POPULARITY
127 episodes with Immigration Act
5 episodes with Immigration Act
5 episodes with Immigration Act
4 episodes with Immigration Act
2 episodes with Immigration Act
5 episodes with Immigration Act
2 episodes with Immigration Act
3 episodes with Immigration Act
2 episodes with Immigration Act
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".
Border Management Authority officers at Beitbridge Port of Entry have intercepted another group of undocumented minor children. Authorities detained 33 children, aged between 4 and 15 years, all travelling without proper documentation from South Africa to Zimbabwe. Two Zimbabwean men have been arrested on charges of facilitating illegal movement of persons under the Immigration Act. For the latest update Elvis Presslin spoke to Mmemme Mogotsi, Border Management Authority Spokesperson
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".
A 43-year-old Zimbabwean national found in possession of over 580 passports and more than 147-thousand-rand in cash hidden in his bakkie has appeared in the Belfast Magistrate's Court in Mpumalanga today. Edward Chitaizvi was arrested in Waterval a week ago. Chitaizvi is suspected to have been on his way to meet someone who would have stamped the passports illegally. The money is suspected to have been meant to bribe that person. Chitaizvi is facing charges of fraud, money laundering and contravening the Immigration Act. For more Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter Michael Mdluli...
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
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/american-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.
The latest episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features the audio of a recent sit-down between Executive Director Mark Krikorian and Joseph Edlow, the newly confirmed Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In a wide-ranging discussion, Edlow laid out his priorities for the agency — from strengthening fraud detection to reforming visa programs and restoring integrity to the naturalization process.On expanding investigative capacity, Edlow said:"When you're adjudicating a green card or a naturalization, that's a law enforcement action...But this is not a police force. What we are looking at incorporating into USCIS is an investigative agency…to really do a deep dive into immigration fraud, national security issues, and other criminality within the agency's jurisdiction."Other highlights include:H-1B visas: “If properly monitored and scrutinized for integrity, H-1B can be a useful tool. But my big concern is the way it keeps U.S. citizens out of the job market, especially recent STEM graduates.”Vetting standards: “We want to know everything about these individuals… Anti-American activities at a certain level are not going to be tolerated.”Naturalization: “Frankly, this test is just too easy. We need to make it more thought-provoking to ensure new citizens have a real attachment to the Constitution.”Temporary Protected Status: “For the first time in a very long time we are not seeing pro-forma renewals...We are looking at all cases and the reasons for the designations, and making a determination based both on whether those conditions still apply … and looking at, again, the foreign policy considerations.”Edlow also addressed:Decades of “profligate” work permit issuance to people whose status doesn't include work authorization and the end of automatic Social Security number approvals.Parole and DACA, calling DACA a “real legal problem” likely requiring congressional resolution.Legislative priorities, including eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery and fixing visa allocations.Expanding Systematic Alien Verification Enterprise (SAVE) access for states to verify voter eligibility, which he called potentially “a gamechanger.”Renewed denaturalization efforts and stronger fraud detection across USCIS.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJoseph Edlow is the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.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".
Florida has become a national leader in immigration enforcement, and this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features an in-depth conversation with Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on the state's high-profile role.Attorney General Uthmeier discusses Florida's measures to enforce immigration law, protect public safety, and collaborate with federal agencies. Highlights include:Detention Capacity: Florida has three times the immigration detention capacity as the next state, with additional space opening.A repurposed facility recently opened, Deportation Depot.Florida is actively challenging the lawsuit aimed at blocking detention at Alligator Alcatraz. (Host Mark Krikorian follows up after the pre-recorded interview with an update on the state's recent victory in court.)Law Enforcement Authority: Florida is the first state with all officers certified under Section 287(g), empowering them to assist ICE.Public Safety Threats: From illegal alien truck drivers involved in deadly accidents to child predator stings, the AG underscores the risks of unchecked illegal immigration and shares Florida's responses.Maritime Enforcement: With between 12,000 and 15,000 interdictions in state waters, Florida deploys the National Guard, troopers, and local law enforcement to stop illegal arrivals before they reach shore.Illegal Presence in Florida Is a State Offense: State law prohibits an illegal alien from entering the state; the law is being challenged.No Sanctuary: State law prohibits sanctuary cities and empowers the state to hold jurisdictions accountable by levying civil fines and removing people from office.The episode concludes with commentary from the Center's executive director Mark Krikorian, who provides an update on litigation surrounding “Alligator Alcatraz” and the illegal alien trucker and his employer responsible for three deaths in Florida. He also highlights Jobs.now, a new website that uncovers legally required but often hidden job postings—creating a jobs clearinghouse for Americans and making it harder for employers to convert H-1B visa holders into green card applicants.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJames Uthmeier is the Attorney General of the State of Florida.RelatedPodcast: The Role of Immigration DetentionIntro 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 Parsing Immigration Policy features Elizabeth Jacobs, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, discussing USCIS's updated guidance on discretion in immigration benefits.Key Points:Beyond “Not a Criminal”: New USCIS policy updates require officers to engage in a more holistic analysis of whether naturalization applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” a requirement for naturalization that has been a part of U.S. immigration law since the beginning. In addition, the agency is now asking officers to consider any anti-American, antisemetic, or terrorist activity as “overwhelmingly negative” factors when evaluating whether an applicant warrants a positive grant of discretion.Discretionary Benefits: Many immigration benefits under the INA — including asylum, national interest waivers under EB-2, and naturalization — are discretionary. Even if eligibility requirements are met, USCIS officers may deny them.Good Moral Character Assessments:Traditionally treated as a checklist; now assessed holistically.Focuses on demonstrating positive attributes and rehabilitation, not just the absence of misconduct.Negative Factors for Discretionary Denials: Officers are instructed to treat support for anti-American ideologies, antisemitism, and terrorism as “overwhelmingly negative factors” when exercising discretion on discretionary immigration benefit requests.Expanded Use of Vetting Tools:Increased use of social media screening, fraud detection, and neighborhood/personal investigations.Previous policies often waived these investigations; the update clarifies they are a standard part of discretion.Balancing Efficiency and Vetting: With millions of applications annually, USCIS must balance rigorous vetting with timely processing. The agency is shifting culture to prioritize serving the American people, not just applicants.Cultural Shift: USCIS is shifting emphasis from serving as a “service agency” to serving as a vetting agency, using the discretion granted by Congress to protect national security and uphold American values — a departure from prior policies favoring mass approvals.Immigration Newsmaker Interview: USCIS Director Joe Edlow will be featured today in an Immigration Newsmaker conversation hosted by CIS at the National Press Club. The video will be available at cis.org.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestElizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedUSCIS to Consider Anti-Americanism, Antisemitism, and Terrorist Activity When Adjudicating Certain Immigration Benefit RequestsCIS National Security Vetting Failures DatabaseIntro 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 Director of Litigation Julie Axelrod discussing the current status of the Center's landmark National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lawsuit, a new CIS case filed in Texas, and the recent “Alligator Alcatraz” litigation.Axelrod explains how the Trump administration is handling the remedy phase of Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. Department of Homeland Security, where CIS successfully argued that the Biden administration violated NEPA when it dismantled border controls allowing in millions of people without doing any environmental impact analysis. NEPA, enacted in 1970, was intended to address environmental impacts of population growth – yet it has rarely been applied to immigration, despite its obvious relevance.Axelrod argues that applying NEPA consistently would protect the environment, provide transparency, and serve as an insurance policy to prevent future administrations from bypassing environmental review when expanding immigration.Highlights from the discussion with the Center's Executive Director Mark Krikorian include:CIS's Successful Lawsuit: The court found that the Biden administration had violated NEPA. The remedy phase could force DHS to conduct the environmental analysis that should have preceded both the Biden DHS's termination of the “Remain in Mexico” policy and halt in construction of the border wall, and/or could ensure that if a future administration repeats such actions, it would have to do environmental analysis, providing transparency and an opportunity for public input.Trump Administration on the Remedy: The Trump administration's immigration agenda, which largely focuses on reduction, not expansion, of immigration, would not be blocked if the administration were to embrace the idea that increases in immigration should be analyzed under NEPA prior to implementation. Such an embrace would also serve to make the Trump immigration agenda harder for a future administration to undo, as the Biden administration did to the first Trump administration's policies. Furthermore, as the Alligator Alcatraz case shows, whether the Trump administration embraces NEPA for immigration expansion or not, open-borders groups will continue challenging enforcement actions in court under NEPA.New Texas Lawsuit: A coalition of Texas plaintiffs seeks to apply NEPA to Biden-era policies, including the end of “Remain in Mexico,” expansive asylum rules, regulatory expansions to our work programs, and taxpayer-funded NGO programs.Alligator Alcatraz Case: Anti-enforcement groups are trying to use NEPA to block expansion of the Florida detention facility, highlighting a double standard – enforcement actions designed to reduce illegal immigration trigger environmental analysis, but policies that increase immigration do not (yet).Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJulie Axelrod is the Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedCIS Prevails in Challenge to Biden-Harris Immigration ActionsIntro 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 Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features a wide-ranging conversation with recently retired Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, who served for 30 years and led the agency during the worst border crisis in history. Owens speaks with the Center's Executive Director Mark Krikorian about the evolution of the Border Patrol over its 100-year history, past lessons learned, and future challenges. Key points include:Career and History: Owens joined in 1996 as the Border Patrol was adopting national strategies like Operation Hold the Line and Operation Gatekeeper, shifting from chasing illegal crossers to preventing entry.Border Crisis Leadership: As chief, Owens navigated record flows, low morale, and shifting political directives, often focusing on “damage control” to preserve the agency's mission.Barriers and Technology: Physical barriers serve as a “force multiplier” when deployed strategically, buying agents time to detect, respond, and apprehend.Future Challenges:Smuggling potentially shifting to new routesAliens continuing to exploit loopholes, such as asylum.Need for AI and translation tools to handle migrants from a large number of diverse countries.Border Patrol Growth: Owens stresses that expansion must be gradual, maintaining high standards and adequate training to avoid weakening the force. In his closing commentary, Krikorian highlights a widely reported Center study showing a 2.2 million decline in the immigrant population, including 1.6 million illegal immigrants, in the first half of 2025. Critics argued the drop might be artificial, caused by non-response to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) due to fear of enforcement. But Krikorian noted response rates have been falling steadily for years, with no sharper decline under recent enforcement policies, suggesting the measured reduction is real – and that new policies have been successful in reducing illegal immigration.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJason Owens is former Chief of the Border Patrol.RelatedOverall Foreign-Born Population Down 2.2 Million January to JulyIs the Apparent Decline in the Immigrant Population Real?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".
In the latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast, Executive Director Mark Krikorian speaks with Scott Mechkowski, retired Deputy Field Office Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations in New York. With experience at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Mechkowski offers an inside view of how immigration enforcement has changed over time.From his early days as a deportation officer to leading seven Fugitive Operations Teams targeting dangerous criminal aliens, Mechkowski recounts arrests, post-9/11 operations, and the gradual breakdown of cooperation between ICE and New York City authorities under sanctuary policies. He contrasts the first Trump administration's aggressive enforcement approach — led by then-ICE Acting Director Tom Homan — with the Biden administration's politicization of the agency under DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.Mechkowski also discusses operational challenges, the role of E-Verify, detention space needs, and the realities behind having arrest targets. His reflections reveal how enforcement priorities, local politics, and national leadership shape ICE's ability to remove those who should not be in the country.Host Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestScott Mechkowski is a retired Deputy Field Office Director for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations in New YorkRelatedNational Immigration Center for 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 podcast examining the findings of a recent report, The Foreign-Born Population at the State and Regional Level, 1850 to 2025. The report shows that the foreign-born population – defined as anyone not a U.S. citizen at birth – has reached record levels at the state and regional levels. While the Center regularly highlights national-level immigration trends, this new analysis offers a unique look at state-by-state growth and its implications on schools, wages, healthcare, and working-class Americans. Steven Camarota, lead author of the report and the Center's director of research, discusses the following findings with host Mark Krikorian:Since 1980, the foreign-born population has grown 578 percent in the South and increased 10-fold or more in four states: Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Tennessee. It increased at least seven-fold in five other states: South Carolina, Arizona, Utah, Texas, and Alabama. In an additional 17 states it increased more than four-fold.The foreign-born share of the population has hit historic highs in 14 states and reached a numerical record in 31 states and D.C.From 1980 to 2025, the foreign-born population grew eight times faster than the U.S.-born population nationwide – and 20 times faster in 17 states. In today's commentary, Krikorian highlights a new E-Verify report from the Center that examines enforcement challenges. The core problem, the report notes, is not the system itself but identity theft. One key reform: Congress should require states to grant DHS access to driver's license photos to strengthen verification efforts.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research of the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Foreign-Born Population at the State and Regional Level, 1850 to 2025E-Verify and the Invasion of the Identity SnatchersIntro 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 is proud to release the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, featuring the opening statements from our 2025 congressional testimony. Since January, CIS experts have testified seven times before the U.S. House and Senate, appearing before committees on Homeland Security, Oversight, and Judiciary. These opening statements reflect the breadth of CIS expertise on border enforcement, parole policy, visa integrity, NGO influence, detention operations, and more.Highlights include:Biden's Border Betrayal: Criminal Aliens in America — U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security & Immigration (Andrew R. Arthur, July 22)The Fiscal Consequences of Parole During the Biden Administration — House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee (Steven A. Camarota, July 15)Restoring Integrity and Security to the Visa Process — House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee (Jessica M. Vaughan, June 25)Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild — House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Efficiency (Mark Krikorian, June 4)Examining Threats to ICE Operations — House Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee (Andrew R. Arthur, May 20)Restoring Immigration Enforcement in America — House Judiciary Committee (Jessica M. Vaughan, January 22)Remain in Mexico — Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee (Andrew R. Arthur, January 16)HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestCenter staff testimony.RelatedCenter testimony pageIntro 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 Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center for Immigration Studies' podcast, delves into the role of immigration detention in U.S. enforcement efforts. Hosted by Mark Krikorian, the discussion features insights from Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy, who stresses that detention is required to ensure integrity of the immigration system.Highlights:Purpose of Detention: Detention serves administrative functions, ensuring individuals appear for hearings and are available for removal if ordered.Failure to Appear: 34 percent of alien respondents in immigration court fail to appear at some point during the removal proceeding process. Respondents in detention must appear in court whether they want to or not, so the no-show rate is effectively zero, which skews the overall rate of what are termed “in absentia” cases.Legal Mandates under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Detention of aliens subject to removal proceedings is mandatory under various provisions of the INA, including individuals apprehended entering illegally, criminal aliens post-incarceration, and those under final removal orders.Detention Capacity: The lack of detention space is causing a bottleneck in enforcement. The “Big Beautiful Bill” expands detention capacity. potentially increasing bed space by 80,000.Detention Standards: ICE follows the Performance-Based National Detention Standards – the gold standard of care and higher than conventional jail standards.State and Local Roles: States can assist by providing facilities, with federal reimbursement, to support detention efforts. Examples include Alligator Alcatraz in Florida and soft-sided facilities on military bases in New Jersey and Indiana.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian, podcast host and executive director of the Center, highlights The Dignity Act, introduced by Representative Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). The bill handcuffs immigration enforcement in many ways, amnesties millions, and increases legal immigration, reminding us that the open borders, pro amnesty advocates will never stop pushing their agenda.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Role of Immigration Detention and Why It is NeededThe ‘Dignity Act': Amnesty for 12 million now plus more than five million extra immigrants over the next decadeThe Price of “Dignity”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".
In the latest episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, host and the Center's executive director Mark Krikorian sits down with Gaby Pacheco, an Ecuador-born “Dreamer” and President and CEO of TheDream.US.Krikorian, a long-time critic of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and Pacheco, now an American citizen, discuss the history and politics of the Dream Act and DACA.Opportunity Lost: Despite holding 60 Senate seats during the first year of the Obama administration, Democrats chose not to move a legislative amnesty for Dreamers – illegal aliens who entered the United States at a young age.What is DACA?: Having failed to pass an amnesty for Dreamers, President Obama bypassed Congress in 2012 and through executive action created DACA, which provides some of the benefits of the Dream Act, including protection from deportation and employment authorization, to certain illegal aliens who entered the U.S. before age 16. Its legality has been the subject of litigation.Origins of the Idea for DACA: Pacheco recounts how, having failed to pass the Dream Act through Congress, the administrative approach of DACA was inspired by a 2003 private bill by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which provides “temporary” protection from deportation and work authorization eligibility for nationals in the U.S. of countries that have experienced natural disaster or civil strife.Trump's 2018 offer: The Trump administration proposed a legislative package that would have given proper legal status to DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, covering perhaps as many as 2 million people, in exchange for key reforms in the legal immigration system. It failed in the House.Looking ahead: Will Congress address DACA?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGaby Pacheco is the President and CEO of TheDream.US.RelatedTheDream.USIntro 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".
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
In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughan, the Center's Director of Policy Studies, expands on her recent testimony before the U.S. House immigration subcommittee on “Restoring Integrity and Security to the Visa Process”.Under the Biden administration, the number of visa applications and issuances increased significantly, which created difficulties for vetting and greater opportunity for visa fraud. Along with host and Center Executive Director Mark Krikorian, Vaughan explores various actions that can be taken by Congress or the Trump administration to address these risks.Vaughan identifies several possible changes that could be made administratively.Change the culture of customer service at USCIS and State Department that encourages adjudicators to “get to yes”Require mandatory interviews of all visa applicantsNarrow the default authorized duration of stay for short-term tourist and business visas to 30 days instead of an automatic six monthsVaughan also discusses visa categories that she believes should be reviewed by Congress to decide if they need to be managed more closely, cut back, or eliminated altogether, including:Diversity LotteryU and T visasSpecial Immigrant Juvenile visasOptional Practical TrainingJ visasIn his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian looks inside the “Big Beautiful Bill” and what its enactment means for immigration policy.HostMark Krikorian in the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJessica Vaughan is a Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedJessica Vaughan's oral and written statementsVideo of the full hearing, plus all written witness statementsOverview of Immigration Provisions in H.R.1, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act'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 episode of the Parsing Immigration Policy podcast explores a topic rarely covered in the media: marriage fraud. Guest host Marguerite Telford, the Center's Director of Communications, sits down with Richard Lee, a former USCIS Immigration Officer and author, to discuss how sham marriages are orchestrated to gain a green card—and eventually citizenship—often then bringing extended family members through chain migration. They also examine how existing U.S. laws and loopholes make it easier for bad actors to exploit the system, in part, by sharing real-life stories.Key topics:What is marriage fraud? A marriage entered with the primary intention of securing immigration benefits—green cards, citizenship, and eventual chain migration.Types of marriage fraudSingle scheme marriage (friendship marriages)Single scheme one sided marriage (U.S. citizen used and defrauded)Arranged marriage (a paid broker is used and includes fraud rings)Cases of marriage fraudThe Numbers: Rich Lee draws on his USCIS experience in Atlanta, where he uncovered approximately 3,000 marriage-fraud cases over three years, primarily involving immigrant communities common to the region – the two most common foreign nationals involved were from Nigeria and Ghana.Where do brokers find the U.S. citizens to exploit?Lee discusses how homeless people are preyed upon.VAWA fraudAliens exploit the Violence Against Women Act, a federal law that provides protection for victims of domestic violence. The law provides an easy pathway to a green card due to a huge bias towards the alien, who can claim abuse and then self-petition for a green card, all without any in-person interview. This claim of abuse often takes place without the alleged abuser's knowledge. No evidence or information can be taken from the alleged abuser or his family.Telford questions whether it would be a good idea to amend the law so abuse can be contested – maybe adding an adversarial proceeding before an immigration judge.Lee believes that VAWA cases should be taken away from the Vermont Service Center.Lee also believes that in-person interviews should be required to safeguard against fraudulent misuse.USCIS cultureLee explains that he experienced a shift in the agency's culture during his time as an immigration officer. USCIS is now focused almost exclusively on serving immigrants with little support provided to U.S. citizens.Victims are encouraged to report fraud on the ICE tipline:1-866-DHS-2-ICE or ICE.gov/tiplineHostMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRichard Lee is a former USCIS Immigration Officer and author.RelatedAfter the Border: 42 Eye-Opening, Shocking, Crazy, Happy & Fun Stories from a Retired U.S. Immigration OfficerIntro 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 Parsing Immigration Policy podcast delves into the Insurrection Act, its historical uses, and whether it could legally authorize the use of the military to assist in the arrest and removal of illegal aliens.The Insurrection Act allows presidents to deploy federal troops not only in cases of insurrection but also when federal law can't practicably be enforced through conventional means. The Posse Comitatus Act, which many point to as preventing such a use of troops, is not the obstacle many assume it is.President Trump so far has only tasked troops with protection of federal facilities and agents, but, if he chooses to exercise it, he does have authority under the Insurrection Act to put them to work actually enforcing immigration law.“The Insurrection Act has been invoked by leaders of both parties to protect civil rights and to enforce federal law. President Trump would have ample justification to use the Insurrection Act to allow the U.S. military to assist with large-scale deportation efforts,” said podcast guest George Fishman, Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and former Deputy General Counsel at DHS.Historical precedent:Over the past more than 200 years, presidents have relied on the Insurrection Act to deal with some 30 crises.Presidents of both parties have relied on the Insurrection Act: Grant to suppress the early KKK, Cleveland to protect Chinese immigrants, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson to enforce civil rights for African Americans, Bush to restore order during the 1992 LA riots.Misconceptions about the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA):The PCA does not apply where Congress has explicitly authorized military use — such as under the Insurrection Act.Immigration enforcement today:More than 15 million illegal aliens are in the U.S.3.6 million backlog in immigration court.1.4 million aliens have final removal orders, yet remain at large. Millions of removable aliens were released by the Biden administration, and ICE has no knowledge of their location.ICE has only 6,000 officers to manage enforcement nationwide.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGeorge Fishman is the Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration StudiesRelatedDon't Fear the Insurrection ActPresident Trump Doesn't Need to Invoke the Insurrection Act — He Already HasIntro 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".
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, joins Parsing Immigration Policy for a wide-ranging discussion of immigration enforcement, voter integrity, and state-federal cooperation.A key national voice on immigration issues, Kobach shares with host Mark Krikorian insights into the practical and legal efforts that states like Kansas are taking to combat illegal immigration.Highlights include:Illegal Population in KansasAn estimated 90,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens reside in Kansas, many working in industries like construction.State-Federal Law Enforcement CooperationKansas was among the first two states to sign 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE.ICE has only 15,000 agents for interior enforcement – insufficient for mass removals. Kobach emphasized that under 287(g) the daily “net” cast by local officers provides the eyes and ears for federals agents.Legal Advocacy & LitigationDACA Challenge: Kobach represented ICE agents in early litigation against President Obama's DACA program.Obamacare Benefits Case: Led a multi-state coalition to stop illegal aliens from receiving Affordable Care Act benefits and received a victory from the 8th Circuit.Census Litigation: Currently leading a multi-state effort to exclude illegal aliens from the census for purposes of congressional apportionment. Including illegal aliens and those here on temporary visas causes “all kinds of constitutional problems.”Election IntegrityFormer vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity under the first Trump administration.As Secretary State of the State of Kansas, Kobach implemented strict voter ID laws, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.Warns that illegal immigrants voting dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens.E-VerifyPrivate businesses in Kansas are not required to use E-Verify, but the agencies and contractors under the Attorney General are mandated to use it for new hires.Broader E-Verify bills have not been enacted due to a strong business lobby in the state.NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System)This was a post-9/11 system designed by Kobach when he was at the U.S. Department of Justice to stop the terrorist threat posed by the ease of getting a temporary visa and overstaying that visa.Whenever an alien from a high-risk terrorist country overstayed a temporary visa, he was flagged so that local law enforcement across the country could arrest him during any routine stop.The INS system led to 1,500 arrests of Pakistani illegal aliens, and caused the self-deportation of an estimated 15,000 more.Went into effect in 2002, but President Obama cancelled the program. If it were still in effect, the recent attack by a visa overstayer in Colorado might have been stopped.In today's commentary, Krikorian, the Center's executive director, highlights a corporate-backed push – championed by Agriculture Secretary Rollins – to exempt certain sectors from immigration enforcement. President Trump briefly embraced it, triggering swift backlash from the base and within the administration. The move was quickly reversed, but serves as a reminder that pro-unlimited immigration forces remain active, even within the GOP. Eternal vigilance is essential to ensure that immigration policy forces employers to hustle for workers – not the other way around. A tight labor market is in the national interest.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestKansas Attorney General Kris Kobach.Related287(g) Program: A Force Multiplier for Immigration EnforcementA Preventable Terrorist Attack: NSEERS never should have been cancelledAttorney General of Kansas WebsiteKris Kobach personal websiteThat Was FastIntro 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 releases a new podcast episode focusing on the 287(g) program, an ICE initiative that empowers and trains local law enforcement to help identify and detain illegal aliens involved in criminal activity. The Center's director of policy studies Jessica Vaughan joins host Mark Krikorian to explain how the program works, why it matters, and what's next.Highlights include:What is 287(g)?A federal program established in 1996 that deputizes state and local law enforcement officers to perform certain ICE functions under ICE supervision.The Three Models:Jail Enforcement Model – Officers in the jail have access to DHS databases to investigate the immigration status of inmates, conduct interviews, and even start the deportation process by issuing charging documents.Warrant Service Officer Model – Officers serve ICE warrants and can detain and transport aliens to ICE custody.Task Force/Street Model – Officers can identify and detain aliens encountered during routine police work. In addition, agencies can address specific crime problems related to illegal immigration, such as drug or human trafficking, gangs, or identity theft, but this model has not yet been reinstated by the Trump administration.Training & Oversight:Officers receive ICE training in immigration law and civil rights protections. Agreements are regularly audited to prevent abuse of authority.Policy Shifts:Under Biden: No new agreements accepted, funding cut, most existing agreements terminated; at the end of his term only 43 active agreements were still in effect.Under Trump & Post-2024: Program rapidly expanding – now 635 agreements in 40 states, with Texas and Florida mandating statewide participation.Why It Matters:287(g) is a force multiplier that helps areas underserved by ICE or in areas where the criminal alien caseload exceeds ICE's resources, ensuring criminal aliens don't slip through the cracks.In today's commentary, host Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, highlights the return of the “Maryland man,” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to face federal prosecution. What can be learned from the legal battle and the coverage and reaction to the case?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedLearn more about 287(g) program at ICE.govThe 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Towns and HomelandBiden Administration Changes ICE's 287(g) Page and Admits There is a Hold on ProgramWe Are All Less Safe: Biden Targets ICE Law Enforcement ProgramKilmar Abrego Garcia Is Back — to Face Federal Prosecution: Key takeaways from the grand jury indictment and the AG's press conferenceIntro 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".
With foreign student visas at Harvard and elsewhere in the news, today's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features Andrew Arthur, the Center for Immigration Studies fellow in law and policy, providing a crash course on the subject. He explains the foreign student admissions process, the responsibilities of schools certified to enroll foreign students, and recent policy issues. With over one million foreign students studying (and working) in America, this episode covers the national security implications of not having proper knowledge of who is being brought in and what they are doing while in the U.S.Key topics covered:Admissions OverviewThe role of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)Student's Application to SEVP-certified institutions.Issuance of Form I-20 upon acceptance.Visa application at U.S. consulates.Which branch controls visa issuance?Role of Designated School Officials (DSOs)A DSO plays the role of a "deputized immigration officer."Monitoring student status via SEVIS.Reporting changes in enrollment or course of study.Conflict of interest? Balancing institutional responsibilities with immigration compliance.Optional Practical Training (OPT)Students working under the OPT program are still on student visas.Will these students lose their ability to be employed as cheap labor?Policy ChallengesWhy did the Trump administration revoke Harvard University's SEVP certification?Potential impact/lack of impact of the District Court's temporary restraining order (TRO).Impact on other schools.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian, podcast host and executive director of the Center, highlights today's main illegal immigration challenge: visa overstays. He cites the recent Colorado attack committed by a visa overstayer as an example of the importance of action and describes some of the solutions which are in the reconciliation bill.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedDHS Pulls Harvard's Student-Visa Certification Authority Controversial DHS Program Allows Foreign Students to Train in Sensitive Fields There Are 1.5 Million Foreign Students in the United States (and Over a Third Have Work Authorization) Not all illegal-alien criminals are border-jumpersIntro 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".
Show Notes: Dan Tabak, a lawyer and treasurer of Harvard Hillel, spent three years at Columbia Law School, he then worked as a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, but took a year off to clerk for a federal judge in Brooklyn. He went back to work at Simpson Thacher before moving on to his current firm, Cohen & Gresser which operates primarily in New York City but has offices in London, Paris, Dubai, and Washington, D.C. He currently lives in Scarsdale, New York with his wife and two kids. On the Board of Harvard Hillel Dan joined the board of Harvard Hillel during the pandemic, which allowed him to participate more actively. He explains why he joined the board and supporting the Jewish community was an important part of his decision. In response to the fact that Harvard has been in the news in connection with anti-semitism, Dan states that the board has a diverse board with diverse viewpoints. He also mentions a 311 page study on anti-semitism at Harvard and notes that there are problems at Harvard that were different from what his class perceived, and that students today interact differently than when Dan was a student, specifically the inability to disagree with civility and respect for diversity of opinions. The Decline of Jewish Students at HarvardDan discusses the decline in Jewish students at Harvard and similar institutions, noting that he believes it has not emerged from a top-down decision, but traces back to the Immigration Act of 1965. He notes that there was a high likelihood of having a Jewish roommate or blockmate in the class of 1992 and a lower chance now, which has led to fewer people understanding Jews and Jewish life at these institutions. He attributes the decline to the emphasis on more diversity on identities within admissions and how students feel a responsibility to represent their specific background as well as the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened doors to different communities, particularly immigrant families, who tend to value education highly and are now more represented at Harvard. A Career in Law and Improving the Public School Systems Dan talks about his career at Simpson Thacher, one of the world's largest firms. His senior thesis in college involved a school funding decision in New Jersey. From his first week as a summer associate at Simpson Thacher to his departure years later, he worked with a group bringing a similar case in New York, Campaign For Fiscal Equity against the state of New York. The case involved school kids in New York City suing the state for a sound basic education under the New York State Constitution. The trial went nine months, and the students won the trial. He summarizes the process from determining there is a right to finding the remedy. The remedy involved resources and money, and the case went through another set of hearings to determine the appropriate resolution. Dan also discusses what the research revealed about class sizes, funding, and how the family situation impacts the education of a student. A Focus on Financial Service CompaniesThe conversation turns to Dan's legal work, focusing on commercial litigation, with a focus on financial services companies, and bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related litigation. He talks about his involvement in a case involving Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, in the bankruptcy of Gawker and Gawker's founder. He also touches on how this case helped lead to a change in how the public views the publication of sex tapes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape and the impact of cases like this on the legal landscape. Skills and Superpowers in LawDan believes that his strengths in law are the strategizing of how to get from here to there, listening to the client, and having a goal in mind. He also mentions being a good writer, which helps convey his thoughts. He initially was less strong at oral arguments but has since improved his skills and persuaded judges to change course and decide for his clients. One example of a successful legal strategy involves listening to clients and helping them figure out what they really want. For example, he has worked with pro bono clients who are more interested in justice than achieving a result. They often get a settlement offer and he explains the consequences if they don't take it. He explains that the lawyer must work through the emotional aspects and consider the implications of suing them and going to court. With corporate clients, Dan emphasizes the importance of listening to clients' goals and working relationships with the other party. A settlement can be a win-win situation for everyone involved, as long as they can continue doing business together. This is a different function of listening to what the client is trying to get out of the case. The Limitations of Legal EducationDan believes that a course he took from Roger Fisher with the Harvard Negotiation project was more helpful in negotiation and negotiation strategy than anything he learned in law school. He also mentions that law school was more about hearing the cases and understanding the law, rather than emotional intelligence and negotiating strategies. He also mentions that law schools did not teach how to manage junior attorneys and paralegals, which he believes is essential for success in law firms. He talks about the many small inflection points in a lawyer's career, such as meeting the right people and introducing them to potential clients that change or shape direction and offer opportunities. Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesDan mentions the Negotiation course and a Constitutional Law class with H.W. Perry, where he learned how to read legal cases and understand constitutional law. Dan shares a memorable experience while he was taking the Constitutional Law course where he argued a case in front of classmates, including "Chief Justice" Ketanji Brown Jackson, and also mentions learning in an Intro to Psychology course about the concept of idiosyncrasy credits.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
