Podcasts about Immigration Act

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features a wide-ranging conversation with Frank Morris Sr., who recently retired from the Center's Board of Directors after 38 years of service.Morris – a former Foreign Service officer, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and Dean of Graduate Studies at Morgan State University – joined CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian to discuss how immigration policy has evolved over the decades and why its impact on American workers, particularly African Americans, first drew him to the Center.Morris was invited to join the CIS board after publishing research examining immigration's effects on black workers, an issue he believes remains relevant today.Among the topics discussed:Why tight labor markets have historically provided the greatest economic opportunities for African Americans.How immigration policy affects wages, employment, and labor market competition.The changing relationship between the Democratic Party and working-class voters.Why concerns about immigration's impact on black workers have largely disappeared from mainstream political debate.The divide between political leadership and grassroots opinion on immigration.The role of institutions such as churches, civil rights organizations, fraternities, and historically black colleges in advancing economic opportunity.Why Morris believes understanding immigration requires a deeper appreciation of American history, particularly labor markets, immigration, and economic opportunity.Reflecting on nearly four decades with CIS, Morris discusses the personal and professional costs of taking unpopular positions, the future of the immigration debate, and why he believes policymakers must pay closer attention to the interests of American workers.In his closing commentary, Krikorian drew attention to the recent federal indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which libeled CIS as a “hate group” in an attempt to police the immigration debate, drawing particular attention to New York Post reporting on Heidi Beirich, who was responsible for the “hate group” designation.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestFrank Morris, Sr. is an Emeritus Board Member of the Center for Immigration StudiesLinksA 2013 interview with Frank MorrisSPLC boss funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank accountHow labeling my organization a hate group shuts down public debateIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

At a recent Immigration Newsmaker hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, Rodney Scott, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, joined Center Executive Director Mark Krikorian for an in-depth conversation on the challenges facing CBP and the administration's broader enforcement strategy. The discussion examined current efforts to secure both the southern and northern borders, combat human smuggling and cartel activity, expand border wall system construction, strengthen coordination with ICE, and facilitate lawful trade and travel while protecting national security.Commissioner Scott oversees the front lines of America's border and national security operations. Under the leadership of DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, CBP has taken on an increasingly central role in implementing the administration's immigration and border security agenda, making Commissioner Scott one of the most consequential voices in immigration policy today.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRodney Scott is the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.LinksPress ReleaseVideoTranscriptIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast examines a recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo emphasizing that adjustment of status - the process allowing certain aliens, either temporary visa holders or unlawfully present, who are eligible for permanent residence to obtain it without leaving the United States - is a discretionary benefit and not a guaranteed alternative to consular processing abroad.The discussion between Senior Legal Fellow George Fishman and Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan is accompanied by a new report and a policy blog on the subject.Among the key findings:Congress created adjustment of status under section 245 of the new Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952 largely to eliminate the need for temporary visa holders already in the United States to travel outside the U.S. for immigrant visa processing to permanent status.In FY2023, which is the most recent year for which statistics on adjustment of status admissions are available, the number of adjustments was 608,260 out of 1,172,910 total immigrant admissions, or 52 percent. Of these adjustments, by far the largest share were in the category of Immediate Relatives (315,830). In contrast, in 2023 only 146,880 people adjusted in all the employment categories combined, although this represented 75 percent of all employment LPR admissions.The policy change is expected to have its greatest impact on certain family-based applicants, including some who overstayed visas, violated the terms of admission, or entered illegally and received parole.While USCIS has broad discretion in adjustment decisions, courts have held that such discretion is not unlimited and may be reviewed for abuse of discretion.Existing legal precedent does not clearly support treating the mere act of seeking adjustment of status as a negative factor weighing against an applicant.USCIS has indicated that it may exercise discretion and offer some applicants the opportunity to adjust if it is in the national interest, such as in the case of applicants with meaningful employment or for humanitarian considerations.Fishman's report concludes that the legal significance of the directive will depend on how USCIS implements it in practice. If denial rates rise substantially or applications are denied absent meaningful adverse factors, litigation challenging those decisions is likely to follow (if federal courts allow legal challenges to adjustment denials outside of removal proceedings).Vaughan argues that the policy could strengthen the integrity of the immigration system as overstayers and parolees will no longer apply for fear of being caught for extended unlawful presence.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.LinksUSCIS Upends the Status Quo for Adjustment of StatusUSCIS Blocks Green Card Shortcut for Overstayers and ParoleesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast examines how the federal government can reduce illegal immigration through administrative, financial, and workplace enforcement measures designed to encourage self-deportation rather than relying primarily on large-scale arrest operations.Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, joins George Fishman, the Center's senior legal fellow, to discuss what they describe as “briefcase immigration enforcement” — the wide range of legal and regulatory tools available to federal agencies that can make it more difficult for illegal aliens to remain and work in the United States indefinitely.The discussion follows recent Center blogs analyzing President Trump's Executive Order, “Restoring Integrity to America's Financial System,” which directs federal agencies to examine how banking regulations, lending practices, and identification requirements may facilitate illegal immigration and unlawful employment.The podcast examines measures such as requiring proof of legal status to send remittances abroad, restricting access to the U.S. banking system for those here unlawfully, and imposing criminal and civil penalties on aliens who fail to depart within 90 days of receiving final removal orders. The discussion covers proposals to send Social Security “no-match” letters to employers, make more it difficult for illegal aliens to obtain identification documents and driver's licenses, revoke commercial driver's licenses issued improperly, and expand employers' access to photo-matching verification to confirm worker identity and employment eligibility.In the final commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, discusses a recent Center report arguing that Congress should consider increasing the waiting period for naturalization to give applicants more time to demonstrate their character and commitment to the principles of the Constitution. The “1798 Solution”, so named because from 1798 to 1802 the wait was 14 years, may be one of the most effective tools available to prevent individuals who pose national security threats from obtaining U.S. citizenship.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.LinksBig Banks and U.S. Treasury Have Been Enabling Illegal Immigration for Two DecadesTrump to Banks: Illegal Aliens are Bad Credit RisksDHS and DOJ Begin Imposing Massive Fines on Aliens Who Refuse to LeavePreventing Naturalization National Security Threats: The 1789 SolutionIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

As the nation awaits a potentially landmark Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features renowned legal scholar Richard Epstein for an in-depth discussion of the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments surrounding the issue.Epstein, emeritus professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School, senior fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of the new book The Myth of Birthright Citizenship, recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. In the brief, Epstein argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically confer citizenship on children born in the United States to illegal aliens.During the conversation, Epstein explains that understanding the issue requires careful textual and historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”According to Epstein, the clause requires more than mere physical presence or birth within the United States. He argues that individuals born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign, or whose parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, are excluded from automatic citizenship.The episode also explores Epstein's critique of the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is widely understood as establishing birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Epstein contends the ruling was wrongly decided and should not be extended to cases involving children born to illegal immigrants.Drawing on centuries of legal history, Epstein discusses the overlooked Naturalization Acts from 1790 to 1870, the writings of influential thinkers including William Blackstone and Emer de Vattel, and American legal practices before and after the Civil War. He argues that citizenship historically required allegiance and mutual obligations between citizen and sovereign - not simply birth within territorial boundaries.In his closing commentary, podcast host Mark Krikorian discusses the ongoing legislative battle over funding for CBP and ICE through 2029. Republicans are advancing a budget reconciliation package that could reach the House floor as early as this week or next. Because reconciliation bills can pass with a simple majority, the legislation would bypass the Senate's traditional 60-vote filibuster threshold. Krikorian highlights that the Democratic Party has embraced positions hostile to the existence of immigration enforcement agencies, creating potential political consequences in upcoming debates and elections.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRichard Epstein is Emeritus Professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School and Senior Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.LinksThe Myth of Birthright CitizenshipThe Case Against Birthright CitizenshipBrief of Amicus Curiae: Professor A. Epstein in Support of the Petitioners and ReversalIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

VR32 - As the economic effects of Trump's war of choice in the Middle East begin to hit home, his party is playing the one card it has going into the midterms: the promise of fully restoring open white supremacy to the US immigration system. We begin with a sampler platter of amuse douche from a recent episode of Tim Pool's podcast–mercifully free of Tim Pool–to get a sense of how the MAGA right is talking about immigration reform these days. Matt then gives a brief history lesson about the openly racist origins of the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Cold War origins of the 1965 Hart-Celler bill which Republicans are now trying to repeal before we dive into the main course: a recent piece in The Federalist written in support of Rep. Andy Ogle's Assimilation Act. Why do these people hate families so much? Can Congress really end birthright citizenship? And can you really build an entire thinkpiece entirely out of red flags? Join us this week on Vapid Response Wednesday to find out. The National Visa Bulletin's website Whom We Shall Welcome (1952) The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 It's Long Past Time To Scrap Hart-Celler And Insist That Immigrants Assimilate (John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist; 5/15/2026) Watch us on YouTube! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' podcast, Parsing Immigration Policy, examines the issuing of employment authorization documents (EADs), the use of executive discretion in granting work permits, and a proposed regulation affecting asylum applicants.The episode features CIS Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy Elizabeth Jacobs and Senior Legal Fellow George Fishman discussing how millions of immigrants, including illegal aliens, parole recipients, TPS beneficiaries, DACA recipients, asylum applicants, and temporary visa holders, have received work permits without Congress's authorization.According to CIS estimates, roughly 15 million individuals currently possess work authorization and 4.3 million illegal aliens may be eligible for work permits. As a result, USCIS reports that it faces more than 1.7 million pending EAD applications.The discussion also focuses on a recent DHS regulation that would tighten eligibility for asylum-based work permits by increasing the waiting period from 180 to 365 days and barring applicants who are prima facie ineligible for asylum from receiving employment authorization and requiring the agency to pause acceptance of asylum-based EAD applications when affirmative asylum processing times exceed 180 days. Currently, processing times average over 1,200 days, while a new affirmative asylum applicant could expect to wait decades, according to DHS, before receiving a final decision on their claim.The episode explains that lengthy asylum processing times have created strong incentives for individuals to file asylum claims primarily to obtain work authorization and remain in the United States for extended periods while cases are pending. USCIS currently faces massive asylum and EAD backlogs, contributing to longer processing times across the immigration system.The conversation also examines broader legal questions surrounding executive authority to issue work permits under the Immigration and Nationality Act and whether decades of expanding administrative interpretation have effectively allowed the executive branch to operate an immigration system outside the numerical and statutory limits established by Congress.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host highlights Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons' recent announcement that ICE identified more than 10,000 foreign students in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program who claimed employment with “highly suspect employers” and that this represents “only the tip of the iceberg.” OPT, which allows foreign graduates to work in the United States for up to 12 months, or up to 36 months for STEM graduates, was created through executive action rather than congressional authorization. The Center has called for the elimination of the program many times in the past.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsElizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.LinksDHS Proposes to Amend Asylum Work-Permit Rules to Reduce Fraud and AbuseDOJ: Asylum Applicants Are Skipping Immigration Court at Record Levels; Their goal all along was work permits, not protectionDHS Issues New Regulation to Automatically Extend the Validity Period of Many Work PermitsWork Authorization Expansion Attracts and Embeds Illegal ImmigrantsGovernment Data Reveal Millions of New Work Permits Issued in 2009OPT Needs to EndIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new episode of its weekly podcast analyzing the Trump administration's use of travel restrictions and visa limitations affecting dozens of countries.In the episode, Jessica Vaughan, CIS's Director of Policy Studies, explains that the administration has implemented a series of “more expansive and more targeted” travel restrictions than seen in his first administration – affecting 75 countries through a combination of full bans, partial restrictions, and category-specific limitations.“These policies are not one-size-fits-all,” Vaughan notes. “They are tailored to specific concerns, including national security risks, weak identity verification systems, and high visa overstay rates, some exceeding 50 percent in certain categories. The restrictions are subject to periodic review.”Additionally, the podcast examines a January 2026 State Department pause on immigrant visa issuance for certain countries under public charge considerations, affecting nations with high rates of welfare use among immigrants.Vaughan's discussion with CIS Executive Director and podcast host Mark Krikorian covers how Congress has granted the president authority to restrict entry in the national interest, forming the legal basis for these measures. Currently, restrictions vary widely:Some countries face full entry bans;Others are subject to partial limits, such as restrictions on student or tourist visas;Waivers are available for compelling cases.Vaughan emphasizes that these policies coincide with a broader effort to strengthen vetting processes at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department. This includes expanded fraud detection, a new National Vetting Center, and more special agents being hired.The policies are already reducing entries and agency workload, but their full impact remains unclear, as the administration has not yet released detailed data.In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses two blog posts this week on assimilation in Miami, by Resident Scholar Jason Richwine. The experience of Miami shows that assimilation into the mainstream is not inevitable and automatic, and that large-scale admissions can make receiving communities unrecognizable. Keeping immigration low and slow is the key to successful assimilation.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.LinksPublic Charge PauseExec Order on travel bansMiami: A Failure of the Assimilation ModelMore on Miami as a Failure of AssimilationIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

At a recent Immigration Newsmaker hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, Andrew Veprek, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), described a complete reorientation of the bureau, shifting it from a humanitarian assistance agency toward implementing U.S. enforcement and return priorities. The discussion offered a look at how immigration policy is increasingly being implemented through diplomacy as well as enforcement.In a discussion moderated by Mark Krikorian, Veprek said PRM is now organized around three basic functions:Remigration and Returns. Veprek outlined the work of PRM's Office of Remigration, including securing cooperation from foreign governments to facilitate the repatriation of nationals ordered removed, arranging third-country transfers when return to home countries is not possible, and supporting voluntary return efforts through Project Homecoming.International Migration and Refugee System Reform. Veprek discussed reforms to the global refugee and asylum system, and U.S. reassessment of international migration frameworks, including reduced reliance on multilateral institutions and changes in relations with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Refugee Processing. He also detailed changes to refugee admissions, including the South Africa resettlement program, the transfer of refugee resettlement responsibilities from the State Department to HHS, increased fraud scrutiny, and the removal of UNHCR from its prior referral role in U.S. refugee admissions.Among the notable points raised during the discussion:Greater foreign cooperation from “recalcitrant” countries on accepting deportees;Use of third-country removal arrangements;Consideration of refugee protection as temporary rather than presumptively permanent;Potential increases to the refugee admissions ceiling;A more selective approach to international organizations based on U.S. interests.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Veprek is the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM).LinksTranscript: Immigration Newsmaker with Andrew VeprekVideo: Immigration Newsmaker with Andrew VeprekIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Today's Parsing Immigration Policy episode is a rebroadcast of an International Network for Immigration Research (INIR) panel that asked a difficult question: Can democracies actually deport large numbers of people, and what happens if they try? Despite years of political focus, large-scale deportation remains extraordinarily difficult to execute in democratic systems governed by courts, rights protections, and bureaucratic limits. This timely panel will explored what is politically popular, what is legally possible, and what is practically achievable.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsViktor Marsai is the Director of the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute.Matt O'Brien is the Deputy Executive Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform.Jim Robb is the Vice President of Alliances, NumbersUSA.LinksPress ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Today, on the Hudson Mohawk Magazine, First, Mark Dunlea speaks with Pippa Bartolotti of the Global Women for Peace Against NATO. Then, Willie Terry interviews Leon Van Dyke about his relationship to the late Civil Rights Activist, the Rev. Jessie L. Jackson. Later on, Justin Hurley brings us to a University of Albany Student Association Senate meeting where they passed the Legal Expenses in Immigration Act. After that, Sina and Marrow interview Rachael Lorimer, founder of the Printmakers Guild of New York. Finally, Lennox Apudo interviews Ms. Darlene Bowman, founder of AusomeTech.

A new podcast episode features immigration policy expert Rosemary Jenks, Policy Director and co-founder of the Immigration Accountability Project, providing a detailed analysis of the DIGNIDAD Act introduced for the third time in six years by Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.). Jenks characterizes the legislation as a broad amnesty proposal, referring to it as the “SAW Act” - short for “Screw All American Workers,” while also alluding to the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker program associated with widespread fraud.Key points discussed include:Scope of AmnestyDirect pathway to citizenship for an estimated 2.5 million “Dreamers,” extending beyond current DACA recipientsRenewable temporary visas for individuals who entered before 2021, with weak documentation requirements that will invite fraud; these visas are indefinitely renewable, effectively allowing recipients to remain in the U.S. permanently.A “rolling amnesty” mechanism tied to family-based immigration, including marriage to U.S. citizens Enforcement and Legal ConcernsA two-year deportation moratorium, allowing individuals, including those currently in detention, to avoid deportation and applyRestrictions on using applicant information for enforcement, shielding employers who hired illegal alien workersConcerns about increased incentives for fraud, including marriage fraudSystem Capacity and SecuritySkepticism about USCIS being able to manage a minimum of 10 million applications, numbers that will grow substantially if fraud is widespreadStrict timelines with rapid processing within a two-year window, raising concerns that vetting standards, particularly national security screening, would be among the first elements weakened under pressure, echoing issues seen in past programsDoubts that application fees would cover the full cost, especially given applicants' limited financial resources; critics warn this could create openings for third-party financing, including from cartelsHistorical comparisons to the 1986 amnesty program, where rapid processing contributed to massive fraud and lack of vettingEconomic and Labor Market ImpactImpact on wages and job opportunities for low-, medium-, and high-wage American workersExpansion of legal immigration pathways, including:Doubling employment-based green cardsCodifying OPT and allowing STEM PhD and medical students to stay permanently in the countryPermitting those on the visa waiting list for 10 years to enter regardless of capsThe episode also explores the political outlook for the legislation, including the possibility of a discharge petition in the House, which would allow it to come to the floor despite Speaker Johnson's wishes.In his closing commentary, podcast host Mark Krikorian highlights the recent election in Hungary, which resulted in the defeat of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely known for his hardline immigration stance. But his successor, Péter Magyar, is expected to maintain, and perhaps even strengthen, the current strict immigration policies.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRosemary Jenks is the Policy Director and co-founder of the Immigration Accountability ProjectLinksImmigration Accountability ProjectThe 'Dignity Act'The Price of DignityThe DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act as ‘Rage Bait' for Those Who Want More EnforcementIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new episode of its podcast featuring CIS experts Andrew “Art” Arthur and George Fishman, who reflect on their time working together on Capitol Hill, including their firsthand experiences on September 11, 2001, and the major immigration legislation that followed.The episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at how immigration laws are made. Arthur and Fishman recount the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as staffers on House Judiciary Committee and their roles in drafting legislation that helped reshape U.S. immigration enforcement, including efforts that contributed to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the breakup of INS into enforcement and service components within the new Department of Homeland Security.The discussion also explores contentious debates over criminal penalties, interior enforcement, and proposals that sparked nationwide protests in the mid-2000s. From the USA PATRIOT Act to the REAL ID Act of 2005, the episode highlights how national security concerns reshaped immigration policy and how some key recommendations, such as the creation of a biometric entry-exit system, remain unfulfilled decades later.Podcast host and CIS executive director Mark Krikorian also reminds listeners of today's International Network for Immigration Research (INIR) event (streamed live at noon ET) hosted by the Center. Panelists from CIS, NumbersUSA, FAIR, and the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute examine whether modern democracies can carry out large-scale deportations.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies Podcast highlights the 13th Annual Border Tour. For the first time, the tour shifted away from land borders, bringing participants to South Florida to examine America's maritime boundaries and the unique challenges they present.Hosted with assistance from Anthony Coker, Gov. Ron DeSantis's “immigration czar”, the tour offered an in-depth look at Florida's highly coordinated, “all-of-government” approach to immigration enforcement. Participants observed firsthand the seamless collaboration between federal and state agencies operating under 287(g) authority, which allows state and local officers to carry out certain federal immigration functions.The tour began with a roundtable of federal and state partners, underscoring the strength of these relationships. Attendees later joined the Florida Highway Patrol on a ride-along, witnessing real-time coordination with ICE, including routine traffic stops that included high-speed pursuits and arrests of illegal aliens, one of whom was a convicted murderer.Participants also joined Florida Fish and Wildlife officers and State Guard units on the water, where maritime enforcement operations are supported by radar systems capable of monitoring activity as far as the Bahamas.A visit to the state-run detention facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz” highlighted both operational capacity and humanitarian standards, including comprehensive medical care for detainees.The tour concluded with visits to an immigration court and a naturalization ceremony, where Mark Krikorian delivered the keynote address, offering a powerful reminder of the legal immigration process and the meaning of American citizenship.Florida's model demonstrates how strong leadership and interagency cooperation can deliver effective, large-scale immigration enforcement.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration Studies.John Wahala is the Assistant Director at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedInside Florida's Alligator Alcatraz Detention CenterGov. Ron DeSantis on Florida's Gold Standard Immigration Enforcement ModelIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

The United States must overturn the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act that opened up the nation to never-ending streams of Third World migration, argued U.S. Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) in this interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman. His bill, H.R. 7964, would do just that. According to Rep. Ogles, the controversial 1965 legislation, which ... The post US Rep. Ogles: End 1965 Immigration Act That FLOODED US With 3rd World appeared first on The New American.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear one of the most significant immigration cases in decades, a new podcast from the Center for Immigration Studies explores who is entitled to American citizenship at birth and which branch of government has the authority to define it.On April 1, the Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.In this episode, Hans von Spakovsky, Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, and Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy, examine the central constitutional question: what does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution actually mean?They argue that the framers intended citizenship to depend on political allegiance, not simply place of birth, pointing to early interpretations and contrasting them with the broader reading adopted in the late nineteenth century in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.The Court could affirm current interpretation of doctrine, defer to executive interpretation, or return the issue to Congress.“This will be one of the most consequential decisions in years,” von Spakovsky notes.In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, highlights a separate upcoming Supreme Court case involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS), where the statute states clearly that there is no judicial review of TPS designations. What are the limits to judicial review and will the judiciary allow the executive to carry out immigration law as written by Congress?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsHans von Spakovsky is a Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom. Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBirthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th AmendmentThe Best Aspects of the ‘Birthright Citizenship' DebateBirths to Illegal Immigrants and Long-Term Temporary VisitorsThe Supreme Court Takes Up a Vital, Slam-Dunk Immigration Case [TPS]Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

As Virginia considers limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, Loudoun County Sheriff Mike Chapman warns in a new Parsing Immigration Policy podcast that such policies could undermine public safety.Both podcast host Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy Studies, and Chapman recently testified before the Senate Budget Committee on the fiscal and human costs of sanctuary jurisdictions.Chapman, a 14-year sheriff overseeing Virginia's largest full-service sheriff's office, described cooperation with federal authorities as standard law enforcement practice. He describes his 287(g) agreement with ICE, which enables his office to notify federal authorities when removable offenders in custody are scheduled for release and hold them for up to 48 hours for ICE to pick them up. In practice, he noted, ICE nearly always assumes custody without delay.“Why would I release a criminal alien back into the community to commit another crime? I'm not going to apologize for doing my job — keeping people safe.”In the discussion, Chapman also emphasized accountability in law enforcement, noting that as an elected sheriff, he answers directly to the public — not political leadership. This allows public safety to drive the mission, not politics.Key topics of the interview with Sheriff Chapman include:How cooperation with ICE reduces the need for riskier at-large arrestsThe role of detainers and advance notification in transferring custodyWhy claims that cooperation discourages crime reporting are not true in practiceConcerns that requiring judicial warrants for civil detainers would “slow everything to a crawl”Chapman warned that proposed restrictions in Virginia, including limiting agreements with ICE and curtailing information-sharing, could replicate the public safety consequences seen in other sanctuary jurisdictions. The neighboring Fairfax County has had two murders recently, allegedly by individuals released despite detainers placed on them by ICE.HostJessica Vaughan the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestMike Chapman is the Sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia.RelatedMap: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and StatesWhich Sanctuary Jurisdictions Have Released the Most CriminalsTestimony - Sanctuary Cities: The Cost of Undermining Law and OrderAre Immigrants Less Willing to Report Crime?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill (TX) joined Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, for an Immigration Newsmaker conversation discussing U.S. immigration policy, border security, and potential reforms to both legal and illegal immigration systems.“We've had open borders for four years, with an estimated 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants entering the United States,” Gill said. “It's the biggest political crisis we've faced in decades. More fundamentally, immigration touches everything else — it is the one issue that determines who we are as a country and as a people.”Gill addressed enforcement policy, immigration levels, assimilation, and current political debates on immigration law.Key TakeawaysWorksite Enforcement and E-VerifyGill emphasized worksite enforcement as a core component of immigration policy, arguing that job opportunities in the U.S. serve as a major pull factor for illegal immigration.He called for mandatory use of E-Verify, saying illegal employment undercuts wages for working-class Americans and creates incentives for illegal immigration and allows some industries to operate on what he described as “a lawless employment structure.”Immigration Policy and Cultural AssimilationGill argued that immigration policy should prioritize the interests of American citizens and preserve the country's distinct culture. He said the U.S. immigration system historically expected newcomers to avoid becoming a public charge and to assimilate culturally, noting that the country may need “several decades” to absorb and assimilate recent arrivals.Legal ImmigrationGill criticized the current family-based immigration system, which accounts for roughly 60 percent of legal admissions, and employment visa programs such as the H-1B program, arguing they are fraud-ridden and suppress wages.Welfare Use and Integration ConcernsGill highlighted welfare usage and English language statistics among Somalis in Minnesota, citing CIS research indicating that 78 percent of Somalis in Minnesota who have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years receive welfare benefits and that roughly half report limited English proficiency.Policy Debates in CongressGill also discussed the upcoming Supreme Court case addressing birthright citizenship and said the case could determine whether the president has authority to reinterpret existing policy or whether legislative or constitutional action would be required. He also credited the Trump administration with significantly improving border enforcement and called for codifying executive actions, including his proposed Remain in Mexico Act, reintroducing H.R. 2, and taking stronger actions against sanctuary jurisdictions, including defunding sanctuary jurisdictions and holding local officials legally liable for crimes committed by illegal immigrants released into communities.He also reminded listeners that immigration enforcement once enjoyed bipartisan support, but now moderate Democrats who supported enforcement are gone and mass migration has become a central political strategy for the Democratic Party making agreement difficult.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestU.S. Rep. Brandon Gill (TX)RelatedPress ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptCIS Live StreamIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features a wide-ranging conversation on national security threats tied to the historic surge of illegal immigration during the Biden administration. Host Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy and a former immigration judge, interviews Mark Morgan, a former FBI agent who also served as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.In the episode, Morgan warns that the unprecedented number of illegal entries during the last administration created serious vulnerabilities for the United States. Under President Biden, 10.5 to 12 million inadmissible aliens were encountered at the border, most of whom were released into the United States. In addition, an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 million “got aways” - individuals observed crossing the border illegally but never apprehended -entered the country.“These are individuals we know nothing about, and the most difficult threats to stop are lone actors or small cells,” Morgan explains.Morgan emphasizes that border security is inseparable from national security, particularly as intelligence officials are warning of an elevated terrorism threat environment. The FBI and the broader intelligence community have described the current threat landscape as the most complex since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.The discussion also addresses concerns about potential Iranian sleeper cells and terrorist proxies following escalating tensions involving the Islamic Republic of Iran. Morgan explains that the Iranian regime was responsible for more American deaths than any other organization, and that they have historically relied on proxy groups such as Hezbollah to carry out attacks against U.S. interests.Arthur and Morgan also examine emerging threats from foreign adversaries, including concerns surrounding the entry of more than 200,000 Chinese nationals during the Biden administration and the broader risks posed by individuals arriving from 163 different countries, including individuals on the terrorist watchlist and thousands of “Special Interest Aliens” who entered daily from nations known to facilitate terrorism.Morgan concludes that the long-term consequences of the border crisis will continue to impact U.S. national security for years to come, underscoring the need for stronger enforcement, improved vetting, and policies that restore integrity to the immigration system.Host Art Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestMark Morgan isa former FBI agent who also served as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Acting Director of Immigration and Customs EnforcementRelatedMark Morgan's new book, The Biden Border CrisisOperation Midnight Hammer and Threat of Iranian Sleeper CellsThousands of Special Interest Aliens Posing Potential Security Risks Entering via CBP One AppHow to Lower the Risk of New Terror Strikes by Border-Crossing Islamist ExtremistsBiden Administration Secretly Let in Thousands of Unvetted Migrants from ‘Countries of National Security Concern'Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

On Tuesday night, President Trump delivered a lengthy State of the Union (SOTU) address on Capitol Hill, during which immigration policy figured prominently. In this episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, guest host Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy Studies, and guest Art Arthur, the Center's Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, break down issues that the President chose to highlight. Some of the discussed portions of SOTU address:The most political moment of the President's speech came when the President invited congressional members to stand if they agreed that, "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”President Trump underscored the success of his border policy, fulfilling a major campaign promise. The speech also attempted to explain the President's current immigration enforcement strategy by highlighting various crimes committed my criminal aliens, including the death of Lizbeth Medina. President Trump promoted four pieces of legislation: “Delilah's Law”, which would prohibit states from issuing commercial driver's licenses to those here illegally; the stalled DHS funding bill; an act to end federal funding for sanctuary jurisdictions; and the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. There were two noteworthy omissions from the speech: legal immigration and temporary work visas.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuest Art Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedIt Is Impossible to Fully Vet Immigrants When a Culture of Corruption Exists New January Data Still Shows Most Job Growth Going to Immigrants; 88% since 2020, 72% in the last year Why Cutting Chain Migration Must Be Part of an Immigration DealIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Hello Interactors,Watching all the transnational love at the Olympics has been inspiring. We're all forced to think about nationalities, borders, ethnicities, and all the flavors of behavioral geography it entails. After all, these athletes are all there representing their so-called “homeland.” And in the case of Alysa Liu, her father's escape from his. Between the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and the fall of the Berlin wall, “homeland” took on new meaning for many immigrants. This all took me back to that time and the start of my own journey at Microsoft at the dawn of a new global reality.HOMELAND HATCHED HEREWith all the focus on Olympics and immigration recently, I've found myself reflecting on my days at Microsoft in the 90s. As the company was growing (really fast), teams were filling up with people recruited from around the world. There were new accents in meetings, new holidays to celebrate, and yummy new foods and funny new words being introduced. This thickening of transnational ties made Redmond feel as connected the rest of the world as the globalized software we were building. By 2000 users around the world could switch between over 60 languages in Windows and Office. In behavioral geography terms, working on the product and using the product made “here” feel more connected to “elsewhere.”This influx of new talent was all enabled by the Immigration Act of 1990. Signed by George H. W. Bush, it increased and stabilized legal pathways for highly skilled immigrants. This continued with Clinton era decisions to expand H-1B visa allocations that fed the tech hiring boom. I took full advantage of this allotment recruiting and hiring interaction designers and user researchers from around the world. In the same decade the federal government expanded access to the United States, it also tightened security. Terrorism threats, especially after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, spooked everyone. Despite this threat, there was more domestic initiated terrorism than outside foreign attacks. The decade saw deadly incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by radicalized by white supremacist anti-government terrorists, which killed 168 and injured hundreds, making it the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history before 9/11.A year later, the Atlanta Olympic bombing and related bombings by anti-government Christian extremists caused multiple deaths and injuries. Clinic bombings and shootings by anti-abortion extremists began in 1994 with the Brookline clinic shootings and continued through the 1998 Birmingham clinic bombing. These inspired more arsons, bombings, and shootings tied to white supremacist, anti-abortion, and other extreme ideologies.Still, haven been shocked by Islamist extremists in 1993 (and growing Islamic jihadist plots outside the U.S.) the federal government adopted new security language centered on protecting the “homeland” from outside incursions. In 1998, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62, titled “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas,” a serious counterterrorism document whose title quietly normalized the term homeland inside executive governance.But there was at least one critical voice. Steven Simon, Clinton's senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council, didn't think “Defense of the Homeland” belonged in a presidential directive.Simon's retrospective argument is that “homeland” did more than name a policy, it brought a territorial logic of legitimacy that the American constitution had historically resisted. He recalls the phrase “Defense of the Homeland” felt “faintly illiberal, even un-American.” The United States historically grounded constitutional legitimacy in civic and legal abstractions (people, union, republic, human rights) rather than blood rights or rights to soil. Membership was to be mediated by institutions, employment, and law rather than ancestry.“Homeland” serves as a powerful cue that suggests a mental model of ‘home' and expands it to encompass a nation. This model is accompanied by a set of spatial inferences that evoke familiarity, appeal, and even an intuitive sense. However, it also creates a sense of a confined interior that can be breached by someone from outside.This is rooted in place attachment that can be defined as an affective bond between people and places — an emotional tie that can anchor identity and responsibility. But attachment is not the same thing as ownership. Research on collective psychological ownership shows how groups can come to experience a territory as “ours.” This creates a sense of ownership that can be linked to a perceived determination right. Here, the ingroup is entitled to decide what happens in that place while sometimes feeding a desire to exclude outsiders. When the word “homeland” was placed at the center of statecraft it primed public reasoning from attachment of place through care, stewardship, and shared fate toward property ownership through control, gatekeeping, and exclusion. It turns belonging into something closer to a property claim.What makes the 1990s especially instructive from a geography perspective is that “access” itself was being administered through institutions that are intensely spatial: consulates, ports of entry, employer locations, housing markets, and the micro-geographies of office life. The H-1B expansions was not simply generosity, but a form of managed throughput in a system designed to meet labor demand. And it was paired with political assurances about enforcement and domestic worker protections.Mid-decade legal reforms strengthened enforcement by authorities in significant ways. Mechanisms for faster removals and stricter interior enforcement reinforced the idea that the state could act more decisively within the national space. The federal government found ways to expand legal channels that served economic objectives while also building a governance style increasingly comfortable with interior control. “Homeland” helped supply the conceptual bridge that made that socioeconomic coexistence feel coherent.It continues to encourage a politics of boundary maintenance that determines who counts as inside, what kinds of movement are legible as normal, and which bodies are perpetually “out of place.” If the defended object is a republic, the default language justification is legal and civic. If the defended object is a homeland, the language jurisdiction becomes territorial and affective. That shift changes what restrictions, surveillance practices, and membership tests become thinkable and tolerable over time. HOMELAND'S HOHFELDIAN HARNESSIf “homeland” structures a place of belonging, then “rights” are the legal grammar that tells us what may be done in that place. The trouble is that “rights” are often treated as moral abstract objects floating above context. Legally, they are structured relations among people, institutions, and things. But “rights” can take on a variety of meanings.Wesley Hohfeld, the Yale law professor who pioneered analytical jurisprudence in the early 20th century, argued that many legal disputes persist because the word “right” is used ambiguously.He distinguished four basic “incidents” for rights: claim, privilege (liberty), power, and immunity. Each is paired with a position correlating to another party: duty, no-claim (no-right), liability, and disability. When the police pull you over for speeding you hold a privilege to drive at or below the speed limit (say, 40 mph). The state has no-right to demand you stop for going exactly 40 mph. But if you're clocked at 50 mph, the officer enforces your no-right to exceed the limit which correlates to the state's claim-right. You have a duty to comply by pulling over. If the officer then has power to issue a ticket, you face a liability to have your driving privilege altered (e.g., fined). But you also enjoy an immunity from arbitrary arrest without probable cause.Let's apply that to “homeland” security.If a politician says we must “defend the homeland,” it can mean at least four different things legally:* Claim-Rights: Citizens can demand that the government protect them (e.g., from attacks). Officials have the duty to act — think TSA screening or border patrol.​* Privileges: Federal Agents get freedoms to act without legal blocks, such as stopping and questioning people in so-called high-risk zones, while bystanders have no-right to interfere.​* Powers: Federal Agencies hold authority to change your legal status. For example, they can label you a watchlist risk (e.g., you become a liability). This can then lead to loss of liberties like travel bans, detentions, or asset freezes.​* Immunities: Federal Officials or programs shield themselves from lawsuits (via qualified immunity or classified data rules), effectively blocking citizens' ability to sue.Forget whether these are legitimate or illegitimate, Hohfeld's point is they are different forms of rights — and each has distinct costs. Once “homeland” is the object, the system tends to grow powers and privileges (capacity for overt or covert operations), and to seek immunities (resistance to challenge), often at the expense of others' claim-rights and liberties.Rights are not only relational, but they are also often spatially conditional. The same person can move through zones of legality experiencing different practical rights. Consider border checkpoints, airports, perimeters of government buildings, protest cites, or regions declared “emergency” zones. Government institutions operationalize these spaces as “behavioral geographies” which determines who gets stopped, where scrutiny concentrates, and which movements count as suspicious.The state looks past the abstract bearer of unalienable liberties and due process to see only a physical entity whose movements through space dissolve their Constitutional immunities into a series of observable, trackable traces. Those traces become inputs to enforcement. This is what makes surveillance so powerful. “Homeland” governance is especially trace-hungry because it imagines safety as a property of space that must be continuously maintained.But these traces are behavioral cues and human behavior is never neutral. They are interpreted through normalized cultural and institutional schemas about who “belongs” in which places. Place attachment and territorial belonging can become gatekeeping mechanisms. Empirical work on homeland/place attachment links it to identity processes and self-categorization. Related work suggests that collective psychological ownership — “this place is ours” — can predict exclusionary attitudes toward immigrants and outsiders. In legal terms, those social attitudes can translate into pressure to expand state powers and narrow outsiders' claim-rights.A vocabulary rooted in a ‘republic' tends to emphasize rights as universal claims against the state. This is where we get due process, equal protection, and rights to speech and assembly. A homeland vocabulary tends to emphasize rights as statused permissions tied to membership and territory. Here we find rights of citizens, rights at the border, rights in “emergencies”, and rights conditioned on “lawful presence.” The shift makes some restrictions feel like a kind of protecting of the home. Hence the unaffable phrase, “Get off my lawn.”HOMELAND HIERARCHIES HUMBLEDIf the “homeland” is framed as a place-of-belonging and rights are the grammar of that place, then the current crisis of American democracy boils down to a dispute over the nature of equality. This tension is best understood through the long-standing constitutional debate between anticlassification and antisubordination, which dates back to the Reconstruction era. Anticlassification, often called the “colorblind” or “status-blind” approach, holds that the state's duty is simply to avoid explicit categories in its laws. Antisubordination, by contrast, insists that the law must actively dismantle structured group hierarchies and the “caste-like” systems they produce. When the state embraces a “homeland” logic, it leans heavily on anticlassification to mask a deeper reality of spatial subordination.In what we might call the “Theater of Defense,” agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increasingly rely on anticlassification principles to justify aggressive interior crackdowns. They frame enforcement as a territorial necessity by protecting the sanctity of the soil itself. A workplace raid or roving patrol, in this view, does not target any specific group. Instead, it simply maintains the “integrity” of the homeland. This reflects what law professor Bradley Areheart and others have described as the “anticlassification turn,” where formal attempts to embody equality end up legitimizing structural inequality.Put differently, the state exercises a Hohfeldian Power to alter individuals' legal status based on their geographic location or “lawful presence.” At the same time, it shields itself from legal challenge by insisting that the law applies equally to everyone who is “out of place.” This claim of territorial neutrality is a dangerous legal fiction. As scholars Solon Barocas and Andrew Selbst have shown in their work on algorithmic systems, attempts at neutral criteria often replicate entrenched biases. Triggers like “proximity to a border” or “behavioral traces” in a transit hub do not produce blind justice. They enable targeted scrutiny and the erosion of immunity for those whose identities fail to match the “belonging” model of the “homeland.” The state circumvents its Hohfeldian Disability, avoiding the creation of second-class statuses, by pretending to manage space rather than discriminate against persons.This shift from a civic Republic to a territorial “homeland” is the primary driver of democratic backsliding. Political scientist Jacob Grumbach captured this dynamic in his 2022 paper, Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding. Analyzing 51 indicators of electoral democracy across U.S. states from 2000 to 2018, Grumbach developed the State Democracy Index. His findings reveal how American federalism has morphed from “laboratories of democracy” into sites of subnational authoritarianism. States with low scores on the index — often under unified Republican control — have pioneered police powers that insulate partisan dominance. We see this in the rise of state-level immigration enforcement units, the criminalization of movement for marginalized groups, and the expansion of a “right to exclude.”These states are not just enforcing the law. They are forging what Yale legal scholar Owen Fiss would recognize as a new caste system. By fixating on “defending” state soil against “infiltrators,” legislatures dismantle the public rights of the Reconstruction era — the right to participate in community life without indignity. Today's backsliding policies transform the nation's interior into a permanent enforcement zone. They reject the Enlightenment ideals of America, rooted in beliefs like liberty, equality, democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law. To fully understand Constitutional history, we best acknowledge that America's universalist creedal definition wasn't solely European. David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything shows how Enlightenment values of liberty and equality arose from intellectual exchanges with Indigenous North American thinkers. Kandiaronk, a Huron statesman, traveled to Europe in the late 17th century and debated French aristocrats. His critiques were published and circulated widely among European intellectuals, including Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau. Graeber and Wengrow point out that before the widely popular publication of these dialogues in 1703, the concept of "Equality" as a primary political value was almost entirely absent from European philosophy. By the time Rousseau wrote his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men in 1754, it was the central question of the age.Kandiaronk criticized European society's subservience to kings and obsession with property. He contrasted it with the consensual governance and individual agency of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy embodied in their Great Law of Peace — a political order prioritizing the public right to exist without state-sanctioned indignity.The writers of the U.S. Constitution codified a Republic of “unalienable rights,” synthesizing Indigenous/European-inspired liberty with Hohfeldian Disabilities that legally restrained the state from territorial monarchy. Backsliding erases this profound philosophical endeavor. Reclaiming the Republic means honoring the Indigenous critique that a nation's legitimacy rests on its people's freedom, not its fences.We seem to be moving from governance by the governed to protecting an ingroup. In Hohfeldian terms, the state expands its privileges while shrinking the claim-rights of the vulnerable to move and exist safely. This leads to “spatial subordination,” managed through adiaphorization — a concept from social theorist Zygmunt Bauman's 1989 Modernity and the Holocaust. Bauman, a Polish-Jewish survivor who escaped the Nazis' grip on his early life, drew “adiaphora” from the Greek for matters outside moral evaluation. Modern bureaucracies make horrific actions morally neutral by framing them as technical duties, enabling atrocities like the Holocaust without personal ethical torment.As territorial belonging takes precedence, non-belongers are excluded from moral and legal obligations. They become “non-spaces” or “human waste” in the eyes of ICE and DHS. This betrays antisubordination, the “core and conscience” of America's civil rights tradition, as Yale constitutional scholars Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel called it. A democracy can't endure if it permanently relegates any group to legal impossibility. In the “homeland”, immigrants may live, work, and raise families for decades, yet remain mere “traces” to expunge. Weaponized place attachment turns affective bonds into property claims. This empowers the state to “cleanse” those deemed to be “out of place.” Rights become statused permissions, not universal ideals. If immunity from search depends on territorial status, the Republic of laws has yielded to a Heimat — a term the Nazis' usurped for their blood-and-soil homeland…that they then bloodied and soiled.Reversing this demands confronting the linguistic and legal architecture that rendered it conceivable. It's time to rethink the “homeland” frame and its anticlassification crutch. A truer and fairer Republic would commit to antisubordination and the state would be disabled from wielding space for hierarchy. A person's immunity from arbitrary power should be closer to an inalienable right to be “secure in one's person” that holds firm beyond checkpoints or workplace doors…or your front door.Steven Simon was right to feel uneasy with Clinton's wording. “Homeland” planted a seed that sprouted into hedgerows of exceptional powers and curtailed liberties. Are we going to cling to a “homeland” secured by fear and exclusion, forever unstable, or finally become a Republic revered for securing universal law and rights? As long as our rights remain geographically conditional, we all dwell in liability. Reclaiming the Republic, and our freedoms within it, may require transforming the Constitution from a Hohfeldian map of perimeters into a boundless plane of human dignity it aspires to be. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

A partial government shutdown that began at midnight on February 14 has halted appropriated funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), affecting FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). A new podcast episode provides an assessment of where negotiations stand and what is at stake for immigration enforcement nationwide.Guest Grant Newman, Director of Government Relations for the Immigration Accountability Project, discusses the evolving Democratic demands that triggered the partial government shutdown. Initially vague, those demands have since focused on proposed restrictions on ICE operations, including requiring judicial warrants for civil immigration enforcement, prohibiting enforcement at or near certain locations (such as schools, hospitals, churches, courthouses, and more), banning officer face coverings, and mandating body camera requirements. Newman argues these measures would effectively halt interior enforcement without formally abolishing ICE.Few details are available about negotiations, with Congress out of session and the White House engaged in closed-door discussions directly with Democratic leadership. The episode examines whether the current strategy is strengthening enforcement opponents' leverage or creating political risk, particularly if a national emergency occurs during the shutdown.The discussion also explores potential Republican counter-demands (including a stop to sanctuary jurisdiction non-cooperation), internal party dynamics, the timing of the shutdown, and the sustainability of DHS operations if the shutdown persists too long.The program concludes with commentary from Mark Krikorian, who highlights recent reporting by Andrew Arthur detailing how nearly one million immigration court cases were administratively closed under the Biden administration — creating what he describes as a “legal dark hole” that shielded removable aliens from enforcement and functioned as a de facto amnesty.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGrant Newman is Director of Government Relations for the Immigration Accountability ProjectRelatedImmigration Accountability ProjectIAP ActionThe DHS Shutdown: A Reckless Gamble Verging on MadnessDOJ Reveals that Biden Granted a Quiet Amnesty to Nearly One Million AliensIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The immigration crisis in the United States has become a hot-button issue, stirring up debates across the political spectrum. In a recent episode of the Progressive Commentary Hour, host Gary Null speaks with J.J. Carrell, a former U.S. border patrol officer, who brings a wealth of firsthand knowledge to this complex topic. Through his extensive experience, Carrell sheds light on the implications of immigration policies and the realities on the ground that often go unnoticed. Understanding the Shift in Immigration Policies The conversation begins with a historical perspective, as Carrell discusses the significant changes in U.S. immigration policies since the 1960s. He highlights the Immigration Act of 1965, which dramatically shifted the demographic makeup of immigrants entering the country. Carrell argues that this act, largely backed by influential politicians like Ted Kennedy, opened the floodgates for an influx of individuals from various regions, including the Middle East and Latin America, without adequate vetting processes. This transition, he claims, has led to challenges in assimilation and integration, creating a complex landscape for American society.

A recent Capitol Hill policy briefing sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies and the Ben Franklin Fellowship examined the long-term security implications of the Biden administration's Afghan evacuation program. Excerpts from the event are featured in this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, titled “Stopping the Next Afghan Terrorist Attack: Mitigating the Vetting Failures, Fraud, and Corruption of the Biden-Era Evacuation Program.”Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the Border Security Caucus, opened the discussion by warning that the Biden-era “Operation Allies Welcome” for Afghan nationals evolved into “an unmanageable and unsafe process.” He argued that safeguards became optional and that statutory vetting standards were weakened. “We're not abandoning allies,” Biggs said. “We're importing unvetted migrants. And the only promise we were breaking was our oath to keep American citizens safe and protect our borders and our people.” He emphasized that security vetting protects both Americans and the integrity of legitimate humanitarian programs.Andrew Veprek, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), detailed how the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program had expanded far beyond the original SIV statutory framework. He noted that while the traditional SIV category required 15 years of faithful service and chief-of-mission approval, the Afghan program extensively broadened eligibility and reduced verification standards, gutting statutory requirements. There are still roughly 120,000 principal applicants still in the SIV pipeline (not including family members, which could quintuple the total). President Trump has put a hold on these.James Rogers, a former Foreign Service officer and whistleblower, described systemic pressure for rapid visa processing and adjudication. He cited widespread document irregularities and estimated substantial fraud, potentially higher than 75%, within the applicant pool. Rogers called for structural whistleblower protections and reforms to separate investigative and defensive functions within the employee grievance process.Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, concludes the podcast discussion by highlighting a recent development in Afghanistan that complicates U.S. policy even further: the Taliban's recent issuance of a new penal code that formally recognizes slavery. Krikorian argues that Afghan nationals seeking entry to the U.S. can now claim they are fleeing slavery, triggering asylum grants despite the impossibility of meaningful vetting. He advocates eliminating defensive asylum claims and instead transferring applicants to safe third countries willing to accept them.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsRep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the Border Security CaucusAndrew Veprek is the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)James Rogers, is a former Foreign Service officer and whistleblowerRelatedThe Ben Franklin FellowshipIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center's latest podcast episode features Florida Governor Ron DeSantis discussing how Florida has become the gold standard on immigration enforcement.Gov. DeSantis explains why Florida has avoided the unrest seen in Los Angeles and Minneapolis, pointing to strong state laws and cooperation with federal authorities.Key highlights:Mandatory Cooperation with ICE: During a special legislative session following President Trump's election, Florida enacted a law requiring all state and local officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Officials who refuse can be suspended from office. Sanctuary policies are banned statewide.287(g) Agreements: All 67 Florida county sheriffs participate in 287(g) agreements, along with the majority of police agencies. Florida is the first state to require state agencies to enter such agreements, enabling full task-force, street-level cooperation with ICE.More than 20,000 apprehensions have resulted from state and local cooperation.State-Run Detention Capacity: Florida operates a state-owned detention and processing facility, nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” to address federal detention shortages. An immigration judge adjudicates cases onsite, and DHS conducts removals directly from the facility's airstrip.A second “Deportation Depot” in northern Florida supports removals.DHS provides full federal reimbursement.Provides an update on legal challenges.Interior Enforcement Measures:Mandatory E-Verify for public employers and private employers with 25+ workers.No driver's licenses or local photo IDs (by government agencies or NGOs) for illegal immigrants.English-only commercial driver's license testing.State election crimes unit to prosecute illegal voting.Maritime Enforcement: Through Operation Vigilant Sentry, Florida interdicts migrants at sea and hands them over to the Coast Guard for return to their home countries.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, highlights a new Center report finding that 53% of immigrant-headed households, legal and illegal together, use at least one welfare program. He points out that most immigrants work, but because they have low levels of education, they earn low wages and thus rely on taxpayer-funded support. Reducing future dependence requires selecting legal immigrants based on skills and enforcing laws against illegal immigration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestFlorida Governor Ron DeSantisRelatedWelfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-Born, 2024Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

America is facing something far more dangerous than protest or even rioting — it is an ongoing insurrection against federal immigration law. In this episode, I'm joined by former DHS official and legal expert George Fishman to break down why President Trump must immediately invoke the Insurrection Act to stop coordinated street violence, judicial obstruction, and open attacks on ICE officers in blue states. Fishman explains how the Insurrection Act has been used throughout American history — from Eisenhower to George Washington — and why today's coordinated effort to block immigration enforcement meets every legal threshold for invocation. I also discuss the double standard: how J6 defendants were prosecuted vs. current anti-ICE rioters; how judicial supremacy is nullifying the 1996 Immigration Act; the GOP's failure to use leverage in the DHS funding fight; and state-based enforcement as the final line of defense. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast examines the U visa program, originally created by Congress in 2000 under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and explains how a narrowly tailored law-enforcement tool has evolved into a large-scale immigration benefit program, riddled with fraud and abuse.The U visa was designed to help law enforcement agencies detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes by offering legal status to unlawfully present victims of serious crimes who might otherwise be reluctant to have contact with authorities, in exchange for their cooperation. Congress capped the program at 10,000 visas annually, excluding family members.Key findings discussed in the episode include:The program has been overwhelmed, with roughly 250,000 pending applications from principal applicants and 150,000 more from family members – about 400,000 total cases.The surge is not driven by increased victimization, but by policy changes under the Biden administration that created incentives to apply regardless of merit.Under the Biden administration, applicants received work permits and protection from deportation upon filing an application, even before meaningful vetting or adjudication.USCIS officers were stripped of authority to place fraudulent applicants into deportation proceedings, eliminating consequences for false or frivolous filings.Evidence of abuse includes staged crimes, forged law-enforcement certifications, and an underground industry marketing the U visa as a means to a work permit.An internal USCIS study found that one-fifth of applicants were already in removal proceedings when they applied.Some sanctuary states, including California and Illinois, have leveraged the U visa as an amnesty tool, pressuring local law-enforcement agencies to certify applications.Recommendations include:Administrative actions to prioritize legitimate cases and reopen questionable approvals.Congressional reforms to restrict benefits before approval and tighten statutory eligibility.State and local standards for certification, centralized review, and increased oversight.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedThe U Visa ProgramTrump Sends His ‘Ace Reliever' Tom Homan to MinneapolisImmigration Newsmaker: A Conversation with ICE Deputy Director Tom HomanIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast features Amanda Bartolotta, an investigative reporter for WorldNetDaily, for a detailed, evidence-based examination of abuses within the H-1B visa program and the powerful trade groups that profit from it.Drawing on firsthand experience in the tech sector, Bartolotta explains how certain IT staffing and outsourcing firms, often referred to as “body shops”, have built a business model around labor arbitrage, using temporary visa programs to displace U.S. workers while shifting jobs and intellectual capital overseas. The discussion focuses heavily on the ITServe Alliance, a trade organization representing hundreds of IT staffing firms that rely on H-1B, OPT, CPT, and related visa programs.Bartolotta explains how Bloomberg has documented exploitation of the H-1B lottery through multiple registrations for the same workers. She also outlines how ITServe openly promotes an integrated onshore-offshore labor pipeline, recruiting abroad while partnering with Indian state governments to expand offshore operations, all while lobbying U.S. policymakers as an “American job creator.”The episode also explores Bartolotta's personal experience working in tech, where she witnessed offshoring firsthand, raised civil rights concerns, and later became the subject of retaliation after filing complaints. Her reporting examines how visa dependency, restricted worker mobility, benching practices, and green card manipulation raise serious legal and ethical concerns.In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, highlights how Virginia's new governor moved immediately to turn the state into a sanctuary jurisdiction, underscoring how quickly policy can be reversed when changes are not embedded in statute. He argues that this lesson applies at the federal level as well, and that the Trump administration must prioritize lasting legislative reforms if immigration policy is to endure beyond a single administration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestAmanda Bartolotta is an investigative reporter for WorldNetDailyRelatedAmanda Bartolotta's Author PageForeign Influence and Lobbying Network HubAmericans Left Behind: IT Serve and the Big Business of Labor ArbitrageVisa Power, Political Influence and the Big Business of Labor ArbitrageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines the controversy surrounding foreign truck drivers and the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses (CDLs). It also offers policy recommendations for the U.S. Department of Transportation and Congress to address safety and labor concerns in the trucking industry.The episode features Gord Magill, a third-generation truck driver and author of the forthcoming book End of the Road: Inside the War on Truckers (March release). Drawing on decades of firsthand experience, Magill challenges the claim, frequently promoted by industry lobbyists, that the United States faces a shortage of truck drivers. Instead, he argues the real problem is driver retention due to low wages and undesirable working conditions.Key issues include:The rapid increase in non-domiciled CDLs, originally intended to address interstate residency issues but now widely abused;How a “driver shortage” narrative has been used to suppress wages and justify expanded pipelines of cheap foreign labor;States issuing CDLs through training centers that fail to meet federal safety and English-language proficiency standards;The rise of “chameleon” companies that evade accountability by dissolving and re-forming under new LLCs after repeated safety violations;The use of overseas-based trucking firms in the hiring of U.S. truckers;Trump-era enforcement efforts aimed at restoring safety on America's highways.In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, flags a Center blog post on a recent New York Times interview in which President Trump again expressed his support for continued high levels of legal immigration. Krikorian points out that this is not new and that the president is not a restrictionist, but rather a transitional figure, paving the way for the next generation of Republican leaders who do support lower levels of overall immigration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGord Magill is a third-generation trucker and authorRelatedGord Magill's Substack, “Autonomous Truck(er)s”“I'm an American Trucker. Illegal Migrants Are Flooding My Industry.”Book due out in March: End of the Road: Inside the War on TruckersTakeaways and Analysis from Trump's Interview with the New York TimesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' podcast examines Venezuela, U.S. foreign policy, and the immigration consequences that follow intervention abroad. Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies, and George Fishman, senior legal fellow, discuss whether recent U.S. actions in Venezuela could reshape migration flows, and whether legal tools such as the Alien Enemies Act still apply now that Nicolas Maduro is no longer in power.The discussion follows years of record Venezuelan migration during the Biden-era border crisis, driven by economic collapse, political repression, and the Maduro regime's ties to transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. Vaughan draws on her recent analysis detailing Venezuela's role in actively creating an environment for Tren de Aragua and Hezbollah to expand their size and reach – including into the United States.The episode explores whether renewed U.S. pressure on Venezuela's leadership could improve conditions and reduce migration, while also raising questions about the future of more than 600,000 Venezuelans currently protected under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Fishman explains the statutory requirements of TPS, ongoing court challenges, and how changes in country conditions may affect future renewals, removals, and third-country deportations.Vaughan and Fishman also address asylum policy, including whether claims based on conditions tied to the former regime remain valid and the government's authority to revisit asylum grants if circumstances change.Finally, the episode assesses the continued relevance of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime statute that gives the president broad authority to detain and remove citizens of an enemy state. While Maduro may be gone, Fishman explains that indictments linking senior Venezuelan officials to state-backed criminal organizations raise unresolved questions about whether hostile activity persists.Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, points out that U.S. foreign policy decisions often carry lasting immigration consequences, for better or worse. History shows that intervention abroad can reshape immigration patterns; the U.S. has a history of involvement overseas resulting in new large immigrant communities at home.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy at the Center for Immigration StudiesGeorge Fishman is the Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedRegime Change in Venezuela May Enhance U.S. SecurityCan We Have a Reckoning about Biden's Venezuelan Migrants Now?Intervention Leads to ImmigrationTrump Deploys the Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuela and Tren de AraguaCongressional Testimony: The Impacts of Temporary Protected StatusFederal Court Rejects DHS's Decision to Revoke TPS for VenezuelansIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In a special year-end episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Executive Director Mark Krikorian is joined by CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan and Fellow in Law and Policy Andrew Arthur for a comprehensive review of one of the most consequential years for U.S. immigration policy in modern history and a forecast of what to expect in 2026.The discussion examines a sweeping series of executive actions and reforms that dramatically reshaped border security, interior enforcement, and immigration programs. Among the most consequential developments: the resumption of border wall construction; reinvigoration of the Remain in Mexico program; limits on asylum claims by illegal entrants; expanded military support at the border; and a renewed emphasis on interior enforcement.Perhaps most significant for the long term, the panel notes, was the passage of the Laken Riley Act – landmark legislation enacted in direct response to illegal alien crime, widespread detention failures, and mass parole abuse under the Biden administration. Unlike executive orders, the act can't simply be undone by a future administration and is expected to shape immigration enforcement for years to come.The episode revisits predictions made last year and looks ahead to 2026 with forecasts including:A heavier emphasis on worksite enforcement.Kilmar Abrego Garcia will be removed to a country in the Western Hemisphere.Expanded fraud investigations by USCIS across visa and asylum programs.President Trump will withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. refugee treaty.Push for legalization of mixed-status families.A major no-match letter initiative.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy at the Center for Immigration StudiesAndrew Arthur is the Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration StudiesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

A new Center for Immigration Studies podcast episode examines the real-world consequences of immigration and public safety policies through the story of Katie Abraham, a 20-year-old college student killed by an illegal alien in a DUI hit-and-run crash in the sanctuary state of Illinois.Guest host Marguerite Telford, the Center's Director of Communications, speaks with Joe Abraham, Katie's father, about the night his daughter and another young woman were killed when an illegal alien driving at nearly 80 miles per hour struck their car while it was stopped at a traffic light. Three additional young women were seriously injured. The driver fled the scene and was later apprehended in Texas while attempting to flee to Mexico.Abraham details how the suspect had previously been deported, returned illegally in 2022, and was living under an alias using false identification. He recently accepted a plea offer of 30 years and now faces federal prosecution for passport misuse, false statements, identity fraud, falsification of a Social Security card, and related offenses. “This was never political for us,” Abraham says. “But policies matter. Leadership matters. And common-sense enforcement could save lives.”Discussion topics include:Sanctuary policies and their impact on public safety.How an illiterate illegal alien obtained a driver's license without receiving any vetting.The role of prevention – through enforcement and screening – rather than reacting after crimes occur.The lack of engagement from state leaders and victim advocacy organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).The human cost of immigration policies.The importance of the DHS VOICE Office in supporting victims and their families.HostMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestJoe Abraham is the father of Katie Abraham, a 20-year-old college student killed by an illegal alienRelatedAn illegal immigrant killed my daughter. Katie and Illinois are both getting justice Sanctuary policies failed my daughter and my state Joe Abraham: We all share my daughter Katie's legacy — and her death must still mean somethingIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode features Megan Basham, culture reporter for The Daily Wire and author of Shepherds for Sale: How evangelical leaders traded the truth for a leftist agenda, to discuss her reporting on how major philanthropic networks, political groups, and federal funding streams have shaped the policy positions of several large evangelical institutions on immigration issues such as open borders, refugee resettlement, and amnesties.Basham outlines how organizations like World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals and a federally funded refugee-resettlement contractor, have become influential voices within evangelical leadership. She discusses her findings on the financial and philanthropic support behind campaigns such as the Evangelical Immigration Table, which was created to push support behind left-wing causes, like open borders.In the episode, Basham walks through her reporting on efforts by political and foundation-backed groups to partner with major denominations, develop Bible-study curricula, and promote messaging on immigration within Christian colleges and ministries. She also describes the tension emerging between national-level leadership and many congregants, noting recent pushback inside denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention. The conversation broadens to examine why institutional leaders in multiple religious traditions – Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish – often adopt policy positions that differ from the views of the people in the pews.The episode also looks at ongoing debates inside evangelical circles about mission work and refugee policy. Should churches be importing targets for witness instead of going where these people are to preach the gospel?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestMegan Basham is the culture reporter for The Daily WireRelatedReligious NGO that Settled Afghan Shooter Condemned Trump for Additional Vetting OrderShepherds for Sale: How evangelical leaders traded the truth for a leftist agendaRaking in Hundreds of Millions for Trafficking Kids Destroys U.S. Catholic Bishops' Credibility on ImmigrationSomali Immigrants in MinnesotaMotor-Voter Law Often Lures Non-Citizens into Voting Illegally‘Operation Allies Welcome': Parole, Benefits, Vetting GapsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features another panel discussion from the third annual conference of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), convened recently in Washington. The three speakers each discuss various types of lawfare affecting the enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S. and European countries.Matt O'Brien, Deputy Executive Director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, explained how lawsuits and judicial interference have hampered the implementation of policy in the United States.Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described how migrants' use and abuse of asylum courts has led to a never-ending flow into the United Kingdom.Viktor Marsai, Executive Director of the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute, delved into how rulings by the European Court of Human Rights have made it more difficult for European Union member states to protect their borders.In light of last week's attack on National Guard members by an Afghan national, Mark Krikorian concludes the episode with a summary of his recent National Review op-ed explaining the limitations of vetting and the need to adjust our immigration policies accordingly.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestMatt O'Brien is the Deputy Executive Director at the Federation for American Immigration ReformSimon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage FoundationViktor Marsai is the Executive Director of the Migration Research InstituteRelatedVideos of all the sessions of the recent INIR conferenceVetting in All the Wrong PlacesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This is the second in a series of four episodes regarding America's toxic history with xenophobia.  It explores America's historical fear of Chinese migrants.  Join us to find out the pull and push factors that led to a massive increase in Chinese-Americans, the history of Angel Island immigration center, the origins of the dreaded 1924 Immigration Act, and the "Tacoma Method" used to eradicate Chinese immigrants from coastal cities.  Contact the show at resourcesbylowery@gmail.com or on Bluesky @EmpiresPod If you would like to financially support the show, please use the following paypal link. Or remit PayPal payment to @Lowery80.  And here is a link for Venmo users. Any support is greatly appreciated and will be used to make future episodes of the show even better.   Expect new shows to drop on Wednesday mornings from September to May. Music is licensed through Epidemic Sound

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [DS]/[CB] are moving forward with their tax plan world wide, this will destroy their [CB] system. You can now see the difference between the red states and blue states. The American replacement of foreign workers is now in progress. Trump reveals the economic plan to the people. Trump tested the [DS], they used lawfare and the activist judges to dismiss the cases of Comey and James. The prosecution is continues, appeals coming. Time to impeach the Judges. Trump is on the verge of making a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine and the [DS] is trying to stop him. Trump places a target on the Muslim Brotherhood, he will designate them as a terrorist group. The only way is the military, military tribunals. Economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1992258797830873248?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Tick, Tick , Tick: Study Shows California Losing A Taxpayer Every Minute  California is facing a perfect storm in finances, with a crippling deficit and a declining tax base. Now, a study of IRS data by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation found that California is losing a taxpayer roughly every minute, as states like Florida, Texas, and North Carolina attract new residents due to lower taxes and higher standards of living. In comparison, Florida gains a new taxpayer every 2 minutes and 9 seconds while Texas gains one every 2 minutes and 53 seconds. The result has been a bonanza for Florida, which is now collecting $4 billion more per year for its budget. The states losing taxpayers at the fastest rate are California, New York, and Illinois. Here is the rate of loss: California: every 1 minute and 44 secondsNew York: every 2 minutes and 23 secondsIllinois: every 6 minutes and 4 seconds.Massachusetts: every 11 minutes and 38 secondsNew Jersey: every 14 minutes and 14 seconds. Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1992969030186025199?s=20   considering allowing Nvidia, $NVDA, to sell advanced AI chips to China.    accurate. Now we can set our sights on the big picture. To that end, President Xi invited me to visit Beijing in April, which I accepted, and I reciprocated where he will be my guest for a State Visit in the U.S. later in the year. We agreed that it is important that we communicate often, which I look forward to doing. Thank you for your attention to this matter!   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1992933719192277169?s=20 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1992651508744065266?s=20   other hand, 34% see gold prices falling below $4,000, with 26% anticipating a range of $3,500 to $4,000. Meanwhile, 39% of professional investors in the survey do not own any gold in their portfolios. Gold is also no longer “the most crowded” trade after topping that list for the first time in October. Wall Street is still  unconvinced about gold.    apply to, without avoidance, and the amounts payable to the USA will SKYROCKET, over and above the already historic levels of dollars received. These payments will be RECORD SETTING, and put our Nation on a new and unprecedented course. We are already the “hottest” Country anywhere in the World, but this Tariff POWER will bring America National Security and Wealth the likes of which has never been seen before. Those opposing us are serving hostile foreign interests that are not aligned with the success, safety and prosperity of the USA. They couldn't care less about us. I look so much forward to the United States Supreme Court's decision on this urgent and time sensitive matter so that we can continue, in an uninterrupted manner to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT https://twitter.com/589bull10000/status/1992941720628047931?s=20   Read what he actually said: – Importers burned through the “stock up” dodge – Now they're trapped— everything they buy gets hit – Tariff revenue is about to explode vertically – America becomes a trade-powered superstate – And anyone opposing it is “serving hostile foreign interests ” If SCOTUS blocks this, they're siding with the global parasites not the American people. This is the keystone to the entire monetary reset: • RLUSD as the digital dollar • XRP/XDC settling global flow • ISO 20022 rails snapping together • Ripple + BNY Mellon wiring the system • BRICS commodity shift accelerating • Iraq's IQD prepping for international use • Tariffs funding the transition away from income tax It's all connected and Trump knows exactly what he's doing. He's daring SCOTUS to kill the revenue engine powering America's comeback. Refunds? Please. That would nuke the entire global architecture being built right now. SCOTUS isn't suicidal. This is the moment the old system dies and the new one comes online. You're watching the reset happen in real time Political/Rights https://twitter.com/RobertMSterling/status/1992807431747891538?s=20 https://twitter.com/TriciaOhio/status/1992956196794343889?s=20   used their training and appropriate force. https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1992972952313249990?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1992731012174954975?s=20   immigration.” The 1924 Act passed the House and Senate with overwhelming support. Democrats AND Republicans agreed. The bill introduced tight immigration quotas, new visa requirements, the Border Patrol, and outright banned immigrants from certain countries that we viewed as incompatible with our culture. It dramatically reduced the number of people coming into the country, and provided an opportunity for the recent “great wave” of immigrants to assimilate. By the 1940’s and 1950’s, American society thrived with a boomimg economy, rising middle class, common culture and limited immigration. The Act was in place until 1965. Since then, we have experienced decades of *historic* immigration, both legal and illegal. Today we have higher levels of foreign-born than the early 1900's by both raw number and percentage of population. This mass immigration has also included vastly different cultures than the mostly Europeans we accepted then. It's obvious that we once again need to make a national policy shift, and it should be bipartisan… It's time for another Immigration Act. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1992591518314668440?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1992794921569517639?s=20 DOGE  https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1992754205308944525?s=20 https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1992765443052814719?s=20 based on recent reports, it’s true that DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) has been integrated into many federal agencies through embedded teams, staff, or operational units—often described as “DOGE offices” or equivalents—that continue its mission of efficiency, waste reduction, and oversight. This decentralization followed the quiet disbandment of DOGE as a standalone entity around November 2025, ahead of its original July 2026 expiration.  While sources vary on the exact scope (e.g., “all” vs. “many” agencies), the embedding is widespread and includes: Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Acts as a central hub for DOGE’s workforce reduction directives, with embedded staff handling HR overhauls and agency-wide efficiency mandates.  Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Institutionalizes DOGE’s tools for deregulation, AI audits, and budget cuts, with teams funded through agency IT modernization funds.  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Former DOGE staffers in roles like chief technology officer, focusing on fraud detection and program streamlining.  State Department: Embedded personnel overseeing foreign assistance and efficiency reforms. Department of Education: DOGE teams with access to federal student loan data and other systems for waste elimination. Treasury Department (including IRS): Staff integrated for system access and financial oversight. Other agencies: Reports mention integration in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Naval Research, General Services Administration (GSA), Social Security Administration, and dozens more, with over 100 former DOGE staffers reassigned across the government. Some agencies were directed to establish minimum teams of four specialists (e.g., engineer, HR expert, lawyer, and lead) coordinating with a rebranded U.S. DOGE Service in the Executive Office of the President. This model makes DOGE’s influence more pervasive and harder to dismantle, as it’s no longer a single target but distributed “watchdogs” with data access and decision-making roles. Critics, including Democrats, have raised concerns about political influence from these embedded staffers. Overall, while not every minor agency may have a formal “DOGE office,” the embedding affects a broad swath of the federal government, with ongoing activities like contract terminations (e.g., $1.9 billion in recent cancellations). Geopolitical https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1992964442380779549?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1992964685071839677?s=20   Barbary Pirates were a raiding group of true pirates who captured American and European ships off of the North African coast, stole the ships and cargo, and enslaved or ransomed the crews. The pirates were generally under the control of the Ottoman Tripolitania, and many were true privateers: i.e., civilian ships and civilian crews causing great harm to American interests. So President Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marine Corps to North Africa to blow those private ships and crews the hell out of the water. Tommy J. didn't have Predator drones like Trump is using to blow narcoterrorists out of the water who are trying to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl, but Tommy did have some kick-ass Marines to blow pirates out of the water who were enslaving American citizens. Right on the shores of Tripoli. Hence the song. But Democrats are too stupid to know what that means. ‘Murica. Blowing up civilian ships since 1801, all to protect America. So how about it, you lobotomite Democrats? Were Tommy J.'s orders lawful or unlawful? We all know the answer, even though you won't admit it. Lawful. Just like Trump's lawful preservation of American lives from the scourge of fentanyl. Learn a little history, you Democrat goons. Now go write the Marines' Hymn 5,000 times on the blackboard until you learn your lesson.  War/Peace Europe’s Counter-Plan For Ukraine Peace Leaves Door Wide Open For NATO Admission  Even as the Trump White House is busy in Europe trying to get NATO and EU states on board its 28-point peace plan which controversially demands the Ukrainian side cede territory, the Europeans have leaked their own counter-plan which proposes much less in the way of compromise with Russia. The UK, France, and Germany have put forward their own counter-proposal, and the draft differs sharply from the US version. Like with prior proposed deals, it contains terms which Moscow is expected to flatly reject, mostly notably it does not provide guarantees that Ukraine will stay out of NATO, and also absent is the ceding of any territory. While Trump’s plan makes clear that Ukraine must renounce ever joining NATO, the European draft states that Ukraine's potential NATO membership “depends on the consensus of NATO members, which does not exist.” This intentionally ambiguous language of course leaves leaves the door wide open, dependent on when such consensus is reached. Source: zerohedge.com Iuliia Mendel, a former press secretary for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, called for Ukraine to take a proposed peace deal to end the war with Russia. https://twitter.com/IuliiaMendel/status/1992359920587456588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1992359920587456588%7Ctwgr%5E9b767ce8c41408adb1f6ebbec3a08e6fcaf1888f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html1992359920587456588   Russian budget or support Ukraine enough to win, no direct dialogue with Moscow, and no meaningful leverage over either the Kremlin or Washington. Arguments that “Russia has gained so little land” sound almost childish when you consider the human cost. We have lost more people in three years than some European nations have as the whole population. My country is bleeding out. Many who reflexively oppose every peace proposal believe they are defending Ukraine. With all respect, that is the clearest proof they have no idea what is actually happening on the front lines and inside the country right now. War is not a Hollywood movie. I will never abandon the values that God and democracy both place at the very foundation of human existence: human life is the highest good, and people — living, breathing people — are the ones who must be saved. https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1992980022043213980?s=20  sided with Dems to oppose Trump’s tariffs, fought against nuking the filibuster, and is now attacking President Trump for working to end the Russia/Ukraine war. Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/AGJamesUthmeier/status/1992956482351215039?s=20 https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1992706763112776014?s=20 [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1992835356798980492?s=20 https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1992677326249750743?s=20 https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1992755422542074095?s=20   identify the foreign intruders and bully them mercilessly until they shut up and leave us alone. We cannot talk about or fix any of our problems with a mob of foreigners constantly barging into the conversation. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1992780986891813024?s=20   couldn’t remember where the dead gum bathroom was. And he’s reviewed 8,000 files on pardons? Give me a freaking break!” “Almost a thousand NGOs working out of Afghanistan…they’ve told us that we’ve given them close to $5 billion and we’re still doing it because it goes to the NGOs!” “The Democrats fought that amendment that we added NGOs into the bill. Why? Because there’s a thousand NGOs and you know good and well that that money’s coming right back to Washington!” President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1992975955913036001?s=20  https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1992967800407589115?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1992469890679394430?s=20 https://twitter.com/ColonelTowner/status/1992776650157600796?s=20 https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1992623917551538562?s=20 BREAKING: Clinton Judge Dismisses Comey, Letitia James Cases – Rules Lindsey Halligan Illegally Appointed A federal judge  dismissed the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James. The case was dismissed without prejudice. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee ruled that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was invalidly appointed: For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 2. All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside. 3. The Attorney General's attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan's actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside. 4. Mr. Comey's motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 60) is granted in accordance with this order. 5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. 6. The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541. Source: thegatewaypundit.com Comey’s indictment is “dismissed without prejudice.” A former DOJ official said that means the indictment could potentially be refiled. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1993028886393958499?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1992711909184000022?s=20  now defend Big, Rich Insurance. The bill would halt Obamacare premium spikes, per MSNOW. The plan reportedly includes a DEPOSIT mechanism, putting money into a Health Savings Account, incentivizing lower-premium options. It would also end the premium hikes, end zero-premium subsidies, and STOP massive fraud known as “ghost beneficiaries.” Trump recently said: “I am calling today for insurance companies NOT to be paid. But for this massive amount of money be paid DIRECTLY to the people so they can buy their own healthcare!” “We will pay a lot of money to the people, and FORGET this Obamacare madness!” Klobuchar Delivers Insane Word Salad When Asked What Specific “Illegal” Orders Trump Issued the Military (VIDEO)  NBC's Kristen Welker actually pressed Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar about the seditious Democrat lawmakers and their viral video urging the military to refuse President Trump's orders.   NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday asked Klobuchar what specific “illegal acts” the seditious Democrats were referring to in the viral video. “I wonder, do you know what the specific, illegal acts are that your democratic colleagues were referring to there?” Kristen Welker asked Klobuchar. Klobuchar could not answer Welker. She delivered a word salad about the National Guard and a District Judge's order. “If their commander were to tell them, hey go out on the streets… and do this and that, that's not following the order that is in law,” Klobuchar said. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  WATCH: Sen. Elissa Slotkin Now Admits Trump NEVER Issued an Illegal Order – Compares Trump to Hitler, Cites Nuremberg while Defending Her Calls for Military Sedition The Democrats' orders to defy President Trump's lawful orders and their outrage over Trump's calls for accountability– and even the death penalty– are now blowing up in their faces after days of intended backlash against Trump.  Trump is being proven right to call for criminal charges and the death penalty, if a jury determines it appropriate, by their own statements! Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheNotoriousLMC/status/1992413372504301986?s=20 Sen Mark Kelly is being investigated for violations of the UCMJ after his video telling service members to disobey the duly elected Commander in Chief. https://twitter.com/DeptofWar/status/1992999267967905905?s=20   has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels. All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember's personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.   https://twitter.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1992766569265401863?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1992977389849035017?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1992991385616601256?s=20   now have the Strongest Border EVER, Biggest Tax Cuts, the Best Economy, Highest Stock Market in USA History, and sooo much more. BUT, THE BEST IS YET TO COME! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!! (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, sits down with Mahvash Siddiqui, a U.S. Foreign Service officer, to discuss systemic fraud in the H-1B visa program. Speaking in her private capacity, Ms. Siddiqui shares firsthand experiences from her time as a consular officer in Chennai (Madras), India – one of the world's largest H-1B visa-processing posts – where U.S. officials adjudicated thousands of nonimmigrant visas, including 220,000 H-1Bs and 140,000 H-4 visas for their family members in 2024 alone.The episode highlights alarming patterns of fraud affecting the H-1B program, including forged degrees, falsified employment credentials, and the role of third-party staffing companies in bypassing the program's original rationale of admitting skilled workers to meet temporary shortages. While the Trump administration implemented changes aimed at reorienting the program toward more qualified applicants, Siddiqui emphasizes that widespread political pressure and a very effective Indian lobby here in the U.S. have often undermined quality control.The conversation provides insight into the challenges faced by consular officers attempting to curb visa fraud, including under-resourcing, bureaucratic obstacles, and pressure from both local and foreign political actors. The episode concludes with a discussion of potential reforms to ensure the program serves its intended purpose.Videos of the full conference will be posted in the near future.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestMahvash Siddiqui is a U.S. Foreign Service Officer.RelatedThe H-1B Invasion: Why the U.S. Must Act to Protect American Jobs, Security, and ProsperityH-1B: End It, Don't Mend ItU.S. Chamber of Commerce: On Second Thought, H-1B Isn't for the 'Best and Brightest' After AllDHS Proposes to Reform the H-1B Selection Process to Favor Higher Paid WorkersIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features Jennie Taer, reporter for The Daily Wire, discussing how illegal immigrants are obtaining non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) – leading to tragic consequences on America's roads.Highlights:Fatal consequences: A string of deadly crashes involving illegal immigrant has drawn attention to the risks posed by non-domiciled CDLs.Licensing loophole: Non-domiciled CDLs, created in 2019 for legitimate cross-state work, have been exploited by illegal immigrants and created a cheap labor alternative for trucking companies facing labor shortages.Work permit abuse: The Biden administration's mass issuance of work permits to asylum applicants – without legal authorization to be here – allows states like California to grant CDLs to ineligible drivers.Lack of enforcement: Many illegal-alien truck drivers arrested did not speak English – despite a federal law requiring road testing be done in English to obtain a CDL.Private school loophole: Private schools in California have been certifying unqualified drivers, with limited state oversight.Legal showdown: Florida is suing California over its licensing practices after an illegal immigrant truck driver killed three residents.Federal response: The Trump has ordered California to reform its licensing policies within 30 days or risk losing $160 million in federal highway funds.ICE enforcement: Immigration and Customs Enforcement has increased roadside checks and weigh-station operations, with several states cooperating to curb illegal driving activity.Broader implications: When states hand out CDLs to illegal immigrants, every state becomes a border state.In this week's commentary, Mark Krikorian notes that today marks the anniversary of President Reagan signing the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants and made it unlawful to employ them. Billed as a “grand bargain,” it promised enforcement in exchange for legalization – but that promise was never kept, poisoning immigration politics to this day. The enduring lesson, as Mark Krikorian notes, is: real enforcement and system integrity must come before any talk of amnesty.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJennie Taer is a reporter for The Daily Wire.RelatedJennie Taer Author PageHow Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers Ended Up on America's RoadsICE Nabs Over 120 Illegal Immigrant Drivers After Probe Exposes Major Loophole Found in Texas DMVIllegal-Immigrant Trucker ‘No Name Given' Mocks US Law — and Puts Us in Grave DangerIllegal Immigrant Trucker Reveals Grave DangerBefore Considering Another Amnesty, Look at IRCA's LessonsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week on Parsing Immigration Policy, Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, discusses his new book, The Ten Woke Commandments You Must Not Obey. Two of the book's chapters focus on immigration: “You Shall Have No Borders” and “You Shall Have No Nation.”In the episode, Hankinson explains why the idea of the nation-state is fundamental to civilization and how the erosion of borders threatens both prosperity and safety. He argues that:The open border movement is both ideological and political – a tool to expand government dependency and reshape the electorate.A democracy cannot survive without defined borders; “If you don't have a country to defend, nothing else matters.”Birthright citizenship and “birth tourism” weaken the meaning of national allegiance and civic responsibility.Drawing on his years as a U.S. diplomat in India, Ghana, Fiji, Togo, and Slovakia, Hankinson shares how his first-hand experience with visa processing opened his eyes to migration patterns and visa fraud, shaping his perspective on U.S. immigration policy.He also reflects on how free speech, civic duty, and national loyalty intersect in a society increasingly pressured to conform to ideological orthodoxies. (Upcoming Event: Hankinson and Krikorian will join a November 19 Heritage Foundation panel on the H-1B visa program, exploring how it has shifted from filling national needs to displacing American workers, and how it can be reformed.)In his closing commentary, Krikorian notes two developments that mark the end of the Biden Border Crisis. First, of course, is the dramatic drop in apprehension numbers. Despite a small uptick in Southwest border arrests in September, the newly released Fiscal Year 2025 total was the lowest in generations. Equally important, though, is the fact that the (much smaller) migrant flow has reverted to traditional patterns – mainly Mexicans, with a few Central Americans – marking an end to the globalized flow from nearly every country on earth in response to Biden administration policies.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestSimon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.RelatedSimon Hankinson Bio and PublicationsThe Ten Woke Commandments You Must Not ObeyDespite Uptick in September, FY25 Border Arrests Were the Lowest in GenerationsMigrant Flow Returns to Traditional Demographic Patterns under Trump IIIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week on Parsing Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy, unpacks the ongoing tension in Chicago, as federal and local law enforcement agencies continue to clash over illegal immigration and crime.The Trump administration launched Operation “Midway Blitz” in September, sending ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal agents into the Chicago area in an effort to enforce immigration laws where state and local jurisdictions refuse to cooperate. Just back from Illinois, where she met with officers from across the state, Vaughan explains that they recognize the safety implications of unlimited illegal immigration and want to help federal authorities, but sanctuary policies from the city, county, and state tie their hands.Vaughan highlights growing crime concerns in Chicago — a clear example, she says, of the public safety crisis created by the Biden administration's open-border policies. For years, American and transnational gangs alike have taken advantage of the lack of interior enforcement, which is how Cook County became home to nearly 370,000 illegal immigrants, including criminals and violent gangs.Today, federal pressure is finally squeezing criminal networks, but it's making them more violent. With arrests in the Chicago area doubling under the Trump administration and doubling again during Operation Midway Blitz, ICE has taken roughly 3,000 illegal immigrants off the streets, many with criminal records. In response, some transnational gangs are lashing out and turning violent against federal officers threatening their operations.This week's episode is a deep dive into Chicago, but it's not an isolated example — it's a case study in what happens when politics blocks public safety. The same challenges are unfolding in other sanctuary cities across the country, like Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan the Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedEnabled by a Federal Judge, Chicago-Area Mayors Seek to Shut Down Immigration Law EnforcementUnderstanding Pritzker's Dangerous Immigration GameImmigration Newsmaker Video: A Conversation with U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael BanksIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features expert analysis of two major immigration actions recently announced by President Trump: a new $100,000 entry fee for H-1B visa-holders and the creation of a “Gold Card”.The discussion, recorded live at a recent CIS event, features George Fishman, senior legal fellow, and Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy.The H-1B Visa Proclamation imposes a one-time $100,000 entry fee on foreign workers applying for H-1B visas – ostensibly temporary visas originally intended for “the best and the brightest”. Jacobs examines the new policy's goal of closing loopholes that allow employers to displace American workers and depress wages and outlines additional suggestions for closing other loopholes.The Gold Card Program, established by executive order, offers lawful permanent residence to foreign nationals who contribute $1 million – or $2 million through an employer – to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Fishman explains that while the program was designed to expedite legal entry for investors, many approved recipients will still face long waits for green cards due to caps and per-country limits, especially for nationals of India and the People's Republic of China. The program, he notes, also raises several legal questions.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.Elizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedHow The Trump Administration Can Strengthen Its New H-1B ReformsDHS Proposes Reform to H-1B Selection Process President Trump Establishes Gold Immigration Card, Announces $100,000 H-1B Entry FeePresident Trump's Gold CardPresident Trump's Gold Card Needs to Pass Through Congress's Golden Gate . . . or Does It?Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's Parsing Immigration Policy podcast examines the Trump administration's initiative to temporarily detail military lawyers -- Judge Advocates General (JAGs) -- to serve as temporary immigration judges, with the first group beginning training this week.Host Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is joined by Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy and a former immigration judge, to discuss the legal, practical, and political implications of the move.Key points include:The U.S. immigration court system currently has about 650 permanent judges; the addition of 100 JAGs as temporary judges could significantly expand capacity, with the administration aiming to add hundreds more.The Department of Justice has had mechanisms since 2014 to appoint temporary immigration judges.Most JAGs lack immigration law experience, but Arthur notes that immigration courts often focus on determinations of removability and eligibility for relief -- areas where experienced litigators can adapt quickly.New judges receive a week of formal training and two weeks of supervised hearings, similar to what Arthur himself received.The episode also addresses the multiple due process safeguards, the backlog impact, and whether the move raises concerns under the Posse Comitatus Act.In his closing commentary, Krikorian discusses the government shutdown and the debate over healthcare for illegal immigrants, referencing a recent CIS blog post by Jason Richwine, “Of Course Illegal Immigrants Access Public Health Benefits”. He notes that the budget dispute is real but distracts from a broader truth: Illegal immigrants access public health programs through multiple channels, benefits that will continue regardless of how the shutdown is resolved.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedPentagon to Send 600 Lawyers to Serve as Temporary Immigration JudgesOf Course Illegal Immigrants Access Public Health BenefitsIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The extensive research literature on race has paid little attention to Armenians. Between the two world wars, they had to prove that they were free white persons to ensure their naturalization in the United States, while in Nazi Germany they needed to document that they were stakeholders of the Aryan race to safeguard their existence. Vartan Matiossian's book is the first comprehensive account of a mostly untold story of dehumanization and racism in Europe and America that enhanced the racial and moral profiling of Armenians as undesirables. The Color of Choice: The Armenians and the Politics of Race in the United States and Germany (1890-1945) (Brill, 2025) frames this development within the context of the debates on whiteness and immigration in the United States culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924 and the xenophobic discourse in Germany before and during Nazism likening Armenians to Jews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The extensive research literature on race has paid little attention to Armenians. Between the two world wars, they had to prove that they were free white persons to ensure their naturalization in the United States, while in Nazi Germany they needed to document that they were stakeholders of the Aryan race to safeguard their existence. Vartan Matiossian's book is the first comprehensive account of a mostly untold story of dehumanization and racism in Europe and America that enhanced the racial and moral profiling of Armenians as undesirables. The Color of Choice: The Armenians and the Politics of Race in the United States and Germany (1890-1945) (Brill, 2025) frames this development within the context of the debates on whiteness and immigration in the United States culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924 and the xenophobic discourse in Germany before and during Nazism likening Armenians to Jews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Yvonne Murray, Global Security Reporter, discusses a gala dinner held last night to celebrate Connecticut Congressman, Bruce Morrison's landmark Immigration Act - a sweeping reform of the system in the 90's that opened up multiple pathways to legal immigration.

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features Katie Lam, Conservative Member of Parliament for Weald of Kent and a Shadow Home Office Minister, who brings a British perspective on the pressing issue of immigration.Since 1974, the UK's immigration system has been marked by broken promises to the voters and rising numbers – despite repeated pledges to reduce migration. Net migration has averaged 100,000+ annually since 1977, peaking at more than 900,000 in 2023, creating profound economic, cultural, and practical challenges.In a conversation with Mark Krikorian, the Center's Executive Director, Lam argues that both legal and illegal migration must be tackled head-on:Legal MigrationCurrent system brings in too many people and is insufficiently selective.Health & Social Care visa was projected to bring in 6,000 entrants – but saw 600,000 arrivals, many not working in the sector.Consequence: artificially low wages, huge costs to taxpayers in part due to long-term settlement rights that provide welfare, housing, and full healthcare.Solution: cut and cap numbers, set clear criteria.Illegal MigrationOver 30,000 illegal Channel crossings so far this year – the 2025 number will be a record high.Criminal gangs drive the crossings, costing taxpayers 52,000 pounds per person annually – before even receiving asylum – in housing, food, clothing, and spending money.Lam supports the Rwanda plan – a third-country asylum model to deter unlawful entry.She also raises concerns about judicial overreach, international treaties, and the erosion of parliamentary authority in controlling borders. Lam makes the case for a reformed Conservative Party to deliver consistent, specific, and enforceable immigration policies – restoring trust with voters and winning in the future election.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian notes the role that taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens plays in the current government shutdown debate and observes that the only major immigration function that stops during a shutdown is E-Verify.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestKatie Lamm is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Weald of Kent and a Shadow Home Office Minister.Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features the audio of a recent sit-down between Executive Director Mark Krikorian and Michael Banks, Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. During an in-depth discussion, Chief Banks touched on the current state of border security, including apprehension numbers, maritime illegal immigration, northern border challenges, gotaways, recruitment efforts, the role of the National Guard, and more.Appointed to lead the agency earlier this year, Banks is a former Border Patrol agent with more than 30 years of federal law enforcement and border security experience. His tenure comes at a critical time, as heightened immigration policy debates dominate the national conversation.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestMichael Banks is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoC-Span CoverageCIS Live StreamPanel TranscriptIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump is now requiring $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications. He is now stopping the wealth transfer and he is allowing the people keep their wealth. Trump is unleashing the Gold Card and it will be used to pay of the debt. The economic system is about to change and nothing can stop this.  The [DS] is pushing the narrative of a cyber attack, most likely they will end up blaming Russia. Trump is shutting down the 16 year plan, the [DS] are panicking. Trump is now telling Pam Bondi to move forward with going after Letitia James and others. Comey/Brennan and others are being investigating by the Grand Jury. Indictments are coming, Justice is coming.   Economy https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1969104603582251375   $1,000. BIG increase! (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Trump's New $100,000 Visa Fee Could Be Devastating For India's Economy Many Americans are simply not aware of how much of the global economy survives by siphoning cash and jobs from the US through immigration (legal and illegal).  If they knew, they would probably have demanded that the door on H-1B visas be slammed shut much sooner.     To understand why India's government is so rattled by Trump's decision we have to look at the bigger picture, which includes remittances and the demand for US dollars overseas. First, the $100,000 fee imposed on H-1B visas will kill the program.  It is, effectively, an H-1B travel ban without going through the long process of officially rescinding the Immigration Act of 1990.  The fee is paid by the company hiring the foreign workers and a $100,000 markup would mean only the most valuable employees would be worth the cost.  Many critics of open border policies argue that this is a good thing.  The narrative has long been that American companies need foreign workers because: 1) Americans won't work in jobs that foreigners are willing to do. 2) There aren't enough American workers with the skills required to fill certain job sets. These excuses are generally a distraction from the real reason - Third world immigrants are willing to work for up to 30% less than their American counterparts. Why? Because the US dollar's buying power in a third world economy more than makes up for the 30% loss in wages.  For example, an income of $2000 US per month equates to an "upper class lifestyle" in India. In other words, it's a win-win-lose scenario:  The corporations win on lower labor costs, the third world migrants win by wiring their wages back home where they will buy far more, and the average American worker loses out on job opportunities. India accounts for 71% of H-1B visa holders and is expected to be hit hardest by the new fees. Currently, around 300,000 "high-skilled" Indian workers, mostly in the technology industry, are on H-1B visas in the US.  The term "high skilled" is up for interpretation, many migrant workers lie about their skill sets before coming to the US and offer little in comparison to the average US worker in the same field. * * * Try this for the ultimate experience. Try this if you just want a taste * * * Source: zerohedge.com    will be used for reducing Taxes, Pro Growth Projects, and paying down our Debt.

Lord Alf Dubs is a Labour peer and former MP. He came to the UK from Prague in 1939 on one of the Kindertransport trains organised by Sir Nicholas Winton which rescued mostly Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia.Alf was born in Prague in 1932. His father was from a Jewish background and was brought up in what was then Northern Bohemia while his mother came from Austria. His father left Prague for London as soon as the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939. In June, when he was six-years-old, Alf was put on a Kindertransport train, arriving at Liverpool Street station two days later where he was met by his father. His mother eventually joined them in London the day before war broke out. Alf studied Politics and Economics at the London School of Economics and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Battersea South in May 1979. He lost his seat in 1987 and the following year he was appointed director of the Refugee Council, becoming the first refugee to head up the charity.In March 2016 Alf tabled an amendment to the 2016 Immigration Act (known as the Dubs Amendment) which asked the Government to accept 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children into the UK. The amendment passed but the Government closed the scheme the following year after accepting 480 children.In 2016 Alf received the Humanist of the Year award by Humanists UK of which he is also a patron. In 2021 his Czech citizenship was restored making him the first Czech-British member of the House of Lords.DISC ONE: It's Easy To Remember (Take 4) - John Coltrane Quartet DISC TWO: Smetana: Má Vlast, JB1:112: 2. Vltava. Performed by Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Jiří Bělohlávek DISC THREE: She's Leaving Home - The Beatles DISC FOUR: Bandiera Rossa - Canzoniere del Lame DISC FIVE: Mozart: Horn Concerto No. 1 in D Major, K. 412: I. Allegro. Performed by Barry Tuckwell (French horn), Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields, conducted by Neville Marriner DISC SIX: Danny Boy - Daniel O'Donnell DISC SEVEN: Take This Waltz - Leonard Cohen DISC EIGHT: Ode to Joy. Composed by Ludwig van Beethoven and performed by Gewandhausorchester Leipzig, conducted by Herbert BlomstedtBOOK CHOICE: Germinal by Émile Zola LUXURY ITEM: Walking boots CASTAWAY'S FAVOURITE: It's Easy To Remember (Take 4) - John Coltrane Quartet Presenter Lauren Laverne Producer Paula McGinley