the far greater Middle East terrorism threat, Iran. This developing story has many moving parts, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ought to be prepared for a Jamal Khashoggi-level public relations blowback when even a stalwart pro-Israel/anti-Iran conservative such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has an <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/1203029174753153025">immediate reaction</a> that the Saudi government &#8220;needs to [financially] make things better for these victims.&#8221; Indeed, it is hard to disagree with the governor.
But the focus here must be on immigration policy. As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra already <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-attacker-at-florida-military-base-was-member-of-saudi-military-was-an-act-of-terrorism-congressman-says">reported</a>, hardline conservative Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has opined that today&#8217;s naval base tragedy &#8220;represents a serious failure in the vetting process and in the way in which we invite &#8230; people into our community.&#8221; Gaetz vowed to help &#8220;ensure that we have extreme vetting for the people that come into our country on our bases and in our communities.&#8221;
This is obviously correct. And it is important that this, and not a short-sighted hard diplomatic pivot away from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman at a time when the uniquely evil Iranian regime is yet again on the proverbial ropes and facing an increasingly restive population, become the preeminent takeaway from today&#8217;s horrific incident.
Why, as I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-never-forget-911-we-need-rethink-how-we-josh-hammer">lamented</a> on the most recent anniversary of the 9/11 jihadist attacks, has the U.S. continued to implement an exceedingly generous and lax immigration policy for prospective immigrants from the broader Islamic world? While there will always be dispensations for legal immigration from the Islamic world, why are we not starting from a default baseline level of effectively zero? Our much-ballyhooed &#8220;vetting&#8221; procedures are oftentimes, as was tragically the case today, revealed to be exceedingly inadequate. But hey, in fairness, <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1203010783958982657">how would we ever have known</a> to keep a close eye on Saudi aviation students? It&#8217;s not like we&#8217;ve had <a href="https://twitter.com/Sultanknish/status/1203014470525542400">previous noteworthy incidents</a>, right?
Policymakers ought to heed the unassailable wisdom of the <a href="https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1213676/m1/6/?q=cornerstone">9/11 Commission Report</a>: &#8220;It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.&#8221; Heck, does anyone even remember that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, according to former CIA contractor James Mitchell, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/307362-9-11-mastermind-al-qaeda-to-use-immigration-to-end-us">allegedly believes</a> that &#8220;the &#8216;practical&#8217; way to defeat America [is] through immigration?&#8221;
Immigration policy is national security policy. And that extends to both illegal immigration and legal immigration. Our policymakers ought to not forget that.

US visa, vintage map and passport background

HAMMER: REMINDER: Immigration Policy IS National Security Policy

Florida

Immigration

Matt Gaetz

Muslim Immigration

National Security

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

Ron DeSantis

Saudi Arabia

Shooting

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said on Friday that the individual who opened fire at Naval Air Station Pensacola was a member of the Saudi military and that the attack &#8220;was an act of terrorism.&#8221;
The foreign national attacker killed at least <a href="https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2019/12/06/breaking-active-shooter-reported-base-nas-pensacola/4351773002/">three</a> people and injured several others who were sent to a nearby hospital for treatment.
Gaetz responded to the attack by calling for &#8220;extreme vetting&#8221; of those who are allowed into the United States and who train at U.S. military bases.
&#8220;Major news organizations are now reporting the information that we began to learn earlier this morning that it was a Saudi Arabian military official in Pensacola, in our community for training, who committed these murderous acts and this terrible, terrible violence at NAS Pensacola,&#8221; Gaetz said. &#8220;I think it&#8217;s important for us to know a little bit about why Saudi Arabian officials are in our community.&#8221;
&#8220;Training is a critical part of the mission that we engage in in NAS Pensacola,&#8221; Gaetz continued. &#8220;One way that we leverage that training is to ensure that our allies around the world are capable and familiar with U.S. systems, that they&#8217;re comfortable working with U.S. officers, and that we have an interoperability in our lexicon and in the way we engage in battle.&#8221;
&#8220;This event represents a serious failure in the vetting process and in the way in which we invite these people into our community,&#8221; Gaetz continued. &#8220;So today, as we learn more as the investigation continues to unfold &#8230; I&#8217;m going to be very active in working with the Department of Defense and the Department of State to ensure that we have extreme vetting for the people that come into our country on our bases and in our communities.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We&#39;re learning a Saudi Arabian military member in Pensacola committed these murders.
I&#39;m working with the <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DeptofDefense</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/StateDept?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StateDept</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DHSgov</a> to ensure there&#39;s extreme vetting for people who come to our country and train on our bases. <a href="https://t.co/LUhSE6UAHO">pic.twitter.com/LUhSE6UAHO</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1203019241626185730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In a subsequent tweet that featured a video of Gaetz appearing on CNN, Gaetz wrote: &#8220;This was not a murder. This was an act of terrorism.&#8221;
&#8220;If this were a murder, it would typically be investigated by NCIS &#8230; but this was not a murder,&#8221; Gaetz said. &#8220;This was an act of terrorism and as we speak the investigation is being handed over from the NCIS to the FBI, that is the signal that this will now be treated by our government as an act of terrorism, not a murder.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This was not a murder. This was an act of terrorism. <a href="https://t.co/AJfTQOOE68">pic.twitter.com/AJfTQOOE68</a>
&mdash; Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1203025382632546305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The U.S. Navy confirmed on Twitter that the attacker, who was an aviation student, is dead.
Heavy.com <a href="https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/mohammed-saeed-alshamrani/">noted</a> some of the history surrounding the military base, with respect to past incidents involving terrorism:
<blockquote>In the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, Newsweek reported that three of the hijackers had the addresses on their driver’s licenses listed as being at NAS Pensacola. The article notes that Naval Air Station Pensacola is known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation.”
The Navy Times reported in February 2016 that NAS Pensacola officials had increased security measures at the base, after the base had been known was “unusually open” for years.
The Pensacola News Journal reported in September 2019 the “new, top-secret classrooms” had been built on the base to counteract the threat caused by cyber terrorism.</blockquote>
UPDATE: This report has been updated to accurately state that the alleged attacker killed three individuals, not four. The fourth person who was killed was the alleged attacker.

Shooting On Naval Air Station Pensacola Leaves Multiple Dead And Injured

Attacker At Florida Military Base Was Member Of Saudi Military, ‘Was An Act Of Terrorism,’ Congressman Says

U.S. Navy

Fox News host Tucker Carlson admits that President Trump is a &#8220;full-blown B.S. artist&#8221; who &#8220;could&#8217;ve made a fortune selling cars,&#8221; but his knack for twisting the truth to make his &#8220;sales pitches&#8221; isn&#8217;t why the media actually despises him, as they claim. In fact, argued Carlson on his show Wednesday night, the media resents Trump so much for &#8220;the exact opposite&#8221; reason.
&#8220;One of the reasons progressives say they hate Donald Trump is because he lies a lot,&#8221;  Carlson said on his <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-truth-is-the-reason-the-left-despises-trump">Fox News</a> show Wednesday night. &#8220;Trump, they&#8217;ll tell you, is a committed liar, an inveterate one. To prove he point the left has set about trying to catalog Trump&#8217;s dishonesty with the kind of scientific precision you normally associate with obsessed baseball fans or amateur bird watchers. As of last month, according to The Washington Post, Donald Trump has made a total of 13,435 false or misleading statements while in office.&#8221;
Carlson then played a famous claim by Trump which the Post marks as the starting point of Trump&#8217;s presidential lies: his claim that his inauguration crowd was &#8220;the biggest ever.&#8221;
&#8220;We’re not going to lie to you: that was untrue,&#8221; said Carlson. &#8220;The crowd at the 2017 inauguration was not the largest ever measured on the national mall. Sorry. It wasn’t.&#8221;
&#8220;Why did the president claim that it was?&#8221; Carlson asked. &#8220;Well, because that&#8217;s who he is. Donald Trump is a salesman. He&#8217;s a talker, a boaster, a booster, a compulsive self-promoter. At times, he&#8217;s a full-blown B.S. artist. If Trump hadn&#8217;t gotten rich in real estate, he could&#8217;ve made a fortune selling cars. Most people know this. It&#8217;s obvious, transparent, really.&#8221;
Carlson then got to his central argument: Yes, Trump is a &#8220;B.S. artist,&#8221; but his lies are not what is actually driving the mass disdain for him from left-wing politicians and their allies in the media.
&#8220;Is lying really the reason the left despises Donald Trump? Or could the real problem be, as is so often the case, the exact opposite of what they claim it is?&#8221; asked Carlson.
&#8220;Think back over the last four years,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;When have the CNN anchors been the angriest? Was it when Donald Trump told some whopper, or exaggerated his own accomplishments? Nope. They’re used to that kind of lying. Everyone who spends time around politicians is used to it. What infuriates official Washington is not when Trump lies, it&#8217;s when he tells the truth. Truth is the real threat to their power.”
&#8220;There&#8217;s an unspoken agreement among the people in charge of our country not to talk about what has happened to it,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;They are personally implicated in its decline, for one thing &#8212; often they&#8217;re profiting from it. The last thing they want is a national conversation about what went wrong. So they maintain an increasingly strict policy of mandatory reality avoidance.&#8221;
As an example of this &#8220;reality avoidance,&#8221; Carlson pointed to our unsustainable immigration policies. &#8220;If the people in charge actually cared about us, they would protect our borders,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The gatekeepers in our national media, the people who should have been sounding the alarm about all of this, but instead made common cause with the ruling class they were supposed to be covering and keeping honest.&#8221;
When Trump tells the truth about the situation at the border, he&#8217;s branded a bigot by Democrats and the media in an attempt to deflect from the issue. Raising such issues as immigration exposes the ruling class&#8217;s &#8220;own egregious failures and selfishness,&#8221; so they instead try to redirect the conversation by declaring that &#8220;Donald Trump is a racist liar.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/washington-post-obama-is-a-conservative">Washington Post: ‘Obama Is A Conservative’</a>
Partial transcript via <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-truth-is-the-reason-the-left-despises-trump">Fox News</a>, <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/trump/a-full-blown-bs-artist-tucker-carlson-says-media-is-right-about-trump-lying-but-defends-him-still/">Mediaite</a>.

Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson: Real Reason Media Hates ‘B.S. Artist’ Trump Is Exact Opposite Of What They Claim

Donald Trump

Racism

Former Maryland Democrat Governor Martin O&#8217;Malley forced Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli to leave a bar in Maryland during a Thanksgiving eve event after he berated Cuccinelli over immigration policies, according to witnesses.
The alleged incident took place at the Dubliner, an Irish pub on Capitol Hill where the two men were attending an event with graduates of Gonzaga College High School, where they both graduated from in the 1980s.
Siobhan Arnold, who claims to work in media relations at Villanova University, <a href="https://web.archive.org/save/https://twitter.com/siobhanphilly/status/1199838534573658113">wrote</a> on Twitter, &#8220;Martin O’Malley just drove Ken Cuccinelli out of the Dubliner in DC w/ a passion-laced and shame-invoking tirade on behalf of immigrant refugee children!!!&#8221;
In an interview with The Washington Post, Arnold <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ken-cuccinelli-walked-into-a-bar-and-martin-omalley-lit-into-him/2019/11/28/8277421c-1191-11ea-b0fc-62cc38411ebb_story.html">said</a>, “O’Malley was shouting,” adding that Cuccinelli did not appear to even want to engage with an allegedly belligerent O&#8217;Malley, “I don’t think Cuccinelli was responding. I think he’s like, ‘Time to go. Just got here and I’m leaving.’”
The Post added that O&#8217;Malley taunted Cuccinelli, asking him if &#8220;he wanted to throw a punch.&#8221;
In a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuccinelli-fires-back-at-omalley-calls-behavior-sad-and-shocking">statement</a> to Fox News, Cuccinelli said that O’Malley was cursing so loudly that people on the opposite end of the bar could hear him and that he was hot-headed “to the point of veins bulging on his neck.”
O&#8217;Malley did not deny using obscenities during an interview with the Post.
Cuccinelli told Fox News, “As I walked up to one of the bars among several in The Dubliner to order my Guinness, I heard screaming and cussing behind me to my left, which I did not immediately take notice of other than the fact that it was louder than everything else in the pub.”
&#8220;When I turned to look I saw O&#8217;Malley and he was obviously screaming at me,&#8221; Cuccinelli continued. &#8220;For a moment I thought he was trying to be funny, as we&#8217;ve met before, which I thought was strange. It was immediately clear that he was cursing and screaming for real, to the point of veins bulging on his neck.”
“O&#8217;Malley pushed his way through the small group to confront me face to face, still cursing me, the President, and my Italian ancestry and he got right up in my face, bumped up against me and invited me to take a swing at him,” Cuccinelli continued.
Cuccinelli realized that he had to be the bigger person, saying “at which point I said ‘Martin, one of us has to rise above this, and it&#8217;s obviously not going to be you.’”
Cuccinelli told Fox News that O&#8217;Malley&#8217;s comments about the Trump administration&#8217;s immigration policies were “odd” since his comments “applied to President Obama&#8217;s policies, a fact he clearly did not appreciate me pointing out (without screaming it, btw).”
“Martin&#8217;s behavior was as sad as it was shocking,” Cuccinelli said. “I learned on the other side of the pub that Martin&#8217;s screaming was so loud that people on the other side of the pub heard him.  I also learned from others who have known Martin for years that while his behavior was shocking, it was not new to them.”

Martin O&#8217;Malley Ken Cuccinelli

Democrat O&#8217;Malley Forces Trump Official Cuccinelli Out Of Bar. Cuccinelli Delivers Blistering Response.

Trump Administration

On Tuesday, a U.S. judge in Oregon blocked the Trump administration from implementing a policy that would require require immigrants to show proof of health insurance to get a visa.
On October 4, the White House released a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-will-financially-burden-united-states-healthcare-system/">statement</a> explaining the reasons for its decision:
<blockquote>Healthcare providers and taxpayers bear substantial costs in paying for medical expenses incurred by people who lack health insurance or the ability to pay for their healthcare.  Hospitals and other providers often administer care to the uninsured without any hope of receiving reimbursement from them.  The costs associated with this care are passed on to the American people in the form of higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher fees for medical services.
In total, uncompensated care costs — the overall measure of unreimbursed services that hospitals give their patients — have exceeded $35 billion in each of the last 10 years.  These costs amount to approximately $7 million on average for each hospital in the United States, and can drive hospitals into insolvency.  Beyond uncompensated care costs, the uninsured strain Federal and State government budgets through their reliance on publicly funded programs, which ultimately are financed by taxpayers.
Beyond imposing higher costs on hospitals and other healthcare infrastructure, uninsured individuals often use emergency rooms to seek remedies for a variety of non-emergency conditions, causing overcrowding and delays for those who truly need emergency services.  This non-emergency usage places a large burden on taxpayers, who reimburse hospitals for a portion of their uncompensated emergency care costs.
While our healthcare system grapples with the challenges caused by uncompensated care, the United States Government is making the problem worse by admitting thousands of aliens who have not demonstrated any ability to pay for their healthcare costs.  Notably, data show that lawful immigrants are about three times more likely than United States citizens to lack health insurance.  Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants who come lawfully in search of brighter futures.  We must continue that tradition while also addressing the challenges facing our healthcare system, including protecting both it and the American taxpayer from the burdens of uncompensated care.  Continuing to allow entry into the United States of certain immigrants who lack health insurance or the demonstrated ability to pay for their healthcare would be detrimental to these interests.</blockquote>
President Trump stated in his proclamation, &#8220;The entry into the United States as immigrants of aliens who will financially burden the United States healthcare system is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation.  An alien will financially burden the United States healthcare system unless the alien will be covered by approved health insurance, as defined in subsection (b) of this section, within 30 days of the alien’s entry into the United States, or unless the alien possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.&#8221;
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rebuffed the White House, writing in his <a href="https://www.aila.org/File/Related/19103090e.pdf">opinion</a> that Trump’s proclamation was “inconsistent” with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. He stated, &#8220;In addition, and independently, the Proclamation was not issued under any properly delegated authority. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court in this case to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of that Proclamation.&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-immigration-donald-trump-rule-requiring-immigrants-prove-health-insurance-blocked-federal-judge-2019-11-27/">CBS News</a> reported, Simon also stated:&#8221;No national security or foreign relations justification for this sweeping change in immigration law. Instead, the President attempts to justify the Proclamation based on <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-will-financially-burden-united-states-healthcare-system/">an asserted burden</a> to the United States healthcare system and federal taxpayers.&#8221;
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham responded to Simon’s decision, saying, &#8220;We look forward to defending the President&#8217;s lawful action.”
&nbsp;

Donald Trump Holds A &#8220;Welcome Home&#8221; Rally In South Florida

Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Requiring Immigrants To Show Health Insurance To Get Visas

health insurance

This week, The Atlantic released its newest issue, provocatively titled &#8220;How to Stop a Civil War.&#8221; Leading its collection of essays is a fascinating piece by Yoni Applebaum. In it, Applebaum posits that at the crux of America&#8217;s vitriolic politics lies demographic change: &#8220;The United States is undergoing a transition perhaps no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced: Its historically dominant group is on its way to becoming a political minority — and its minority groups are asserting their co-equal rights and interests.&#8221;
This, he suggests, has led to an impasse for the center-right, which refuses to adapt to changing demographics, instead doubling down on President Donald Trump&#8217;s white, working-class base. Applebaum explains, &#8220;When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has — whatever the cost.&#8221;
But Applebaum&#8217;s thesis doesn&#8217;t explain why, in his view, conservatives have abandoned the attempt to persuade new populations. Applebaum himself acknowledges that a &#8220;conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation.&#8221; Why, then, have conservatives supposedly given up?
The answer lies in a simple truth: Conservatives haven&#8217;t despaired of winning over new converts.
While a slight majority of Republicans believe that immigration should be reduced, pluralities or majorities of Republicans in the majority of polls believe that immigration is good for the country; a heavy majority of Republicans favor a &#8220;merit-based&#8221; immigration approach.
Conservative opposition to increased immigration isn&#8217;t driven by fears of demographic change. It&#8217;s driven by fear of ideological change. And that fear of ideological change is actually driven by Democrats&#8217; radicalism — and their overt suggestion that demographic change will provide the fodder for that radicalism.
Applebaum rightly states, &#8220;The United States possesses a strong radical tradition, but its most successful social movements have generally adopted the language of conservatism, framing their calls for change as an expression of America&#8217;s founding ideals rather than as a rejection of them.&#8221;
But today&#8217;s successful social movements — the movements of the Democratic left — no longer bother with such niceties. Instead, they declare that America was, has been and always will be a racist place, riven by hierarchies of power, a corrupt structure to be overturned by that emerging demographic majority. These movements overtly call for curbing essential American freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion — in order to overthrow the corrupt power structure. The Democratic left then insists that immigration levels be increased both legally and illegally and suggests that its opponents are driven by unbridled racism.
In essence, the Democrats have decided that rather than expanding the application of American principles to new groups, they prefer to fundamentally change the definition of American principles and utilize immigration policy to facilitate that change. No wonder conservatives have responded by calling for immigration restrictions.
Conservatism must indeed root out and destroy any elements of race-driven policy from its midst. Conservatism speaks every language and can reside in any human heart. If the left wishes to avoid a civil war, it can start by doing the same: refraining from the argument that demographic change innately signals rewriting the definition of Americanism, and arguing in favor of that revision.

Migrant Caravan

SHAPIRO: Are Conservative Immigration Restrictionists Racist?

Conservatism

Illegal Immigration

Progressivism

Race

On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump signaled a deal with congressional Democrats if the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule in his favor concerning the controversial Obama-era DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigration program.
&#8220;If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!” the president said via Twitter regarding DACA.
The Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration&#8217;s decision to end the DACA program, which has been argued to have been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-reinstate-daca-ben-shapiro">unconstitutionally</a> enacted by the Obama administration via executive action.
The program defers deportations of immigrants brought over by their parents at a young age.
In the same tweet where Trump signaled a forthcoming deal, he ripped DACA. &#8220;Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from &#8216;angels,'&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Some are very tough, hardened criminals.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/news/new-data-shows-criminal-arrest-histories-daca-requestors">U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services</a>, about 8% of DACA recipients have criminal records:
<blockquote>8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others. &#8220;Requestors&#8221; includes individuals approved and denied DACA.</blockquote>
Trump added in the tweet: &#8220;President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway.&#8221;
This is also basically true. As noted by <a href="https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted">Heritage</a>, Obama repeatedly acknowledged that he could not take such action alone, but did so anyway:
<blockquote>Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, &#8220;I am not king. I can&#8217;t do these things just by myself.&#8221; In March 2011, he said that with &#8220;respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that&#8217;s just not the case.&#8221; In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn&#8217;t &#8220;just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. &#8230; That&#8217;s not how a democracy works.&#8221;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from “angels.” Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194219655717642240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Trump administration announced its plan to phase out the program in 2017, only for the federal courts to rule that it could not apply retroactively and that DACA should be restarted in full,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-daca-supreme-court">Fox News</a> reported.
In April 2018, U.S. District Judge John Bates <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/2018/04/24/cfb41578-4816-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.a5adf4fd5206">ruled</a> that Trump could not legally end DACA, calling the decision to end the program &#8220;arbitrary and capricious because the [Trump administration] failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.&#8221;
&#8220;So, in other words, if a president takes an executive action, then the subsequent president cannot undo that executive action — even if that original executive action has been declared unconstitutional, at least in part,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-reinstate-daca-ben-shapiro">Ben Shapiro</a> explained at the time.
&#8220;This is insanity,&#8221; Shapiro continued, adding, &#8220;Here’s how leftist courts have now ruled: an action that is obviously unconstitutional is no longer unconstitutional when performed by President Obama; undoing that unconstitutional action is unconstitutional if performed by President Trump.&#8221;
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice said of the decision at the time: &#8220;Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens.&#8221;

Michelle Obama, Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Barack Obama

Trump Signals DACA &#8216;Deal&#8217; With Democrats

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Lawsuit

Obama Administration

Supreme Court

Iconic Canadian broadcaster Don Cherry was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-don-cherry-fired-for-telling-immigrants-to-honor-fallen-vets-responds-to-backlash">fired</a> from his job with Sportsnet this week after using his “Coach’s Corner” segment to encourage immigrants to honor fallen troops. Cherry was apparently upset that a diminishing number of people in the Toronto area wear the traditional poppy pins to commemorate Canada’s Remembrance Day. He (not unreasonably) connected this drop off in traditional observance to the increasing number of immigrants in the area. Here’s how he put it:
<blockquote>“You people love — you, that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey. At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life, that you enjoy in Canada.”</blockquote>
The worst thing you could possibly say about these comments is that they’re a little bit gruff. But Don Cherry is 85 years old and 85-year-old men have earned the right to be gruff. Other than this lack of diplomacy, there is nothing remotely offensive or bigoted in his point of view on this issue. He isn’t telling immigrants not to come to Canada. He isn’t saying they are inferior to, or less than, himself. He certainly isn&#8217;t saying anything &#8220;<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2019/11/11/don-cherry-fired-racist-anti-immigrant-comment/2566800001/">racist</a>,&#8221; as USA Today matter-of-factly put it. He doesn&#8217;t mention race at all and could just as easily be talking about immigrants from a mostly white country. His only point, it seems to me, is to lament a perceived deficit of patriotism and gratitude.
Of course, we live in a time when the only thing more lacking than patriotism is fortitude, so everyone associated with Cherry immediately threw him under the bus and prostrated themselves before the outrage mob. The president of Sportsnet, Bart Yablsey (a fitting name, somehow), announced Cherry’s firing while publicly scolding him for &#8220;divisive remarks&#8221; that &#8220;do not represent our values.&#8221;
The NHL chimed in with its own bit of finger-wagging, accusing Cherry of saying things &#8220;that are in direct conflict with the values of diversity and inclusion that we embrace as pillars of the sport.&#8221; Hockey used to be a game where rough men got their teeth knocked out. Now the National Hockey League delivers lectures on &#8220;inclusion.&#8221; We are truly living in &#8220;Idiocracy,&#8221; except everyone has lost their spines as well as their brains.
<iframe title="Media and Hollywood Rally Behind Convicted Rapist and Murderer | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 369" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BlehMV5yg8U?start=1366&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Speaking of spineless, Cherry’s longtime co-host, Ron MacLean, who sat and nodded while Cherry was making these comments, tried desperately to keep his job by knifing his friend in the back. MacLean, doing his best to pretend that he understands why people are upset about this nonsense, called Cherry’s remarks &#8220;hurtful, discriminatory&#8221; and &#8220;flat-out wrong.&#8221; He even thanked the whiney masses for &#8220;calling Don and me on that&#8221; and teaching them a &#8220;great lesson.&#8221; Then his skin turned translucent and he morphed into a literal jellyfish on live TV.
I think there are two points to be made about all of this.
First, Don Cherry was correct. It is indeed important to inculcate patriotism and gratitude in all citizens. As for immigrants, it is their responsibility to assimilate themselves to their new country and show a proper respect for the traditions of their adopted home. Cherry’s point is a good one: If you’re immigrating to a country in order to enjoy its freedoms and luxuries, you should appreciate that many people had to die in order to provide you that opportunity. If there is not enough appreciation for that fact, who should we be scolding — Don Cherry, or the people who made his comments necessary in the first place?
Second, let’s pretend for a moment that Don Cherry’s comments really were &#8220;hurtful&#8221; and &#8220;discriminatory,&#8221; like his aquatic broadcasting partner claims. Could they possibly be more hurtful and discriminatory than a blackface costume? And if they don’t &#8220;represent the values&#8221; of Canadians, then does a man who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/blackface-photo-justin-trudeau-surfaces-trudeau-ryan-saavedra">wore blackface multiple times</a> represent them?
The hypocrisy is so blatant that it probably doesn’t need to be pointed out, but I will anyway. There was so much outrage in Canada over opinions expressed by a television host that the host was fired. Yet the prime minister of the country wore blackface and still won re-election. Of course, we Americans have no room to gloat. Megyn Kelly was fired from her job at NBC just for talking about blackface.
It just goes to show that these faux-racism outrages are political and performative. Calling the outrage mob &#8220;sensitive&#8221; or &#8220;snowflakes&#8221; misses the point and gives them too much credit. They aren’t sensitive — they’re just frauds.

Don Cherry

WALSH: Legendary Canadian Broadcaster Fired For ‘Racist’ Comments. But Blackface-Wearing Trudeau Remains In Office.

Canada

Military

Political Correctness

Sports

Apprehensions and arrests of immigrants attempting to cross the United States&#8217; southern border illegally were down again in October, and arrests have plummeted a whopping 75% since the Trump Administration took action on illegal immigration back in May.
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mexico-border-arrests-fall-in-october-11573404080">The Wall Street Journal</a> reports that only 36,000 illegal immigrants were arrested in October, a 10% drop from the number of apprehensions in September, and a 75% drop from the 132,856 illegal immigrants arrested in May.
But that doesn&#8217;t mean 2019 wasn&#8217;t a record year for illegal migration.
&#8220;Overall, more than 850,000 migrants were apprehended at the border in 2019, a 12-year high for the year ended in September, driven by a rise in families fleeing violence and poverty in Central America to seek asylum protections in the U.S.,&#8221; the WSJ says.
October, though, was the fifth straight month of decline, and <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/11/20959291/southern-us-mexico-border-apprehensions-cbp-arrests-migrant-immigrant-numbers-october">even the left-leaning Vox</a> was forced to admit that President Donald Trump&#8217;s anti-illegal immigration efforts appear to be &#8220;having their intended effect.&#8221; Fewer individuals are seeking asylum at the southern border, and many asylum-seekers &#8212; particularly those who snaked their way to the United States&#8217; southern border through Mexico from places like Honduras and Guatemala, are choosing to return to their home countries.
&#8220;The decline in border apprehensions, which have decreased by about 75 percent since their height of 132,856 in May, and 10 percent in the last month alone, appears to be due to more than typical seasonal fluctuations and suggests that President Donald Trump’s immigration policies are having their intended effect,&#8221; Vox wrote Tuesday.
Oddly enough, the drop may have little to do with President Trump&#8217;s signature anti-immigration measure, a border wall. Only a handful of sections have been raised since the President demanded billions for the structure in the 2018 Federal budget, and at least one of those sections &#8212; a prototype wall in California &#8212; was up only a few short hours before smugglers cut the steel slats and bent a hole, allowing for easy entry into the United States.
Instead, the drop may have to do more with Trump&#8217;s anti-immigration policies, including a pair of controversial measures &#8212; the &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy, and a pressure campaign on Mexican and Central American governments &#8212; designed to cut down on the number of asylum seekers presenting themselves to American border officials.
Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy requires that asylum seekers who, under previous administrations, might have been allowed to stay in the United States pending adjudication of their asylum claims, are now being turned back into Mexico to await asylum hearings on the other side of the border. The result? Many Central American asylum seekers are either taking Mexico&#8217;s offers of temporary work visas or immigration status, or returning to their home countries.
Around 55,000 migrants have been turned away under the &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy.
The Trump Administration has also been putting pressure on the Mexican government to step up their own border control and to ramp up efforts to capture and deport illegal immigrants in Mexico before they reach the United States. &#8221; [A]fter Trump threatened to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods in June, the Mexican government deployed a record 15,000 troops to detain over 31,000 migrants that month and almost 19,000 in July,&#8221; Vox reported.
The decrease is also clearly noticeable in Washington, D.C.; Democrats have stopped using immigration and, in particular, overcrowding at border patrol facilities, as a wedge issue. Instead, most 2020 Democrats have pivoted to abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and declaring a moratorium on deportations to appeal to pro-immigration activists on the far left.

United States Border Patrol is seen blocking the wall at the

Border Arrests Fall Again In October, Down Almost 75% Since May

Mexico

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump approved a new annual refugee cap of 18,000, the lowest since the U.S. program began in 1980. The reduction follows news that America took a pause last month and refused to admit any new refugees. On economic, public safety and national security grounds, this is a very good thing for the 325 million people already in our country. But you wouldn&#8217;t know it from the grim headlines and hysterical condemnations by globalist zealots and media sympathizers.
CNN International led the open borders funeral procession last week, with a report decrying, &#8220;No refugees will be resettled in the US in October, leaving hundreds in limbo around the world.&#8221; U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) hyperventilated that &#8220;Donald Trump is trying to destroy the very heart of this nation. I won&#8217;t let him.&#8221; Social justice group CARE bemoaned this &#8220;dark moment in our nation&#8217;s history.&#8221; Human Rights First complained that Trump&#8217;s proposal is &#8220;crippling the United States&#8217; status as a global leader in refugee resettlement.&#8221;
Heaven forbid citizens in a sovereign nation have an effective say in who comes here, from where and how many. Is one refugee-less month in America such a catastrophe? Calm down, Chicken Littles. Get some perspective.
It is most certainly true that America has a legacy of embracing people from around the world fleeing persecution and war. After World War II, the U.S. helped lead efforts to assist 650,000 displaced Europeans who had fled in fear, were expelled and were victims of Nazi crimes and terror. Congress passed the 1948 Displaced Persons Act to accommodate them. Five years later, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 aided refugees from Italy and East Germany escaping Communist regimes, adding another 250,000 refugees over four years. In the 1950s and 1960s, we welcomed Hungarians, Cubans and Czechoslovakians also escaping Communist oppression. In the 1970s, we opened our doors to an estimated 300,000 political refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The Refugee Act of 1980 created the Office of Refugee Resettlement and office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and raised the annual ceiling of admissions to 50,000.
Under Obama, that number soared to nearly 100,000 annually. The idea that we&#8217;ve abandoned our humanitarian leadership role because of this refugee resettlement reduction is ludicrous. Overall, since 1975, the U.S. has resettled more than 3 million refugees. Under Trump, the U.S. still accepted more refugees than any other country in both 2017 and 2018. On top of that, America forked over nearly $1.6 billion to support the U.N.&#8217;s refugee resettlement campaign. Moreover, America remains the largest single country provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide. Total U.S. humanitarian assistance was more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2017, covering food, shelter, health care and access to clean water for millions.
That&#8217;s enough.
Past refugee admissions don&#8217;t lock America into those same levels now or in the future. America&#8217;s constitutional duty is to Americans first (&#8220;ourselves and our posterity&#8221;). The truth is that we&#8217;ve been generous to a ruinous, open borders fault. Last year, the Federation for American Immigration Reform tallied refugee resettlement costs to taxpayers at nearly $9 billion over five years.
In my adopted home state of Colorado, a new University of Colorado Boulder study acknowledged that refugees are often &#8220;trapped in chronic poverty&#8221; after resettlement subsidies dry up and are unable to lift themselves out of dependency on government aid such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps. Federal statistics show that nearly half of all refugee households receive cash welfare. Chain migration perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
A tiny cabal of government contractors, mostly religious groups cloaking their profit-seeking in compassion and Scripture, perpetuates the refugee resettlement racket. Openly hostile to American sovereignty, these people spread their tax-subsidized syndicate&#8217;s wealth to a vast network of subcontractors, often tied to billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, which promote global governance and unfettered migration espoused by the United Nations, European Union and Vatican. These special interests have systematically blurred the lines between legitimate refugees seeking asylum from oppression and economic migrants from Central America clamoring for higher wages or better welfare benefits. They&#8217;re indifferent to the national security risks of absorbing large numbers of Muslims whose adherence to repressive sharia and religious jihad is utterly incompatible with our constitutional principles.
Mass migration champions have stretched the definition of refugee so thin that &#8220;climate change refugees&#8221; seeking relief from uninhabitable environments are now a phenomenon. Nuts. Doesn&#8217;t America have enough residents in need of shelter and support? If we let in millions of &#8220;climate change refugees,&#8221; where do Americans seek refuge when they render our climate uninhabitable?
Only a complete moratorium on immigration would give America the break it needs to regain control of our system. Trump&#8217;s refugee reduction is not an apocalypse. It&#8217;s a long overdue respite from the world&#8217;s wretched refuse that deserves cheers, not jeers.
Michelle Malkin&#8217;s email address is MichelleMalkinInvestigates@protonmail.com. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Passport.

MALKIN: Three Cheers For Refugee Reduction

Refugee

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren made remarks about illegal immigration during a town hall in North Carolina on Friday that are likely to turn off voters across the political spectrum.
During the first exchange, a Hispanic woman who spoke through a translator asked Warren if she would deport illegal aliens who had criminal records.
Transcript of the first set of Warren&#8217;s remarks that are likely to be problematic for her:
<blockquote>Translator: I have two questions. If you become president, will you pass a moratorium on deportations? And, if the answer is yes, will you be willing to include people like my husband with criminal records as part of that moratorium?
Warren: I am so sorry for the troubles that you and your five children face. So, I am open to suspending deportations particularly as a way to push Congress for comprehensive immigration reform. I believe that what we&#8217;re doing right now with ICE focusing on people who do not pose a threat &#8230; that they do not make this country safer.</blockquote>
The woman, through her translator, stated that her husband has a criminal record and Warren responded by saying that she was open to not deporting people with criminal records and suggested that targeting people like that for deportation does &#8220;not make this country safer.&#8221;
A Harvard/Harris from June 2019 found that the majority of Americans support mass deportations of all illegal aliens, not just those who have criminal records.
While there were no easily accessible polls asking voters whether they supported deporting criminal illegal aliens, a Gallup poll from a few years ago asked Americans:
<blockquote>Would you favor or oppose each of the following as part of legislation to address the issue of illegal immigration? How about &#8212; Allowing illegal immigrants already in the country the opportunity to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time, including paying taxes and a penalty, passing a criminal background check and learning English?</blockquote>
Gallup received the following results from the question:
<ul>
<li>National adults- Favor: 88%. Oppose: 12%.</li>
<li>Non-Hispanic Whites- Favor: 87%. Oppose: 13%.</li>
<li>Blacks- Favor: 89%. Oppose: 10%.</li>
<li>Hispanics- Favor 92%. Oppose 8%.</li>
</ul>
The fact that nearly 9 out of 10 of all Americans support illegal aliens needing to pass a criminal background check to become a U.S. Citizen likely means that there is a high possibility that a very high percentage of Americans would also oppose allowing criminal illegal aliens to remain in the United States.
Transcript of the second set of Warren&#8217;s remarks that are likely to be problematic for her:
<blockquote>Warren: We need ICE and Customs and Border Patrol just focused on real threats from terrorism, threats container shipping that comes into the United States, contraband that we need to worry about, fentanyl that we need to be focused on. there are places that we should focus for our safety.
&#8230;
The Trump administration&#8217;s notion of anyone who has violated any law means that they can&#8217;t even be considered to stay is wrong. I don&#8217;t know the particular circumstances in your case, but I do know because I&#8217;ve met people who are now held because they had a traffic violation and that&#8217;s how they got picked up and then once they got swept into the system ICE is trying to deport them or has deported people. That&#8217;s fundamentally wrong. People who have been treated as criminals simply for having crossed the border, this is part of why I have supported decriminalizing border crossings.</blockquote>
Warren&#8217;s claim that &#8220;we need ICE&#8221; is supported by the majority of Americans, but is not supported by the majority of Democrats. In fact, &#8220;a plurality of Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE,&#8221; according to a POLITICO/Morning Consult <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-abolish-poll-708703">poll</a>.
Warren&#8217;s support for decriminalizing border crossings is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Americans, according to a NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist poll.
The poll found that 66% of Americans said that it was a bad and the <a href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/854249/even-most-democrats-dont-support-decriminalizing-border-crossings-poll-finds">majority</a> of Republicans and Democrats said that they were opposed to the idea.
In a separate interaction during the townhall, Warren answered a question from a man who asked about providing health care to illegal aliens.
Transcript of the third set of Warrens&#8217; remarks that are likely to be problematic for her:
<blockquote>Questioner: I need to ask you a question today about healthcare access. restrictions to ADA and Medicare meant that in 2017 approximately 6.3 million non-citizen immigrant women of reproductive age were far more likely to be uninsured than naturalized immigrants or citizen women. we know that you have included undocumented people in your plans to provide Medicare for all. so, my question is, why did you decide to include people regardless of immigration status and would this include obtaining subsidies like the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s affordability subsidies? and second, would you also support access to the children&#8217;s health insurance program without regard to immigration status?
Warren: Okay, good. so, let&#8217;s start, I know I&#8217;m really glad you asked this, on Medicare for all, as I put this together, covers everyone regardless of immigration status and that&#8217;s it.</blockquote>
Warren&#8217;s support for giving illegal aliens is overwhelming <a href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/854249/even-most-democrats-dont-support-decriminalizing-border-crossings-poll-finds">opposed</a> by the majority of Americans, 62%, who say that it is a bad idea. The only demographic that was in favor of the idea was Democratic voters, although moderate Democrats did not support the idea.

Elizabeth Warren

New Warren Remarks On Illegal Immigration Likely To Turn Off Both Sides

A Halloween party at the White House last week invited children and their families to help &#8220;Build the Wall&#8221; by creating a paper mural with their own personalized bricks.
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="4" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
&#8220;The party, which took place inside the office building used by White House staff, included the families of executive-branch employees and VIP guests inside and outside government,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white-house-childre-build-the-wall-halloween_n_5dbdf8b3e4b0576b62a2e141">HuffPost</a>. Even though many of the attendees were members of President Trump’s administration, not everyone thought the Halloween game was a treat.&#8221;
Here is just one photo of the display:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
EXCLUSIVE: At a White House Halloween party, children were encouraged to help “Build the Wall” with their own personalized bricks <a href="https://t.co/ckofO1fIrY">https://t.co/ckofO1fIrY</a> by <a href="https://twitter.com/janawinter?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@janawinter</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/hunterw?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@hunterw</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/CEDickson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CEDickson</a> <a href="https://t.co/X6QExgMNZ4">pic.twitter.com/X6QExgMNZ4</a>
&mdash; Yahoo News (@YahooNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1190652585579044864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Children dressed in costumes were given brick-colored paper and asked to write their names down to form the display. Their &#8220;bricks&#8221; were taped to a wall on, forming a &#8220;Build the Wall&#8221; display on the first floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The &#8220;Wall&#8221; was the work of an EEOB staffer, not the president&#8217;s or vice president&#8217;s office directly.
&#8220;Earlier in the week offices inside the EEOB had been instructed to put together kid-friendly displays for trick-or-treaters,&#8221; continued HuffPost. &#8220;The displays were supposed to be interactive and inspiring, and all were supposed to address the party’s theme: &#8216;When I grow up I want to be…'&#8221;
Though the vice president&#8217;s ceremonial office is located on the building&#8217;s second floor, a spokesperson for Mike Pence said his office had no hand in the display.
“Our ceremonial office had a plane display,” the spokesperson said. “We had kids build their own paper airplanes and fly them. That’s what the VP came to. He came to our ceremonial office.”
One person in attendance told Yahoo News on the condition of anonymity that they were horrified by the display. “Horrified. We were horrified,&#8221; the person said.
One anonymous official in the Trump administration felt people were making too big a deal out of the display. “Everyone loses their minds over everything, and nothing can be funny anymore,” the person said.
One Republican congressional staffer frankly said, &#8220;Who gives a s*** about EEOB having Halloween decorations.”
Ben Rohrbaugh, who worked on National Security Council on border security in the Obama administration, told Yahoo News that the wall is a &#8220;xenophobic symbol.&#8221;
</div>
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="9" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="16" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
“To the extent the wall is just a xenophobic symbol, this is obviously a gross thing to have children do,” said Rohrbaugh. “To the extent it’s a representation of an actual wall on the southwest border, the kids have made nearly as much progress as the president has since 2017.”
Nate Snyder, who previously served in the Department of Homeland Security as a counterterrorism official, said the White House never created such political displays during the Obama administration.
</div>
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="18" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
“We never did anything like this in the Obama administration,” said Snyder. “We hung up skeletons and ghosts.”
</div>
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="19" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
Immigration activists were also disturbed by the display. Erika Andiola, the chief advocacy officer for pro-immigration non-profit RAICES, said a border wall should never have been part of a children&#8217;s Halloween party.
</div>
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="23" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
“I don’t think they understand the amount of pain that people are going through at the border for them to make a joke out of it,” Andiola said. “We still are dealing with children in cages even if people are not calling it that, so it’s not a joke.”
</div>
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="28" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
<div class="content-list-component yr-content-list-text text" data-rapid-cpos="25" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph" data-rapid-parsed="subsec">
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said the display dehumanized brown people. “It screams to white grievance voters that ‘real Americans’ should fear, exclude and dehumanize brown people,” Sharry said. “Only in Trump’s White House would a holiday event centered on kids, costumes and candy become a propaganda opportunity for his racism and xenophobia.”
</div>
</div>
</div>

President Trump And First Lady Melania Host Halloween Event At The White House

Families Visiting White House Were Invited To Help ‘Build The Wall’ On Halloween

Halloween

White House

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the administration was restricting the intake of refugees into the United States to the lowest-level on record under the current refugee system.
In a memo to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump announced that he was setting the refugee cap at 18,000 refugees for Fiscal Year 2020 — 12,000 lower than Trump&#8217;s cap for Fiscal Year 2019, and &#8220;the lowest number since the modern refugee system was created nearly 40 years ago,&#8221; The Washington Times <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/1/donald-trump-imposes-lowest-refugee-cap-ever/">reported</a>.
The Trump administration reportedly considered going even lower when they first entertained the idea over the summer, cutting the number all the way down to nearly zero.
&#8220;During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/trump-officials-refugee-zero-1603503">reported</a>. &#8220;Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.&#8221;
The officials who were in favor of accepting zero refugees reportedly &#8220;argued in the meeting that the refugee cap should be low because of ongoing security concerns and the ability of the U.S. to offer humanitarian protections through the asylum process.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s memo to Pompeo on Friday reflected that thinking stating, &#8220;The admission of up to 18,000 refugees to the United States during Fiscal Year 2020 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.&#8221;</div>
</div>
Those who will be allowed to be under consideration for entering the United States as a refugee in 2020 under the 18,000 cap are limited to:
<blockquote>1. Refugees who: 
• have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion; 
or 
• who are within a category of aliens established under subsections (b) and (c) of section 599D of Title V, Public Law 101-167, as amended (the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments) 5,000
2. Refugees who are within a category of aliens listed in section 1243(a) of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007, Title XII, Div. A, Public Law 110 181, as amended 4,000
3. Refugees who are nationals or habitual residents of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras 1,500
4. Other refugees, including, in particular: 
• those referred to the United States Refugee Admissions Program by a United States Embassy in any location; 
• those who gain access to the United States Refugee Admissions Program for family reunification through the &#8220;Priority 3&#8221; process or through a Form I-730 following to join petition; 
• those currently located in Australia, Nauru, or Papua New Guinea who gain access to the United States Refugee Admissions Program pursuant to an arrangement between the United States and Australia; and 
• those in the United States Refugee Admissions Program who were in &#8220;Ready for Departure&#8221; status as of September 30, 2019. 7,500</blockquote>
The Washington Times noted that the 18,000 cap is significantly lower than the &#8220;110,000 refugee target the Obama administration tried to set for 2017.&#8221;
The crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border quieted down somewhat over the summer thanks to a mix of extreme heat that discouraged would be migrants from trying to make the trek through Central America and Mexican officials guarding the U.S. southern border thus further discouraging migrants from trying to enter the U.S.
&#8220;Even though crossings have been down over the past few months and news of custody deaths and teeming facilities full of children and families has faded from front pages and talking points of politicians, the number of migrants coming over border is still high,&#8221; the Associated Press reported late last week. &#8220;And resources are still stretched.&#8221;
“It is kind of a new norm. We’re at risk at any time,” Brian Hastings, chief of law enforcement operations at Border Patrol told the AP in respect to conditions caused by left-wing judicial activists who remove deterrent efforts that help U.S. officials gain control of the border. “We will go back, mark the words, we will go back to the crisis level that we had before.”

Migrants Immigrants Illegal Aliens

Trump Admin Takes Drastic Step On Refugee Admissions

In fiscal year 2018, there were approximately 396,579 apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the southern border of the United States, according to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/">Pew Research</a>. The organization estimates that there are roughly 10.5 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States today.
Despite efforts by the Trump administration to enhance border security, and by Republicans to draft legislation that would help resolve the crisis, little has been accomplished.
Although Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), who represents Texas’ Second Congressional District, has only been in office since January 2019, he’s already made waves in multiple policy debates, including those which impact the illegal immigration and border crisis.
On Friday, I had the opportunity to speak with Rep. Crenshaw about these issues. In part two of this interview, Crenshaw discusses visa overstays, what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here, how Republicans can effectively communicate conservative ideas while progressives run the game, how to explain these ideas compassionately, and more.
Before reading on, make sure to check out part one <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-dan-crenshaw-on-how-to-solve-the-border-and-illegal-immigration-crisis">here</a>.
<blockquote>DW: Turning away specifically from the border, what can be done about visa overstays?
CRENSHAW: That&#8217;s an interesting question. I think for a lot of voters, they can&#8217;t even have that conversation until they feel like their border is secure. That&#8217;s always step one, because while you can deal with visa overstays, you still have this influx. It&#8217;s like bailing out a rowboat with a big hole in the bottom of it. You&#8217;ve got to fix the hole first, and then you&#8217;ve got to deal with the water that&#8217;s in there. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re going to face, hopefully after we finally fix our border problems. The frustrating thing about that is I&#8217;ve laid out very clear solutions to fixing the border. We know exactly what to do, and we just need to do it.
Then we have to ask ourselves questions. Okay, what are you going to do with the estimated 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants here? Well, if they&#8217;ve been committing some crimes, been in and out of jail, I think the answer is easy. They should be deported. But what about those who aren&#8217;t? Okay, what about those who have been here for a while? They&#8217;re here illegally. They had a visa. They did it the right way, but they overstayed their visa? You&#8217;re not going to round them up and deport them. That&#8217;s not realistic. So, what do you do? There are a lot of ideas out there, and I&#8217;m not sure which one we eventually fall on, but it involves questions like, do they pay some kind of restitution? They broke the law. Shouldn&#8217;t they be punished for that in the form of some kind of fee or fine? Yeah, maybe that&#8217;s it. What should that fine be?
Those are the questions we have to ask ourselves. Then what do they get out of that? Do they get an extended visa? How long is that visa extended for? Is it a work visa? Should they ever be eligible for citizenship? I would argue probably not because they broke the law, and there&#8217;s no reason to give them a forward place in the line in front of legal immigrants who&#8217;ve done it the right way. There&#8217;s a sense of justice, I think. There&#8217;s the conversation about justice that we have to have here and intertwine that with our sense of reality about what can be done and what the best way forward is.
DW: How can Republicans effectively communicate these ideas to the public while the Democrats are essentially running the narrative game?
CRENSHAW: In all of the same ways that I already discussed. With social media. People like to see the videos on it. People like to have things explained in a conversational tone, and show them. I think that it just gains the trust of people. That&#8217;s why I would go to the border and create videos about that. You have to show them. You have to speak to experts, not just me repeating talking points. I&#8217;m actually talking to the people who deal with this every single day and providing the facts, and the American people are smart enough to sift through that.
DW: The Left often accuses conservatives of dehumanization on the immigration issue. How can conservatives offer solutions without appearing to dehumanize the situation?
CRENSHAW: That&#8217;s a combination of conservatives often using the wrong rhetoric, but also the Left, I think, improperly portraying our rhetoric as well. The consequences have been that it seems as if conservatives vilify illegal immigrants, which is actually why when I point to the problems of an open border, I never say, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s because of the drugs and the crime.&#8221; I never say that, because it&#8217;s too easy for the Left to say, &#8220;Oh, see? That&#8217;s how they see immigrants.&#8221; It&#8217;s not a good look, and it doesn&#8217;t help us solve the problem.
What I say is, listen, it&#8217;s unsustainable. We have almost a million people crossing illegally a year. It&#8217;s not sustainable, and it lacks respect for the sovereignty of our country and the management of our own borders. Also, it cuts in front of the line of legal immigrants. Sorry. None of that is good. None of that is moral. It&#8217;s not moral to cut in front of legal immigrants who wanted to do it the right way, so why should we reward that? It&#8217;s a better message so that we&#8217;re not vilifying people. Let&#8217;s assume they&#8217;re all great people. That&#8217;s not the question. The question is, do we have a system and do we enforce basic rule of law?
DW: So what is your hope over the next, say, decade of policy on this area?
CRENSHAW: My hope is just the solutions that I outlined earlier. You&#8217;ve got to fix the border first. We have very clear ideas on how to do that, and it really just comes down to a commitment to law enforcement. That&#8217;s what I want to see. Ten years is unfortunately the short term. If we can solve the border issues within the next ten years, then we can finally set the stage for a better conversation about overall immigration reform.
DW: Lastly, is there anything pertaining to the border discussion or immigration discussion that you would want our readership or the public at large to know that we haven&#8217;t talked about?
CRENSHAW: I would say this, actually. You&#8217;ve seen a drop in illegal immigration crossings over the last couple of months, and people should understand why that is. The first reason, maybe the most insignificant though, is the fact that it was hot out. It&#8217;s the summertime. There are fewer crossings during the summer. But more importantly was actually our relationship with Mexico. The Mexican government was doing more to secure their own border, and also the &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy, which is probably the most important part.
The Migrant Protection Protocols, or the &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy, basically allows government to send, I think, about 300 illegal immigrants per day back to await their claims in Mexico. When you do that, you&#8217;re creating a huge deterrent. So now there&#8217;s a chance – even if it&#8217;s a small chance – there&#8217;s still a chance that you might do all this work to cross the border illegally and then get sent right back to Mexico. Again, this feeds into the enforcement of our laws, and it creates a big deterrent when we actually do that. It was a small step that the administration was able to take despite no action from Congress, and we should recognize that work on the part of the administration.</blockquote>
I’d like to thank Rep. Crenshaw for taking the time to speak with me about such an incredibly important topic. For more information about and from Crenshaw, follow him on <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/dancrenshawtx/?hl=en">Instagram</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interview-part-i-dan-crenshaw-on-how-to-solve-the-border-and-illegal-immigration-crisis">INTERVIEW (Part I): Dan Crenshaw On How To Solve The Border And Illegal Immigration Crisis</a>

Dan Crenshaw.

INTERVIEW (Part II): Dan Crenshaw On How To Solve The Border Crisis, And How Conservatives Can Get The Message Out

Dan Crenshaw

Media Bias

Southern Border

In fiscal year 2018, there were approximately 396,579 apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the southwest border of the United States, according to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/">Pew Research</a>. The organization estimates that there are roughly 10.5 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States today.
Despite efforts by the Trump administration to enhance border security, and by Republicans to draft legislation that would help resolve the crisis, little has been accomplished.
Although Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), who represents Texas’ Second Congressional District, has only been in office since January 2019, he’s already made waves in multiple policy debates, including those which impact the illegal immigration and border crisis.
On Friday, I had the opportunity to speak with Rep. Crenshaw about these issues. In part one of this two-part interview, Crenshaw discusses specific actions that need to be taken to secure the border, prior failures by politicians to reach a deal on immigration, the wildly divergent immigration philosophies of conservatives and progressives, and how social media can help Republicans reach voters.
<blockquote>DW: What is the first thing that the United States needs to do to fix the immigration crisis?
CRENSHAW: The Number one priority is to enforce the laws we have – if I had to say generally what we need to do. Enforcement is the key because enforcement is a deterrent and everything else follows from that.
Some reforms we need to make, the Flores Settlement, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re familiar with, says that we can&#8217;t hold any children, whether they&#8217;re with their parents or without their parents past 20 days. What this creates is a situation where we can never adjudicate the case. So whether that case is a 1325 violation, crossing the border illegally, or whether that is an asylum case, we can&#8217;t adjudicate it. We have a system that requires that we let family units go into the population, into the United States, before we can actually adjudicate their case. Then we have to rely on their goodwill to show up for their court case, and then agree to be deported when we say that, &#8220;Well, you don&#8217;t actually have a valid asylum claim,&#8221; or, &#8220;You are in violation of 1325.&#8221; People know this.
Here&#8217;s an important date to know. It was 2017 when Flores was actually redefined from the 1997 agreement to include family units. Before, it was just unaccompanied minors, but it became family units. This was a signal to everybody south of the border that they should bring a kid with them, and then they would basically be let go for sure inside the United States. That&#8217;s a huge deal. You have to hold people long enough to adjudicate those claims, and then you need to have the resources to adjudicate the clients. By that, I mean immigration judges and holding facilities in order to do that. Simply, I&#8217;m just saying that we need to enforce the law.
DW: What are the key problems with the border that, if addressed, would solve the immigration crisis (aside from enforcing law)?
CRENSHAW: The Flores settlement specifically would be, I think, the number one thing. Number two would be additional resources to adjudicate those claims – immigration judges and detention facilities. Number three, the technology and infrastructure for the border patrol to catch all the people who don&#8217;t want to be caught – wall and technology.
DW: Some claim that the Republican Party doesn&#8217;t actually care about the issue, but simply wants to have it as a weapon for future elections. What are your thoughts on that?
CRENSHAW: I just don&#8217;t agree with that premise at all. I&#8217;m not sure who says that. I can see that coming from the trackers on the Left who are trying to undercut our basic arguments, but I just don&#8217;t think [that’s valid]. The next question would be, &#8220;Okay, well you guys had the Senate, the House, and the presidency, and you didn&#8217;t solve this.&#8221; Well, the reason was there, and it&#8217;s a fair criticism – of course, not against me because I wasn&#8217;t there – but it&#8217;s a fair criticism. However, the reason it happened wasn&#8217;t because nobody wanted to solve it. The reason it happened was probably because we didn&#8217;t have 60 votes in the Senate, first of all. It&#8217;s not filibuster proof. Two, I think they tried to get too much out of that deal, and for maybe the more moderate Republicans, that was, I think, untenable. I don&#8217;t know the inside baseball of how those conversations played out, but I think we made &#8220;perfect&#8221; the enemy of &#8220;good,&#8221; and that&#8217;s the unfortunate part. But this theory that in secret Republican politicians don&#8217;t want this problem solved, that&#8217;s just complete nonsense.
DW: What do you believe is preventing Democratic politicians from really sitting down with Republicans to address the issue of immigration in any meaningful way?
CRENSHAW: We have two different philosophies. I think as a conservative, we generally believe in the sovereignty of a nation. That&#8217;s an important tenet of our belief system. The Democratic Party doesn&#8217;t hold that as strongly, at least, and as of recently, they&#8217;ve developed totally different policy goals. If you have the same goal, but different ways of getting to that goal, you can compromise. You can imagine a lot of policy issues where that&#8217;s true – alleviating poverty for instance. But when your goals are actually different, then it becomes impossible to compromise, so we get fought at every turn. When we were negotiating during the government shutdown, it was really unbelievable to see what Democrats would fight against, like more detention facility space for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You have to question, why are you fighting against this? I mean, these are literal resources for law enforcement.
They&#8217;re not arguing against changing the law, they just want it to be enforced less. &#8220;What&#8217;s your end goal here?&#8221; You really have to ask that question. If your end goal is more illegal immigrants being free within the United States; when you don&#8217;t want to build any kind of barriers on the southern border – what is your end goal? That&#8217;s why there can&#8217;t be compromise, because it&#8217;s not clear what they want at all, and it&#8217;s changed radically over time. That’s something that I try to help Democratic voters understand, because Democrats, as voters, are not in favor of open borders, at least not in my experience, but the actions of their politicians, the Democratic politicians, are very clearly open borders. Even Tulsi Gabbard thinks so.
DW: Speaking of getting people to understand, you&#8217;ve used social media really effectively to break down ideology and issues, most recently with your border video on Instagram. You seem to be one of very few on the Republican side who really engage on social media like that. Is that something that needs to change if conservatism, specifically related to the border issue, is going to remain viable?
CRENSHAW: Yeah, I think so. I would love to see our Republican leadership do these videos a lot more. Not just our leadership, I mean our politicians, I mean our forward thinkers. Lay out the facts in a coherent way. Talk to the people, not at the people.
So, there&#8217;s a tone issue there that I think we could do better with. Simply just lay it out. Lay out the other side&#8217;s argument and then lay out why it&#8217;s wrong. That&#8217;s what people want to hear. What we often do instead is just repeat our own talking points, and it leaves people wondering, &#8220;Okay, but the other side said this. You didn&#8217;t address that.&#8221; Well, why don&#8217;t we just address it from the beginning? I&#8217;m always skeptical of just using talking points. I like to use the other side&#8217;s talking points, frankly, and then explain in layman&#8217;s terms why I disagree with those, and why they&#8217;re just fundamentally untrue. The purpose of using social media is to use it as a conversation with people. I think that&#8217;s what we try to do.</blockquote>
Stay tuned for part two of this interview, which will be released on Sunday. For more information on and from Rep. Crenshaw, you can follow him on <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/dancrenshawtx/?hl=en">Instagram</a>.
The Instagram video referenced above can be watched here:
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/tv/B3pjdyaAau6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/B3pjdyaAau6/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A post shared by Dan Crenshaw (@dancrenshawtx)</a> on <time style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px;" datetime="2019-10-15T19:01:31+00:00">Oct 15, 2019 at 12:01pm PDT</time>
</div>
</blockquote>

INTERVIEW (Part I): Dan Crenshaw On How To Solve The Border And Illegal Immigration Crisis

The 2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court term officially kicked off today with oral argument in the case of <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1181192452331511810">Kahler v. Kansas</a>. This is the first full term with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and many conservatives — especially those of a perhaps more sanguine judicial disposition than <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">yours truly</a> — eagerly anticipate what they hope will be important rulings in disparate hot-button legal areas such as abortion, gun rights, transgenderism and homosexuality, and immigration. Here are some key cases (with predictions!) and key broader themes to watch for, from a conservative perspective.
Cases
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gee-v-june-medical-services-llc/">June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee</a>: This is the most important abortion case since 2016&#8217;s disappointing result in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf">Whole Women&#8217;s Health v. Hellerstedt</a>, which nullified the underlying Texas pro-life statute at issue. In Gee, the justices will grapple with two important questions: (1) Whether Louisiana&#8217;s hospital admitting privileges law for abortionists complies with the &#8220;undue burden&#8221; constitutional standard first promulgated in 1992&#8217;s infamous Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and (2) whether so-called <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/legal-argument-louisiana-could-have-huge-josh-hammer">&#8220;third-party standing&#8221; doctrine for abortionists</a> should be doctrinally revisited. PREDICTION: Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts write a plurality opinion that upholds Louisiana&#8217;s law while very narrowly paring back Casey&#8216;s &#8220;undue burden&#8221; standard. But the chief justice joins liberals to secure continued <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-pence-promises-challenge-nationwide-josh-hammer">liberal standing</a> requirements for abortionists.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York</a>: This is the first Second Amendment case that the justices have taken since 2010&#8217;s landmark City of Chicago v. McDonald, which incorporated the individual right to keep and bear arms — as articulated by the Court two years prior in District of Columbia v. Heller — against state governments. In the comparably minor case of City of New York, the nine robed oracles will assess whether New York City&#8217;s <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/">&#8220;ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits&#8221;</a> is reconcilable with the Second Amendment&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-must-not-go-soft-assault-josh-hammer">individual right</a> established in Heller and McDonald. PREDICTION: New York City&#8217;s ban will be overturned on a standard 5-4 ideological judicial split.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/altitude-express-inc-v-zarda/">Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda </a>(consolidated with <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bostock-v-clayton-county-georgia/">Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia</a>): In what is perhaps my personally most anticipated consolidated case of the term, the justices will adjudicate whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination because of &#8220;sex,&#8221; necessarily also bans employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. The obvious and common sensical answer, using standard tools of statutory interpretation, is a resounding <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-hos-excellent-opinion-on-title-vii-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-part-1/">&#8220;no.&#8221;</a> But the Court oftentimes does not supply the correct answer in these seemingly straightforward legal questions, especially where cultural currents strongly point in the sexual liberationist direction. PREDICTION: Kavanaugh defects to join the liberals in a 5-4 judicial re-writing of Title VII to accommodate sexual orientation. Thomas and Alito write scathing dissents, as Kavanaugh&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-draw-right-lessons-kavanaughs-bad-start-no-josh-hammer">reputation as moderate</a> is solidified early in his tenure.</li>
<li> <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-naacp/">Trump v. NAACP</a> (consolidated with two other cases): At long last, the black-robed oracles of the Court will finally deign to decide for us flyover state plebeians whether then-President Barack Obama&#8217;s unconstitutional DACA executive amnesty may be rescinded by President Trump. The very fact that this is a viable legal issue — let alone a high-profile one — is, of course, dispiriting. But much like the so-called &#8220;travel ban&#8221; case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf">Trump v. Hawaii</a>, the presence of the &#8220;orange man&#8221; as a named party to a lawsuit tends to enflame the passions of the judicial <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/judicial-resistance">#resistance</a>. PREDICTION: Trump&#8217;s executive rescinding of Obama&#8217;s unconstitutional amnesty is upheld, but only after the chief justice and Kavanaugh first both side with the liberals in erroneously finding that Trump&#8217;s rescinding of the policy is judicially reviewable, in the first instance.</li>
</ol>
Themes
<ol>
<li>Will Kavanaugh move to the right or solidify his centrist bona fides as the chief justice&#8217;s <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/07/supreme-court-bromance-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh-tie-up-court/3342377002/">wingman</a>? Kavanaugh had a complicated initial partial term on the Court. He found himself in the majority more than any other justice, and emerged as the closest ally on the Court to new, post-Anthony Kennedy &#8220;swing vote&#8221; Chief Justice Roberts. Kavanaugh generally finished the term in strong fashion, although there were a number of hiccups along the way on issues as wide-ranging as the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-roberts-and-kavanaughs-death-penalty-josh-hammer">death penalty</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-blown-opportunity-justice-kavanaugh-quickly-josh-hammer">antitrust</a>. I tend toward pessimism when it comes to Kavanaugh — he is, at his core, a Beltway Republican establishmentarian and not a man of Thomas/Scalia-esque originalist juridical convictions. I unfortunately predict more disappointment from Kavanaugh this term, with the consolidated Title VII cases being my best guess for a high-profile case where Kavanaugh will disappoint conservatives.</li>
<li>Will Justice Neil Gorsuch&#8217;s libertarianism — especially on criminal law — continue unabated? While of a decidedly stronger originalist hue than Kavanaugh, Gorsuch&#8217;s second full term on the Court solidified jurisprudential traces that we first saw emerge in his <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/">disastrous</a> 2018 concurrence in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf">Sessions v. Dimaya</a> — namely, that of pro-criminal libertarianism. Toward the end of last term, Gorsuch ruled in disappointing fashion in the &#8220;unconstitutionally void for vagueness&#8221; case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-431_7758.pdf">U.S. v. Davis</a> and the mens rea requirement case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9560_e2p3.pdf">U.S. v. Rehaif</a>. In Rehaif, Gorsuch was joined in the majority by Roberts and Kavanaugh, but in Davis — likely the more pernicious of the two, from the perspective of opening the litigation floodgates to habeas corpus challenges — he joined the liberal bloc alone. Criminal law comprises a plurality of the Supreme Court docket, and it is deeply dispiriting for law-and-order conservatives to see Gorsuch emerge as an ally of the Left in judicially imposing de facto jailbreak initiatives. It is easy for a conservative to be tough on Kavanaugh, but Gorsuch&#8217;s mishaps also demand scrutinizing eyes.</li>
<li>How, if at all, will the chief justice respond to bipartisan attacks on the Court? The chief justice, ever concerned with non-legal, extraneous concerns such as the Court&#8217;s &#8220;institutional integrity,&#8221; is <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2019/10/07/because-they-work-get-ready-for-more-attacks-on-john-roberts/">uniquely susceptible</a> to well-orchestrated P.R./media campaigns against him. The chief should expect much more of that this term, as it seems that the current Court pleases no one in particular — be they on the Left or the Right. Roberts has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-have-issues-john-josh-hammer">long been a disappointment</a> to conservatives, and there is little reason to expect him to change course at this stage of his career on the Court. But it will nonetheless be interesting to monitor whether Roberts will feel compelled to speak up in similar fashion to how he did last term, when he <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/21/john-roberts-trump-statement/2080266002/">condemned Trump&#8217;s comments</a> about overtly partisan federal judges.</li>
<li>Will conservatives finally resign themselves to ending this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">judicial supremacist charade</a>, once and for all? This is, of course, the most important question of all. In a judicial supremacist world — that is, the anti-constitutional legal hellscape wrought by 1958&#8217;s power grab case of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">Cooper v. Aaron</a> — the so-called <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">&#8220;least dangerous&#8221;</a> branch has transmogrified into something much more insidious. Under this faux-legal framework, arguably nothing is more important in the world of federal politics than judicial nominations. But playing the judicial supremacist game is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">systemically rigged</a> against conservatives and, ultimately, is un-winnable. Will conservatives ever wake up?</li>
</ol>

U.S. Supreme Court

HAMMER: The Supreme Court Term Begins Today. Here Is What Conservatives Should Look For.

Abortion

Constitution

First Amendment

LGBT

Second Amendment

So many immigrants appeared at the southern border seeking asylum in the first half of 2019 that the Federal immigration court&#8217;s backlog is now over a million cases &#8212; and that&#8217;s without more than a quarter million cases still being assessed.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/politics/immigration-court-backlog/index.html">CNN reports</a> that court watchdogs tracking asylum cases at the border now report more than 1 million asylum cases awaiting adjudication. Syracuse University, which released a study on the matter last week, claims that there are an additional 300,000 cases that have yet to make it into the system, leaving those asylum seekers &#8220;pending&#8221; without a court date or legal status.
The courts, it seems, are simply overwhelmed. Each individual or family who presents themselves to border patrol or other border law enforcement and requests asylum must be assessed and most are given a court date for an asylum hearing. There are now so many asylum-seekers, though, the standard timeline for adjudication &#8212; at one time as little as three months &#8212; is now around 700 days, or just a little under two years.
&#8220;If nothing else, the continuing rise of the backlog shows that the immigration court is broken,&#8221; Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, told CNN. &#8220;Until we fix the design defect of having a court in a law enforcement agency, we will not be able to address the backlog in a fair and effective manner.&#8221;
It&#8217;s not clear that anyone is interested in making inroads into the defect, and immigration has long since fallen by the wayside in Congress, which is now focused on an impeachment inquiry, even though border conditions haven&#8217;t necessarily improved. The case backlog is the result of months where more than 100,000 migrants requested asylum at the southern border.
“The latest case-by-case court records through the end of August 2019 show the court’s active case backlog was 1,007,155,” the Syracuse report notes. “If the additional 322,535 cases which the court says are pending but have not been placed on the active caseload rolls are added, then the backlog now tops 1.3 million.”
The Justice Department says it doesn&#8217;t officially acknowledge reports done by independent agencies since they may not have all the information necessary to give a true count, but they did admit there&#8217;s problems.
“This report and DOJ’s own data further confirms there is a crisis at the border,&#8221; a spokesperson told CNN. &#8220;This Administration is taking aggressive steps to increase productivity, close loopholes, and hire a record number of judges to address the backlog with our existing authorities.”
The Trump Administration&#8217;s &#8220;Remain in Mexico&#8221; policy, which recently survived a legal challenge, has been helping to alleviate the problem somewhat. Now, instead of crossing the border to official Customs and Border Patrol facilities, being given a court date, and set free into the United States with a demand to return, migrants who want to declare asylum are staying at camps south of the border and having their claims adjudicated by teleconference judges.
The number of migrants appearing at the border has abated somewhat as well. The numbers are no longer in the six figures, likely because the Trump Administration has put a halt to temporary &#8220;catch-and-release&#8221; policies and empowering law enforcement to make educated decisions about which migrants are in immediate danger.

MEXICO-US-BORDER-WALL

Immigration Court Backlog Now Over A Million Cases

Customs and Border Patrol

<div class="mceTemp"></div>
President Trump on Friday signed a presidential proclamation that will prevent U.S. taxpayers from being forced to subsidize health care costs of legal immigrants, who will need to have their own insurance.
In the new rule, which goes into effect Nov. 3, most foreigners who apply for visas  will have to have their own employer-based health insurance or a non-subsidized private health insurance plan before they arrive. The rule does not apply to refugees or those seeking political asylum or nonimmigrant visas.
The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-will-financially-burden-united-states-healthcare-system/">proclamation</a> reads in part:
<blockquote>Healthcare providers and taxpayers bear substantial costs in paying for medical expenses incurred by people who lack health insurance or the ability to pay for their healthcare.  Hospitals and other providers often administer care to the uninsured without any hope of receiving reimbursement from them.  The costs associated with this care are passed on to the American people in the form of higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher fees for medical services.</blockquote>
&#8220;While our healthcare system grapples with the challenges caused by uncompensated care, the United States Government is making the problem worse by admitting thousands of aliens who have not demonstrated any ability to pay for their healthcare costs,&#8221; the proclamation says. &#8220;Notably, data show that lawful immigrants are about three times more likely than United States citizens to lack health insurance. Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.&#8221;
The new rule is expected to save billions of dollars.
&#8220;In total, uncompensated care costs — the overall measure of unreimbursed services that hospitals give their patients — have exceeded $35 billion in each of the last 10 years.  These costs amount to approximately $7 million on average for each hospital in the United States, and can drive hospitals into insolvency.  Beyond uncompensated care costs, the uninsured strain Federal and State government budgets through their reliance on publicly funded programs, which ultimately are financed by taxpayers,&#8221; the proclamation says.
More than 22 million non-citizens now live in the United States, according to data released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to estimates extrapolated from data collected, 22.1 million are &#8220;not a U.S. citizen,&#8221; the data showed. The statistics also showed a record 13.7% of the nation&#8217;s 2018 population &#8212; nearly 44.7 million people &#8212; was born in another country, Census bureau researchers said. That&#8217;s the highest number of foreign-born citizens since 1910. Most are from Latin America.
Between 1960 and 1970, just one in 20 U.S. residents was foreign born.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s foreign-born resident rate has surged to about one in seven in California, Texas, Florida, and New York &#8212; the nation&#8217;s largest states &#8212; where the foreign born population is 15 percent higher than it is elsewhere in America,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7510149/New-U-S-Census-finds-22-1-million-American-residents-non-citizens.html">The Daily Mail</a> reported.
States and cities across the country are also spending billions on aid to illegal aliens. Los Angeles County, for instance, paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare money during 2015 and 2016 to families of illegal aliens. That number amounts to one-​quarter of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/la-made-1-3b-in-illegal-immigrant-welfare-payouts-in-just-2-years">Fox News</a>.
In 2015, more than 58,000 families received $602 million in benefits. The next year, some 64,000 families received $675 million.
The sanctuary county of Los Angeles draws foreigners who enter the United States illegally and now has the largest concentration of any county ​in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. ​Illegal aliens in the county are allowed to receive welfare and food stamp benefits.
Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who studies poverty and illegal immigration, told Fox the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said, including the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing — which can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family.

High Angle View Of Stethoscope Over White Background

Trump Signs Order To Prevent Taxpayers From Subsidizing Health Care For Immigrants

Health Care

Singer Selena Gomez is &#8220;afraid&#8221; for the United States due to the ongoing illegal immigration crisis and hopes Americans will feel more empathy and compassion for illegal immigrants.
In an op-ed for <a href="https://time.com/5690070/selena-gomez-americas-immigration-crisis/">TIME</a>, the &#8220;Good for You&#8221; singer recalls her own family&#8217;s history of illegal immigration, starting when her aunt crossed the border in the 1970s — followed by her grandparents, who then bore her father in Texas.
&#8220;In 1992, I was born a U.S. citizen thanks to their bravery and sacrifice,&#8221; writes Gomez. &#8220;Over the past four decades, members of my family have worked hard to gain United States citizenship. Undocumented immigration is an issue I think about every day, and I never forget how blessed I am to have been born in this country thanks to my family and the grace of circumstance. But when I read the news headlines or see debates about immigration rage on social media, I feel afraid for those in similar situations. I feel afraid for my country.&#8221;
While Selena Gomez acknowledges immigration is a &#8220;divisive political issue,&#8221; the remainder of her essay focuses solely on the plight of the illegal immigrant — thereby neglecting the litany of Americans who have been negatively affected by an open southern border, from drugs trafficked to wages slashed.
&#8220;It is a human issue, affecting real people, dismantling real lives. How we deal with it speaks to our humanity, our empathy, our compassion. How we treat our fellow human beings defines who we are,&#8221; she writes. &#8220;I understand it’s flawed and that we need rules and regulations, but we also have to remember that our country was formed by people who came here from other countries. It’s time to listen to the people whose lives are being directly affected by immigration policies. It’s time to get to know the individuals whose complex stories have been reduced to basic headlines.&#8221;
Gomez goes on to write about her experience producing the documentary series &#8220;Living Undocumented,&#8221; which, again, did not fully explore the highly complex issue of illegal immigration and instead merely focuses &#8220;on eight immigrant families in the U.S. from different countries and backgrounds, all facing possible deportation.&#8221;
&#8220;I watched footage outlining their deeply personal journeys and I cried,&#8221; she cried. &#8220;It captured the shame, uncertainty, and fear I saw my own family struggle with. But it also captured the hope, optimism, and patriotism so many undocumented immigrants still hold in their hearts despite the hell they go through.&#8221;
After describing the individuals and their stories, Gomez expresses her concern by the way people are being treated in the United States. She makes this claim several months after she said the anti-abortion laws in Alabama and Georgia were &#8220;<a href="https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/heres-how-selena-gomez-is-taking-a-stand-against-anti-abortion-laws.html/">deeply upsetting</a>.&#8221;
&#8220;To see what is happening right now in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and several other states in our country is not only deeply upsetting but seems that it can’t possibly be real in 2019. It’s no one’s business what a woman chooses to do with her body. End of story,&#8221; she wrote on her Instagram back in May.

&#8220;The Dead Don&#8217;t Die&#8221; New York Premiere

Selena Gomez Pens Emotional Op-Ed On Immigration: ‘I&#8217;m Afraid For My Country’

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

On Thursday, new acts were added to New York City’s list of what constitutes “hate.”
The NYC Commission on Human Rights announced “new legal enforcement guidance and actions against discrimination based on immigration status and national origin.”
The new crimes include, according to a press release from the commission, “Threatening to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] when motivated by discrimination, derogatory use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ and discrimination based on limited English proficiency are unlawful discriminatory treatment under the NYC Human Rights Law.”
The commission also said it was “currently investigating 4 cases involving discrimination based on threats to call ICE in order to harass, threaten, or intimidate a victim.”
It is unclear exactly how an alleged instance of discrimination could be investigated, considering the “he said/she said” nature of the allegations. Either a lot of cases will result in no findings or New York City residents will lose some due process rights in order to determine their guilt. And this says nothing of the First Amendment rights for speech — even objectionable speech.
“In the face of increasingly hostile national rhetoric, we will do everything in our power to make sure our treasured immigrant communities are able to live with dignity and respect, free of harassment and bias,&#8221; Human Rights Commission Chair Carmelyn P. Malalis said in a statement <a href="https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/telling-nyers-speak-english-could-draw-250k-fine-city-says">published by Patch</a>. &#8220;Today&#8217;s guidance makes abundantly clear that there is no room for discrimination in NYC.&#8221;
The commission told the outlet that it was actually investigating seven cases where landlords threatened to call immigration services on tenants for not paying their rent.
The new guidance “defines discrimination on the basis of perceived or actual immigration status and national origin under the New York City Human Rights Law in public accommodations, employment, and housing.”
“The guidance states that the use of the term ‘illegal alien,’ among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law,” the commission said in its press release. “Further, the guidance stipulates that harassing or discriminating against someone for their use of another language or their limited English proficiency, and threatening to call ICE on a person based on a discriminatory motive, are considered to be in violation of the law.”
Those found in violation face fines of up to $250,000, which “can be assessed for each act of willful discrimination, and damages are available to complainants.”
That last part — about providing damages to accusers — could set up the new policy for abuse. Need money? Accuse your employer of discrimination.
Patch provided some examples of how New York City residents could be in violation of the new guidance:
<blockquote>A store owner would violate the law if he tells two shoppers speaking Thai to &#8220;speak English&#8221; and &#8220;go back to your country,&#8221; the guidance says. Forcings [sic] prospective tenants who appear not to be U.S. citizens to put down six months of rent as a security deposit while only requiring one month&#8217;s rent from those thought to be citizens would also be illegal, according to the commission.</blockquote>

Anti-ICE protest

It’s Now Illegal In NYC To Threaten To Call ICE On Someone Or Tell Them ‘Go Back To Your Country’

New York City

Menu