Podcast appearances and mentions of Jeff Sessions

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".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Senior Legal Fellow George Fishman explains that verifying Social Security numbers could be the solution to two issues: States' need for tools to help identify those eligible to vote in the United States and DHS's need for tools to uncover employers who are knowingly employing illegal aliens.Voter Eligibility VerificationExecutive Order: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced that it will be giving states and localities the ability to check SSNs of individuals registering to vote and those already on the voter rolls to verify citizenship.History: Fishman reflects on his role in proposing this idea nearly three decades ago as part of the 1997 Voter Eligibility Verification Act. How it will work: State and local governments will be given access to federal databases through an upgrade of USCIS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system to confirm citizenship.Employment Eligibility VerificationNo-Match Letters: Although the administration has not announced any action on re-instating “no-match” letters, the SSA could revive the practice of notifying employers when a worker's Social Security number doesn't match the name listed in the SSA's database.History: The episode covers the history of no-match letters, including their origins, past implementations, and abandonment by the Obama and Biden administrations. Policy Recommendations: Fishman recommends that SSA resume issuing no-match letters and DHS reissue its regulations instructing employers that they may be found to know that they are employing illegal aliens if they don't take certain actions upon receipt of no-match letters.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestGeorge Fishman is the Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Trump Administration is Empowering States to Verify Voters Citizenship“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”Reviving No-Match Letters: A powerful tool against illegal employmentIs the Harvard TRO Likely to be Effective?DHS Pulls Harvard's Student-Visa Certification AuthorityIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Todd Bensman, the Center's Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow, discusses his experiences at the Center as he prepares to depart for a new role working with Border Czar Tom Homan. Bensman and host Mark Krikorian reflect on his nearly seven-year tenure at the Center, focusing on his firsthand experiences with border issues, extensively documented in two books authored while at the Center.Growing out of field research for the Center in Latin America and his graduate studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, Bensman's first book, America's Covert Border War, addressed the national security challenges of the border, specifically focusing on “special interest aliens” – i.e. illegal border-crossers from countries where jihadist terror groups operate.Bensman's second book, Overrun, is a history of the Biden border crisis, based also on numerous visits to Mexico and Central and South America, where he interviewed hundreds of migrants, officials, aid workers, and others. Bensman uncovered the CBP One program during its pilot phase, prior to its public disclosure, shed light on UN funding for illegal immigration, and provided on-the-ground reporting during significant events such as the Del Rio migrant crisis and the lead-up to the end of Title 42.In his closing commentary, Krikorian weighed in on the recent admission of several dozen Afrikaners from South Africa into the United States as refugees, highlighting facets of the issue not addressed in most media coverage.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestTodd Bensman is the (soon to be former) Senior National Security Fellow.RelatedBenman's Author PageBensman's Video PlaylistAmerica's Covert Border War: The Untold Story of the Nation's Battle to Prevent Jihadist InfiltrationOverrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. HistoryAfrikaners: Persecuted Refugees or White-Privileged Aliens?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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy focuses on the re-opening of ICE's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office. Originally established by the Trump administration in 2017 to provide critical support to victims and families affected by crimes linked to illegal immigration, the VOICE office was shut down by the Biden administration, but has been reinstated by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.ImageGuest host Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, is joined by two parents who lost their children to crimes committed by illegal aliens. They share their personal stories and experiences, highlighting how the VOICE office provided them with support and resources.Don Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.Vaughan then highlights Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's warning to federal highway fund recipients: comply with federal immigration law or risk losing funding. On his list of public safety concerns: states that issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia presently issue licenses to this population.Rosenburg, the president of AVIAC and an activist focused on unlicensed drivers and road safety, discusses his research into the impact of this policy, stating that there is no evidence that providing driver's licenses to illegal aliens improves road safety. In fact, he shares data showing that fatal crashes rise, as do hit-and-runs, in the first few years after such a policy is implemented.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsDon Rosenberg, President of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), whose son Drew was killed by an unlicensed illegal immigrant in a hit-and-run crash.Tammy Nobles, mother of Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old autistic woman who was raped and murdered by an MS-13 gang member illegally present in the U.S.RelatedVictims and Their Families Finally Get a VOICESilencing VOICE: Despite being shuttered by Biden, the need for ICE's victim-assistance office is greater than everVOICE websiteAVIAC: Advocates For Victims of Illegal Alien CrimeIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, guest host Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies, discusses the intersection of immigration policy and municipal finance with Ed Grebeck, a veteran credit market risk expert. About one-third of all municipal bonds issued in 2024 and outstanding through 2024 are from sanctuary jurisdictions, concentrated in large cities and states, such as California, New York, and Massachusetts.Vaughan and Grebeck explore the fiscal implications of sanctuary policies and the need for comprehensive risk assessment in municipal finance. The absence of truly objective bond ratings or comprehensive risk assessments for sanctuary jurisdictions may place investors, particularly individual investors, who own a significant share of this market, at a disadvantage. Sanctuary policies can impose significant burdens on taxpayers, potentially affecting a municipality's fiscal health and its ability to meet financial obligations. Key discussion points include:Why are credit ratings important?Do sanctuary policies compromise a city's creditworthiness?Why might credit rating agencies overlook political risks associated with sanctuary jurisdictions?How does the influx of illegal immigrants strain public resources and affect taxpayers?Would legislative measures, like Rep. Nancy Mace's "No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act", address these concerns?In the closing commentary, Vaughan presents the findings from her most recent report on sanctuary jurisdictions, identifying the states and localities that have the most egregious non-cooperation policies leading to the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestEd Grebeck is a veteran credit market risk expert.RelatedSanctuary MapWhich Sanctuary Jurisdictions Have Released the Most CriminalsNo Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities ActContact Details for Ed GrebeckIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,With the rise of American populist nationalism has come the rise of nativism: a belief in the concept of “heritage Americans” and a deep distrust of immigration. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Alex Nowrasteh about the ideology beneath this severe skepticism, as well as what Americans lose economically if we shut our doors to both low- and high-skilled immigrants.Nowrasteh is the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of his own Substack with David Bier, as well as the co-author of Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.Read more of Nowrasteh's work on immigration, nationalism, and other research.In This Episode* Illegal immigration (1:16)* Rise of xenophobia (3:48)* Psychology of immigration skeptics (9:20)* The future American workforce (14:04)* Population decline and assimilation (17:35)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Illegal immigration (1:16)The system that I would favor is one that allows a substantially larger number of people at every skill level to come into this country legally, to work, to live, and to become Americans . . . because this country demands their labor and there's no way for them to come legally.Pethokoukis: Will you, in a very short period of time, give me a sense of the situation at the southern border of the United States of America in terms of immigration, how that has evolved from Trump 1, to Biden, to now? Is it possible to give me a concise summary of that?Nowrasteh: From Obama through Trump 1, the border apprehension numbers were pretty reasonable, you were talking about somewhere between 400,000 and 800,000 per year. Then came Covid, crashed those numbers down to basically nothing by April of 2020.After that, the numbers progressively rose. They were at the highest point in December of 2020 than they had been for any other December going back over 25 years. Then Biden takes office, the numbers shoot through the roof. We're talking about 170,000 to 250,000, sometimes 300,000 a month until January or so of 2024; those numbers start coming down precipitously. December of 2024, they're at 40,000 or so, 45,000. January 2025, Trump comes in, they go down again. First full month of Trump's administration in February, they're about 8,000, the lowest numbers without a pandemic in a very long time.What's the right number?That's a hard question to answer? In an ideal world where costs and benefits didn't matter, I think the ideal number is zero. But the question is how do you get to that ideal number, right? Is it by having an insane amount of enforcement, of existing laws where you basically end up brutalizing people to an incredible extent? Or is it practically zero because we let people come in lawfully to work in this country. The system that I would favor is one that allows a substantially larger number of people at every skill level to come into this country legally, to work, to live, and to become Americans, and that would bring that number down to about what it is now or even lower than what it is now every month, because the reason people come illegally is because this country demands their labor and there's no way for them to come legally.Rise of xenophobia (3:48). . . I just don't think the economic argument is what moves people on this topic.As I've understood it, and maybe understand it wrong, is this issue has developed that — at first it seemed like the concern, and it still is the concern, was with illegal undocumented immigrants. And then it seems to me the argument became, “Well, we don't want those, and then we also really don't want low-skill immigrants either.” And now it seems, and maybe you have a different perspective, that it's, “Well, we don't really want those high-skill immigrants either.”You gave me the current state of illegal immigration at the southern border. What is the current state of the argument among people who want less, perhaps even no immigration in this country?State of the argument is actually what you described. When I started working on this topic about 15 years ago, I never thought I would've heard people come out against the H-1B visa, or against high-skilled immigrants, or against foreign entrepreneurs. But you saw this over Christmas actually, December of 2024. You saw this basically online “H-1 B-gate” where Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk were saying H-1Bs are great. I think Musk had tweeted, “over my dead body we're going to cut the H-1B,” right? And you see this groundswell of conservatives and Republicans — not all of them, by any means — come out and say, “We don't even want these guys. We don't want these skilled immigrants,” using a whole range of arguments. None of them economic, by the way. Almost none of them economics; all culture, all voting habits, all stereotypes, a lot of them pretty nasty in my opinion.So there is this sense where some people just don't want immigrants. The first time I think I encountered this in writing from a person who was prominent was Anne Coulter, Jeff Sessions when he was senator, and these types of people around 2015, in a big way, and it seems to have become much more prominent than I ever thought it would be.Is it that they don't understand the economic argument or they just don't care about that argument?They don't care about it. I have come to the realization — this makes me sad because I'm an economist by training — but I just don't think the economic argument is what moves people on this topic. I don't think it's what they care about. I don't think it animates . . . It animates me as a pro-immigration person, I think it animate you, right?It does, yeah, it sure does.It does not animate the people who are opposed to it. I think it is a cultural argument, it is a crime element, it is a threat element, it is a, “This makes us less American somehow” weird, fuzzy-feeling argument.Would it matter if the immigrants were all coming from Germany, France, and Norway?Maybe for a handful of them, but generally no, I don't think so. I think the idea that America is special, is different, is some kind of unique nation that ethnically, or in other ways cannot be pierced or contaminated by foreigners — I think it's just like an “Ew, foreigners,” type of sentiment that people have. A base xenophobia that a lot of people have combined with a very reasonable fear and dislike of chaos. When people see chaos on the border, they hate it.I hate chaos on the border. My answer is to get rid of the chaos by letting people come in legally, because you legalize a market, you can actually regulate it. You can't regulate an illegal market. But I think other people see chaos, they have this sort of purity conception of America that's just fanciful, in my opinion, and they just don't want foreigners, and the chaos prompts them, makes it even more powerful.To what extent is it fear that all these immigrants will eventually vote for things you don't want? Or in this case, they're all going to become Democrats, so Republicans don't want them.That's definitely part of it. I think that's more of an elite Republican fear, or an elite sort of nativist or conservative fear than it is amongst the people online who are yelling at me all the time or yelling at Elon Musk. I think that resonates a lot more in this city and in online conservative publications, I think that resonates much more. I don't think it's borne out by the facts, and people who say this will also loudly trumpet how Hispanics now basically split their vote in the 2024 election. David Shore, who is the progressive analyst of electoral politics, said he thinks that Trump actually won the naturalized immigrant vote, which is probably the first time a Republican has won the naturalized immigrant vote since the 19th century.The immediate question is, does that kind of thing, will that resonate into a changing opinion among folks on the right if they feel like they feel like they can win these voters?I don't think so because I think it's about deeper issues than that. I think it's a real feelings-, values-based issue.Psychology of immigration skeptics (9:20)When people feel like they don't have control of something in their country or their government doesn't have control of something, they become anti- whatever is the source of that chaos, even the legal versions of it.Has this been there for a long time? Was it exacerbated for some reason? Was it exacerbated by the financial crisis and the slow economy afterward? The only time I remember hearing about people using the idea of “heritage Americans” were elite people whose great great grandparents came over on the Mayflower and they thought they were better than everybody else, they were elites, they were these kind of Boston Brahmans. So I was aware of the concept from that, but I've never heard people — and I hear it now — about people who were not part of the original Mayflower wave, or Pilgrims, think of themselves as “heritage Americans” because their parents came over in the 1850s or the 1880s, but now their “heritage.” That idea to me seems new.I hadn't heard of it until just a few years ago, frankly, at all. I racked my brain about this because I used to have a lot of affinity for the Republican Party, just to be frank. And I'm from California, and I'm in my '40s, so I remember Prop 187 in 1994 when the state had a big campaign about illegal immigrants' enforcement and welfare, and it really changed the state's voting patterns to be much more democratic, eventually.Then I saw the Republican Party under George W. Bush, and John McCain, and all these other guys who were pro-Republican, but always in California the Republicans were very skeptical of immigration across the board, but I didn't really see that spread. Then I saw it go to Arizona in 2010, 2009, 2008, around there. I saw it go to South Carolina, Mississippi, some of these places, and then all of a sudden with Trump, it went everywhere.So I racked my brain thinking, did I miss something? Was there always something there and I was just too myopic to view it, or I wasn't in those circles, or I wanted to convince myself that it wasn't there? And I really think that it was always there to some small extent, but Trump is the most brilliant political entrepreneur of our lifetime and probably of our country's history, and that he took over this party from the outside and he convinced people to be nativists. Because what he was saying, the words — not that different from Scott Walker saying about immigration. It was not that different from what Mike Huckabee was saying about immigration. It wasn't that different from Santorum. But he said it or sold it in a way that just worked, I guess. That maybe absolves me of some responsibility or maybe allows me to say that I didn't miss anything, but I do think that that largely explains it.And how does it explain that, and you may not have an answer. I can sort of understand the visceral concern about chaos at the border or people coming here illegally. But then to take it to the point that we don't even want AI engineers to come to this country from India, or, “I'm really angry that someone from a foreign country is taking my kid's spot at Harvard.” That, to me, seems almost inexplicable.It's not the fact of the chaos, but it's the perception of the chaos, because when Trump came in in 2015, the border crossing numbers were really low. They were in the 300,000s, low 400,000s, but he talked about it like it was millions, and he created this perception of just insane, outrageous chaos.There's a research and political psychology field about the locus of control. When people feel like they don't have control of something in their country or their government doesn't have control of something, they become anti- whatever is the source of that chaos, even the legal versions of it. In some way, it's an understandable human reaction, but in some ways it is so destructive. But, like you said, it spreads to AI engineers from China because it's like all immigration, and it's so bad, and it's so destructive, and that is the best explanation that I've seen out there about that.The future American workforce (14:04)What we notice in the economics of immigration, when we do these types of studies and we take a look at the wage impacts, we've got basically no wage effect on those of native-born Americans.I write a lot about, hopefully, this technological wave that we're going to be experiencing, and then I also write a little about immigration. The question I get is, if we're going to be worried about the jobs of the future being taken over by software or by robots, if we really think that's going to happen, shouldn't we really be thinking very hard about the kinds of people we let enter into this country, even legally, and their ability to function in that kind of economy?I think we need to think about what is the best mechanism to select people to come here that the economy needs. What you described . . . assumes an amount of knowledge, and foresight, and, frankly, the incentive to make a wise decision in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians that they just do not have and that they will never have. and what matters most and who can pick the best in the market,You can say STEM degrees only. I only want people who have STEM degrees from colleges that, on some global ranking, are in the top 500 universities. You could say that. That would be one way of selecting.They could try to centrally plan it like that. . .You're saying “centrally planned” because you know that's going to get a reaction out of me, but go ahead.I do. The thing is, there's all different types of ways to have an immigration system and there's going to be a little bit of planning any immigration system. But I think the one that will work best is the one that allows the market to have the widest possible choice. We don't know how automation is going to turn out.There's this thing called Moravec's paradox in a lot of AI writing, which is the idea that you'll probably be able to automate a lot of high-skill jobs more easily than you will be able to automate, say, somebody who's a maid, or a nanny, or a nurse, or a plumber, just because the real world is harder than . . . You and I type, and talk, and do math. That's probably easier to do. So maybe the optimal thing to do would be to increase immigration for low-skilled people because all the jobs in the future are going to be low-skilled anyway, because we're going to be able to automate all the high-skilled jobs.Though you could say then that that would take away the jobs from the natives.You could say that, of course. What we notice in the economics of immigration, when we do these types of studies and we take a look at the wage impacts, we've got basically no wage effect on those of native-born Americans. If we were to have a situation where let's say massive amounts of jobs disappear in entire sectors of the economy, vanished, automated . . . well, that just means that we're going to have more opportunities and specialization, division of labor, where there's going to be a lot more lower-skilled and mid-skill jobs, just because there's such a much larger and more productive side of the economy.There's going to be so much more profits in these other ones that we're going to have a bigger economy in the same way that when agriculture basically shrank as a massive section of the workforce, those people got other jobs that were more productive, and it was great. I think we could maybe see that again, and I hope we do. I don't want to have to work anymore.Population decline and assimilation (17:35). . . if the whole world is going to have population decline in 20, 30, 50 years, we're going to have to deal with that at some point, but I'd rather deal with that problem with a population of 600 million Americans than a population of 350 million Americans.The scenario — and this was highlighted to me by one of our scholars who looks a lot about demographics and population growth — his theory is that all the population-decline estimates, shrinkage, and slowing down estimates from the United Nations are way too optimistic, that population would begin to level off much faster. Whatever the UN's low or worst-case scenario is, if you want to put a qualifier on it like that, it's probably like that. And a lot of policymakers are underestimating the decline in fertility rates, and eventually everyone's going to figure that out. And there'll be a mad global scandal for population — for people.There's going to be tons of labor shortages and you're going to want people, and there's going to be this scramble, and not every country is going to be as good at it. If people want to immigrate, they're probably more likely, everything else equal, they're going to want to go to the United States as opposed to — not to smear another country — I don't know, Argentina or something. We have this great ability to accept people to come here and for them to succeed and build companies. Maybe that company is a bodega, maybe that company is a technology company. So we're at this moment where we have this great natural advantage, but it seems like we're utterly rejecting it.We are not just rejecting it, we are turning it from a positive into a big negative. You have these students who are being apprehended and having their visas canceled because of a fishing license violation six years ago. People who are skilled science students studying the United States who could go on to be founders of big companies or just high-skilled workers, and we're saying, “Nope, can't do it, sorry.” We're kicking people out for reasons of speech — speech that I often don't like, by the way, but it doesn't matter, because I believe it on principle. It's important.We already see it showing up in tourism numbers plummeting to the United States, and I think we're going to see it in student visa numbers shortly. And student visas are the first step on that long chain of being able to be a high-skilled immigrant one day. So we are really doing long-term damage.On the population stuff, I completely agree, and if the whole world is going to have population decline in 20, 30, 50 years, we're going to have to deal with that at some point, but I'd rather deal with that problem with a population of 600 million Americans than a population of 350 million Americans.What is your general take on the notion of assimilation? Is that a problem? Should we doing more to make sure people are successful here? How do you think about that?I do think assimilation is important. I don't think it's a problem. When I talk about assimilation, I use it in the way that Jacob Vigdor — Jake is a professor, University of Washington economist, and he says, assimilation is when an immigrant or their kids are indistinguishable from long-settled Americans on the measurements of family size, civic participation, income, education, language. Basically it takes three generations. That is, the first generation are the immigrants, second are their kids, third are their grandkids, on average.Some, much faster. Like my Indian neighbors are more than assimilated in the first generation. They do better than native born Americans on most of those measures. Some lower-skilled Hispanic or some East African immigrants, takes three, three and a half, four sometimes, to do that well, but it's going very well.We do not have the cultural issues that some countries in Europe have. To some extent, it's overblown in Europe, those problems, but they do exist and they exist to a greater extent than they do here. Part of that is because we have birthright citizenship. People who are born in this country are citizens, they don't feel like they're an illegal underclass because they're not. They feel totally accepted because they are legally, and we have an ethos in this country, because we don't have an ethnic identification of being American like they do in places like Germany or in Norway. I have family members in Norway who are half Iranian and they're not really considered to be Norwegian, culturally. Here it's the opposite. If I were to go say I'm not an American, people would be offended. There, if you say, “Oh, I'm Norwegian,” they'll correct you and be like, “No, you're not Norwegian, you're something else.”We have this great secret sauce born of our culture, born of our lack of an ethnic Americanness. It doesn't matter what ethnicity or race you are, or religion, anybody can be American. And we have done it so well and we just don't have these issues, and I don't think, as a result, we should do more because I'm worried about the government breaking it.Based on what you just said, at a gut level, how do you feel when someone uses the phrase “heritage Americans,” and they hate the idea of America as an idea, and to be an American you need to have been here for a long time. That whole way of looking at it — do you get it, or do you at some level [think], I am not a psychologist, I do not understand it?A way to make sense of it [is] by swapping out the word “American” in their sentence and we place it with the word “Frenchman,” or “German,” or “Russian,” or “Japanese,” or some other country that's a nation state where the identity is bound up with ethnicity. That's the way that I make sense of it, and I think this is a concept that just does not work in the United States; it cannot work. Maybe it's the most nationalistic I am, but I think that that's just a fundamentally foreign idea that could never work in the United States. It sounds more at home in Europe and other places. That's what strikes meAs I finish up, I know you have all kinds of ideas to improve the American immigration system, which we will try to link to, but instead of me asking you to give me your five-point plan for perfection, I'm going to ask you: How does this turn around? What is the scenario in which we become more accepting again of immigrants, perhaps the way we were 30 years ago?That really is a $64,000 question. The idea that I have floated — which probably won't work, but at least gets people to pause — is the entitlement programs are going insolvent, and I have pitched to my grandmother-in-law, who is a very nice woman, who is a Republican who is skeptical of immigration, but who is worried about Social Security going bankrupt, I say, “Well, there is one way to increase the solvency of this program for 30 or 40 years.” And she said, “What's that?” and I say, “Let in 100 million immigrants between the age of the 20 and 30.” And it gives her pause. I think if that idea can give her pause, then maybe it has a shot. When this country seriously starts to grapple with the insolvency of entitlement programs, that's looming.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro ReadsPlease check out the website or Substack app for the latest Up Wing economic, business, and tech news contained in this new edition of the newsletter. Lots of great stuff!Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features a discussion of a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which reveals that both immigrant and U.S.-born women are having fewer children than they did 15 years ago. Based on data from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS), collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, the report finds that although immigrant women continue to have somewhat higher fertility rates than their U.S.-born counterparts, the gap is small.Guest Steven Camarota, the Center's Research Director and co-author of the report, highlights a critical reality: Immigration, while adding to population growth, does not significantly slow the aging of the population or reverse declining birth rates.The podcast's second guest, Center Resident Scholar Jason Richwine, provides some evidence that immigration may actually reduce the fertility of the U.S.-born, reducing or potentially erasing immigration's small positive impact on overall U.S. fertility.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.Jason Richwine is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedThe Fertility of Immigrants and Natives in the United States, 2023Jobs Americans Will Do: Just About All of ThemImmigration in Trump's First 100 DaysIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel discussion examining how immigration is used as a political, economic, and strategic tool by governments, non-state, and sub-state actors worldwide. Whether through mass migration crises, policy-driven border surges, or the manipulation of refugee flows, immigration has become a powerful geopolitical weapon and a means of waging hybrid warfare. Examples have included Cuba's use of the Mariel boatlift in 1980 or the more recent efforts by Belarus to coordinate illegal immigration to the EU.This panel explored the concept of immigration warfare – how immigration is leveraged to gain political leverage; influence legislation, elections, and the economy; shape public opinion; and even destabilize a country. Discussion also covered how nations can respond to this growing challenge. The discussion is an activity of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), a collaboration among independent policy organizations on three continents sharing the perspective that each sovereign nation has the right to pursue its chosen immigration policies.Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, moderates this rebroadcast of the Center's panel.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsViktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute in Budapest.Phillip Linderman is a Retired senior Foreign Service officer from the State Department and a Board Member of the Center for Immigration Studies.Eric Ruark is the Director of Research of Numbers USA.RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptC-Span CoverageIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Former Czech President Václav Klaus joins the Center for Immigration Studies podcast to discuss migration, national identity, and the importance of the nation-state. An economist and longtime advocate for national sovereignty, President Klaus challenges prevailing European views on immigration, multiculturalism, and the European Union.Key highlights:Reconciling free market economics with the necessity of limited immigration and secure borders.Differentiating between individual migration and mass migration.Arguing that low birthrates do not justify increased migration.Explaining mass migration as being demand-driven, caused by politics and social policies.Critiquing labor importation as a policy failure that undermines citizens' motivation to work.Emphasizing the importance of national borders and criticizing the Schengen Agreement.Distinguishing between migrants and legitimate refugees as opposed to distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestFormer Czech President Václav KlausRelated"Europe All Inclusive: Understanding the Current Migration Crisis"Václav Klaus' personal websiteIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, National Review's Andy McCarthy and guest host Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, examine the erosion of legal norms – from immigration enforcement to judicial power – and what this means for how our system of government is supposed to work under the Constitution.Prosecutorial Discretion:McCarthy traces how the Obama and Biden administrations transformed prosecutorial discretion from a tool used on a case-by-case basis into a broad and categorical policy of declining to enforce immigration laws. What was once a resource-based allocation judgment has become, in his view, an unconstitutional end-run around Congress.The Courts as a Political Battleground:With Congress “not doing its job,” McCarthy highlights how activist groups race to friendly judges for nationwide injunctions. He warns the resulting judicial overreach allows unelected judges, often handpicked by advocacy groups, to override elected officials and block policies nationally, replacing democratic accountability with judicial activism. SCOTUS's large emergency docket caseload is a symptom of the resulting dysfunction.The Rise of Progressive Lawyering:McCarthy contrasts originalism, which examines and respects the Constitution's original meaning, with progressive lawyering, which he sees as driven by social outcomes rather than legal process. This shift, he contends, threatens democratic governance.Deportation and Due Process:The two legal experts address Trump-era deportation efforts using both the foreign policy grounds for removal and the Alien Enemies Act. McCarthy, who supports broad executive authority, explains that even aliens have constitutional protections.HostAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestAndrew McCarthy is a Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute and Contributing Editor at National Review.RelatedAndrew McCarthy articles at National ReviewSupremes Uphold Due Process While Handling Trump Win in Venezuelan Deportations CaseWhat is 'Shocking' to J.D. Vance Should Shock - and Anger - You, TooTrump Admin Wins First Alien Enemies Act Skirmish before SCOTUS - or Did ItSCOTUS Chief Stays District Order for Alien Deported Due to 'Administrative Error'Tren de Aragua, Alien Enemies Act, and 'State Secrets Privilege'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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy discusses the Trump Administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely-used provision in U.S. law passed in 1798 that gives the president the authority to swiftly remove citizens of countries of wartime foes or countries who have made a “predatory incursion” into our territory. Last month, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the AEA to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove certain documented members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).Guest host and CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan interviews George Fishman, CIS Senior Legal Fellow, who has been writing about the possible use of the AEA since 2023. Three main questions are highlighted during the podcast:How are individuals identified for deportations via the AEA?What legal protections do those targeted for deportation via the AEA have?Who determines whether the administration has met the statutory requirements for the AEA's use?In her closing commentary, Vaughan discusses the recent statewide implementation of the 287(g) partnership program for immigration enforcement in Florida.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedTrump Deploys the Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuela and Tren De AraguaTren de Aragua, the Alien Enemies Act, and the ‘State Secrets Privilege'Alien Enemy Validation GuideThe 287(g) Program: Protecting Home Town and HomelandIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

J.B. White returns for another soul-stirring RattlerGator Report, kicking off with Gator basketball pride and rolling right into the heart of America's political reckoning. From Florida's athletic dominance to federal overreach via the EPA, J.B. pulls no punches. He breaks down Matt Gaetz's exposure of Biden's "green slush fund," speculates with glee about Jeff Sessions operating undercover JAG-style, and reads Tucker Carlson's heartfelt obituary for his father, an unexpectedly moving moment that shifts his view of Tucker entirely. Family, football, fraud, and fiery monologues, this episode's got it all.      

In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies analysts discuss the legal and policy implications of the Mahmoud Khalil case.Khalil, a Palestinian/Syrian/Algerian green card holder, was involved in pro-Hamas protests when a graduate student on a nonimmigrant visa at Columbia University. DHS charged Khalil under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which renders deportable any noncitizen “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”CIS's Andrew Arthur and George Fishman review the facts of the case, analyze the constitutional and legal questions of what they predict will be a potential test for future efforts to remove noncitizens who support terrorism, and offer predictions. Four main questions are highlighted:Is this a free speech case? Can a noncitizen be removed for speech or action supporting a terrorist organization?Is this a foreign policy case? How does the government define “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”?What are the judicial precedents? How will courts balance foreign policy concerns against constitutional rights?Will this case set clearer lines on what a non-citizen can and cannot do? There is a need for the law to settle the spectrum of rights that apply to a spectrum of status. Will this be the case that will provide legal clarity?As the case moves through immigration court and on to federal district court and beyond, the Center for Immigration Studies will continue providing expert analysis on its broader implications for immigration enforcement and national security.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.George Fishman is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedFor more analysis, see our topic page: The Case of Mahmoud KhalilIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Fieldwork undertaken by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals a border now under control, offering clear evidence that the border crisis was never an unstoppable force but rather the result of policy decisions.Last week the Center sent analysts to the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector and across the border to Tijuana, and to the El Paso Sector and across the border to Juarez. These two border sectors had some of the heaviest migrant traffic over the last few years, but now the numbers have plummeted.Center researchers Andrew Arthur and Todd Bensman join Parsing Immigration Policy to discuss what they saw and what policies are making the difference, and three tools in particular:Infrastructure – Expanded fencing and additional concertina wire have been added.Manpower – Border Patrol agents are forward-deployed, no longer being pulled off the line for processing migrants.Criminal Prosecutions – Not only are apprehended migrants no longer being released, but illegal entry is increasingly being handled as a criminal offense, with first-time illegal-crossers facing up to six months in a federal penitentiary.In his closing commentary, host Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, explains the Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, which is now in the headlines due to the Trump administration using it as the basis for the swift deportation of a group of Venezuelan gang members. The law can only be triggered by a declared war, an invasion, or a predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government. Its application faces legal challenges and will likely reach the Supreme Court.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestsAndrew Arthur is a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Todd Bensman is a Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedA Border 'Peace Dividend'Eye-Popping February CBP Numbers Show How the Border Has Changed under TrumpThe 225-year-old 'Alien Enemies Act' Needs to Come Out of RetirementTrump Prepares to Use of the Alien Enemies ActIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast series features a discussion between guest host Marguerite Telford, the Center's Director of Communications, and Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research. Camarota's interview highlights a recently released analysis that examines the size and growth of the foreign-born population in the January Current Population Survey, the first government survey to be adjusted to better reflect the recent surge in illegal immigrants. The analysis finds that the foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal together) hit 53.3 million and 15.8 percent of the total U.S. population in January 2025 — both new record highs. Telford and Camarota continue the discussion, hitting topics both in the analysis and those effected by immigration stock and flow, including population projections, employment, education levels, assimilation, and more.HostMarguerite Telford is the Director of Communications at the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedForeign-Born Number and Share of U.S. Population at All-Time Highs in January 2025The Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived ImmigrantsWorking-Age, but Not Working, 1960 to 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy reminds listeners of the threats that made President Trump's recent Executive Order, "Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," necessary. The Center for Immigration Studies maintains a comprehensive database detailing examples of preventable federal government vetting failures which resulted in the entry of individuals who posed a threat to national security. Todd Bensman, the Center's national security fellow, has recently added new cases into the database, highlighting the need for the improvement of U.S. vetting processes. “The Center's database offers valuable insights for preventing future threats,” said Bensman. “I hope this crucial tool for understanding past failures will be useful to the Trump administration's renewed robust security vetting efforts.”Key Highlights:Purpose: The database identifies fail points in the complex immigration security screening system, providing insights for homeland security agencies and congressional overseers to strengthen future vetting processes.Analysis: Each entry includes an after-action report detailing what went wrong, offering lessons to improve future vetting procedures. Users can access all primary research materials used in the analyses.Notable Cases Highlighted: The database contains over 50 entries revealing the entry of foreign threat actors, including a Brazilian ex-police officer who had committed mass murder; a Bosnian war criminal who ran prison camps and was involved in brutal interrogations, torturing, and the killing of inmates; and an Egyptian student who was involved in a plot to bomb the Israeli embassy.Historical Context: The 9/11 attacks prompted a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration vetting processes. The year 2008 was chosen as the starting date for collecting vetting failure cases on the assumption that the first series of 9/11 visa vetting reforms would have fully vested by then and because significant new process improvements were implemented that year.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, highlights President Trump's success in securing the border, achieving the lowest level of apprehensions recorded in history. Will this administration and future administrations stay vigilant?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestTodd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedDatabase: National Security Vetting FailuresEgyptian Student Added to CIS National Security Vetting Failures DatabaseAfghan Evacuee Added to CIS National Security Vetting DatabaseBrazilian Mass Murderer Who Slipped through U.S. Vetting Three Times Is Added to CIS DatabasePanel: A New Database of Vetting FailuresCommonplace: They Said It Couldn't Be DoneThe Greatest Mass MIgration Border Crisis in U.S. History Is OverIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast series features guest host Senior National Security Fellow Todd Bensman in conversation with Jaeson Jones, a leading expert on Mexican cartels and a border correspondent.This timely discussion highlights the recent designation of six Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) by the Trump administration and the multifaceted approach by all levels of government that this permits, allowing the U.S. to combat the cartels in sync with the Mexican government.Key topics covered include:Evolution of Mexican Cartels: Exploration of how Mexican cartels, now in 65 countries around the world, have transitioned from organized crime syndicates to parallel governments in Mexico, exhibiting extreme violence and governmental infiltration.Advocacy for FTO Designation: Discussion on Jones' rationale for advocating for the FTO designation, emphasizing the need for enhanced legal frameworks to effectively combat the rapid and violent operations of cartels.Strategic Framework Post-Designation: Analysis of the comprehensive approach required to dismantle cartel networks, underscoring the necessity for coordinated efforts across all branches of government.Implications of FTO Status: Examination of the potential outcomes of the FTO designation, including:Revocation of visas for individuals associated with designated cartels.Inclusion of cartel affiliates on no-fly lists.Enhanced capabilities to target and seize financial assets linked to cartel operations.Addressing Fentanyl Trafficking: Strategies to combat the smuggling of fentanyl, focusing on disrupting supply chains originating from countries such as China, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and addressing the corruption within Mexico that facilitates these operations.Game Changer: Prediction by Jones – With the FTO designation, the number of lives we can now save is unprecedented.In his closing commentary, Bensman highlights the recent agreement between Mexico and the United States, in which Mexico will deploy 10,000 additional troops to the border, and the United States will assist in intercepting American guns that end up in cartel hands. However, Bensman notes a lack of reliable evidence supporting the claim that most of the cartels' firearms come from U.S. gun stores. The cartels have, for years, equipped themselves with military-grade weapons from Mexico's own corrupt military and from the armories of corrupt officials in Central American and South American nations.HostTodd Bensman is a National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJaeson Jones is an expert on Mexican cartels and a border correspondent.RelatedJaeson Jones WebsiteJaeson Jones on XAmerican Guns Are Not to Blame for Mexico's Cartel ProblemIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Victor Davis Hanson, a Hoover Institution fellow, discusses the changes in U.S. immigration policy under President Trump with Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies' executive director. The discussion begins with acknowledging how the political landscape for Trump 2.0 differs greatly from the first Trump administration, giving President Trump maneuvering room to make major immigration policy changes.Key topics include:Border Enforcement & Deportation:A comparison of President Trump's 2021 and 2025 immigration policies.The wisdom of Trump's “worst first” deportation strategy.Over the last four years the composition of the illegal immigration population has changed to include a larger number of nationalities besides Mexicans. Will this weaken the cohesive lobbying effort to fight deportations?Birthright Citizenship & Legal Challenges:Trump's executive order addressing birthright citizenship.Predictions on the potential Supreme Court battle and legislative efforts.U.S.-Mexico Relations & Economic Impact:Mexico's shifting stance on immigration.Mexican public opinion turns against mass migration.Trump's potential tariff and remittance restrictions as leverage.Immigration & Fertility Rates:Declining U.S. birth rates and state-level trends.Can immigration raise the national fertility rate and achieve replacement level?Immigration's impact on native fertility.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the podcast host, highlights a new Center report, The Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived Immigrants, which finds a decline in the education level of newly arrived (the past three years) immigrants. The decline, which added greatly to the low-income population, is in stark contrast to the steady improvement in the education level in the years prior to the border surge.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestVictor Davis Hanson is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution.RelatedVictorHanson.comTrump Issues Birthright Citizenship Executive OrderThe Declining Education Level of Newly Arrived ImmigrantsIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy highlights the diplomatic initiatives supporting U.S. border security that have been undertaken by the Trump administration. Phillip Linderman, a retired State Department senior Foreign Service Officer and a Center for Immigration Studies board member, discusses actions recently taken by President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that promote structured and lawful migration and seek to put an end to the global migration chaos.Key points:International Cooperation on Deportations – Countries such as Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and Mexico have agreed to accept the return of their citizens, signaling a shift in regional migration policies.Changing U.S. Policy – The U.S. has fundamentally changed its stance, no longer encouraging unchecked migration but instead promoting legal and orderly processes.Diplomatic Leverage – The threat of tariffs and the use of tools such as Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows the U.S. to suspend visas for countries refusing to accept deportees, has proven effective in securing cooperation.Mexico's Role – Mexico has agreed to deploy 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to combat human trafficking and drug smuggling at the border.El Salvador's Role – Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has offered to accept U.S. deportees of any nationality.Gitmo's Role – Trump will open Guantanamo Bay to alien detainees.Economic & Political Factors – Countries reliant on remittances, such as El Salvador and Venezuela, are having to balance economic interests with security cooperation.Global Implications – The discussion explores the idea of an international migration summit and the need for updated legal frameworks outside traditional organizations like the UN.HostJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestPhillip Linderman is a retired State Department senior Foreign Service Officer and a Center for Immigration Studies board member.RelatedEl Salvador, Guatemala deals key to Trump deportation promisesTrump Tariffs and Border SecurityMigrants Sent to Gitmo, India, and Potentially VenezuelaColombia's President Tests Trump on Migrant Returns, Quickly Backs DownTrump Dares to Send Criminal Aliens Back to Their New Home, Down by the (Guantanamo) BayState Department Can Lead on Fighting Illegal Immigration and Promoting Border SecurityIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of “Parsing Immigration Policy” highlights skilled immigration policies, their impact, and ways to improve the legal immigration programs. Featuring Dr. Norman Matloff, emeritus professor at UC Davis and a leading expert on the H-1B visa program, this episode breaks down how current policies are reshaping the U.S. labor market, undercutting American workers, and benefiting major tech companies at the expense of bringing the true “best and brightest” to the U.S.Key topics covered:The H-1B Visa System: Why America's leading tech companies, like Intel and Google, are more harmful than the “body shops” that contract out cheap foreign labor.The Green Card Process: The green card process is badly flawed. How sponsorship by big tech artificially expands the workforce, limiting opportunities and lowering wages for Americans.The Myth of “Best and Brightest”: The reality behind claims that H-1B visa holders are exceptional talents—and how companies game the system. How can true talent be identified.Age Discrimination & Wage Suppression: How H-1B policies favor entry-level workers, leading to lost expertise and lower salaries in STEM fields.Foreign Students & Green Cards: Are we admitting too many? How universities exploit foreign student labor and what changes are needed.Fixing the System: Ideas for reform, options explored include limiting green cards to top PhDs, implementing merit-based testing, numerical caps on studentsHostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestNorm Matloff is an emeritus professor at UC Davis.RelatedHow the H-1B System Undercuts American WorkersNorman Matloff on the H-1B Program and Related IssuesWhy Legal Immigration Numbers MatterDoes America Need More Foreign Tech Workers, NoTo Get the ‘Best and Brightest' H-1B Workers, the US Must Reform the ProgramMusk Is Right About H-1BsA Look Behind the Curtain at One H-1B Body ShopIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Immigration was a defining issue in Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and within his first week in office, he took swift action to fulfill his promises. In this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, Center for Immigration Studies experts analyze the nine immigration-related Executive Orders issued in his first week in office, shaping the direction of U.S. immigration policy.Andrew Arthur, Fellow in Law and Policy, and Elizabeth Jacobs, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy, provide an in-depth breakdown and analysis of these executive actions and their broader impact on immigration policy.As the administration continues to roll out new immigration policies, the Center for Immigration Studies will provide ongoing expert analysis and updates.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsAndrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Elizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBullet summaries of the nine executive ordersAdditional CIS research and analysis on these policiesIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Jean Guerrero - HatemongerApr 26, 2024Stephen Miller is one of the most influential advisors in the White House. He has crafted Donald Trump's speeches, designed immigration policies that ban Muslims and separate families, and outlasted such Trump stalwarts as Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions. But he's remained an enigma.Until now. Emmy- and PEN-winning investigative journalist and author Jean Guerrero charts the thirty-four-year-old's astonishing rise to power, drawing from more than one hundred interviews with his family, friends, adversaries and government officials.Radicalized as a teenager, Miller relished provocation at his high school in liberal Santa Monica, California. He clashed with administrators and antagonized dark-skinned classmates with invectives against bilingualism and multiculturalism. At Duke University, he cloaked racist and classist ideas in the language of patriotism and heritage to get them airtime amid controversies. On Capitol Hill, he served Tea Party congresswoman Michele Bachmann and nativist Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.Recruited to Trump's campaign, Miller met his idol. Having dreamed of Trump's presidency before he even announced his decision to run, Miller became his senior policy advisor and speechwriter. Together, they stoked dystopian fears about the Democrats, “Deep State” and “American Carnage,” painting migrants and their supporters as an existential threat to America. Through backroom machinations and sheer force of will, Miller survived dozens of resignations and encouraged Trump's harshest impulses, in conflict with the president's own family. While Trump railed against illegal immigration, Miller crusaded against legal immigration. He targeted refugees, asylum seekers and their children, engineering an ethical crisis for a nation that once saw itself as the conscience of the world. Miller rallied support for this agenda, even as federal judges tried to stop it, by courting the white rage that found violent expression in tragedies from El Paso to Charlottesville.Hatemonger unveils the man driving some of the most divisive confrontations over what it means to be American––and what America will become.BookBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

As President Donald Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan begin their promised deportations, the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy discusses immigration detention - a key element in immigration enforcement. Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy and a former immigration judge, details the purpose, history, and availability of immigration detention resources.Key Points:Civil, Not Criminal: Immigration detention is not a punishment but is instead a safeguard to ensure that aliens appear in court and for removal.Historical Context: Detention provisions trace back to at least the Immigration Act of 1903, steadily expanding from inadmissible aliens being detained at the ports of entry to include those entering illegally as well as for criminal aliens.Growing Need: With over 1.4 million individuals awaiting removal and a 34% no-show rate in immigration court, expanding detention capacity will become crucial to President Trump's immigration-enforcement efforts.Detention Options: ICE facilities, private contractors, and state prisons and county jails can all house detainees. The episode examines Biden-era restrictions aimed at restricting detention space.Alternative Space: From utilizing military bases to reinstituting “Remain in Mexico” policies, the new administration should not have a problem finding adequate detention space. 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.RelatedGAO: One-Third of Immigration Court Aliens are No-ShowsU.S. Senate Testimony: Remain in MexicoIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hosted a panel to discuss the importance of immigration numbers, legal and illegal, and their impact on wages, the labor market, and the future of the American workforce. This timely panel, "Beyond the Border: Why Legal Immigration Numbers Matter," builds on the social media debate sparked by Elon Musk's recent comment highlighting the need for more legal immigration and seeks to heighten awareness of the impact of legal immigration – both high-skilled and low-skilled.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsIntroduction by: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)Steven Camarota, Director of Research, CIS (slides)Michael Lind, Fellow at New America and author of, among others, Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America.Hal Salzman, Rutgers University, specializing in STEM labor markets and workforce development. (slides)RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel TranscriptPanel Video Steven Camarota's PresentationHal Salzman's PresentationOped by Hal Salzman: Two Simple Reforms Can Make H-1B Visas Great AgainIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy focuses on the Center's new three-part investigative series, which documents the first known terror attack in the United States committed by an illegal border-crosser. The series, titled “First Blood: Anatomy of Border-Crosser's Chicago Terror Attack”, uncovers the details of the October 26, 2024, attack in Chicago, highlights the lack of media and law enforcement coverage it received, and proposes solutions to address the national security and community safety risks stemming from the Biden border crisis.Mauritanian national Sidi Mohammad Abdallahi, who crossed the U.S.–Mexico border illegally in March 2023, targeted Orthodox Jewish residents, police officers, and paramedics in Chicago in an act of jihad supporting Hamas. Abdallahi's subsequent suicide in custody prevented a trial and further obscured the case.This week's guest and series author, Todd Bensman, traveled to Chicago to learn more about the alarming incident and to remind the country that a border-crossing terrorist, often dismissed as a hypothetical fantasy, has, in fact, struck on U.S. soil. Bensman conducted the first-ever interview with the initial target of the attack, an Orthodox Jewish man walking to attend worship services.“Abdallahi's attack is a wake-up call for a nation grappling with border security and counterterrorism challenges,” said Bensman. “There is a need for further investigation into his activities, associates, and motivations. Key agencies, including the FBI and DHS, must clarify their roles and reveal how this incident was allowed to unfold on their watch.”In his closing commentary, host Mark Krikorian discusses the recent House of Representatives passage of the “Laken Riley Act”, which would expand the categories of aliens whom DHS is required to detain to include those convicted of, arrested for, charged with, or who have admitted to committing “any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense”, as those terms are defined in the jurisdiction where those acts are committed.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTodd Bensman is the Senior National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedPart 1: First Blood - Anatomy of Border-Crosser's Chicago Terror AttackPart 2: Mystery Terrorist - The Unknown Life and Violent Times of Illegal Border-Crosser Sidi Mohammed AbdallahiPart 3: The Remedies - How to Lower the Risk of New Terror Strikes by Border-Crossing Islamist ExtremistsIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this episode of the Highness Podcast, hosts Diana and JR delve into cannabis, discussing personal choices, industry dynamics, and political challenges. Diana highlights a stylish vape battery from Cake, while JR talks about using Kanna extract for better sleep after a break from THC. They feature Frankie Green Thumbs, a local business assisting in cannabis cultivation.The topic turns to the impending new administration and what that means for the industry. They address political impacts such as Jeff Sessions' rescinding of the Cole Memo, the contentious Farm Bill, slow federal legalization progress, and challenges from figures like Trump, along with monopolistic trends in states like Florida and Maryland.The hosts also explore the rise of popularity with psychedelics like psilocybin and their potential influence on cannabis. They emphasize the need to reassess economic, legal, and social barriers for genuine cannabis reform, providing insightful commentary on the industry's future.Important links:Listeners can get 20% off their first order at Psily Rabbit Medicinals using code YOURHIGHNESS.Use YOURHIGHNESS at checkout for 15% off your order Sprig. This episode is produced and edited by Your Highness Media. Subscribe to our Substack for the latest updates and event information.

In this year-end episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, experts from the Center for Immigration Studies discuss some of the defining immigration issues of 2024. From record-breaking numbers at the border to the administration's controversial policies and their impacts, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, and analysts Andrew Arthur and Jessica Vaughan examine the events that shaped immigration policy this past year.Looking ahead, the panel explores what 2025 may hold:net-negative illegal immigrationincreased state legislation to restore integrity to the immigration systema push for amnesty for many here illegallypotential national security impact of Biden policiesincrease in legal immigration which will cause fireworks amongst the Trump coalitionWith immigration positioned to remain at the forefront of national discourse, this discussion offers valuable context for the road ahead.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsJessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.Andrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

We talk about pardons for immigrants in detention and then discuss a few Trump cases as he settles in to take office next month.    Show Notes    Part II of Craig's article that discusses all the biblical protagonists who would have been unlawful under U.S. immigration law, “You Were Told to Love the Immigrant, But What If the Story Never Happened? Hospitality and United States Immigration Law,” Vincentian Heritage Journal: Vol. 33: Iss. 1, Article 8, can be found at:  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2784951    Craig has previously challenged the interpretation of biblical passages by former Senator and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in “The Bible: the Perfect Primer on Immigration Law for Senator Sessions,” at: file:///Users/cmousin/Downloads/Challenge%20Response%20Blog%20-%20Chicago%20Theological%20Seminary_stamped-2.pdf  which was then followed by   “Faith Resisting Authority in the Name of Justice and Love: Immigration Law and the Bible” which can be found at: https://soundcloud.com/bcicirel/faith-resisting-authority-in-the-name-of-justice-and-love-immigration-law-and-the-bible?in=bcicirel/sets/vincentian-heritage-podcast    Law professors Peter L. Markowitz and Lindsay Nash raised the issue of pardons in their law review article, “Pardoning Immigrants,” 93 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 58 (2018).  They cite the pardon of Sheriff Joe on page 77.  They also mention the case of Biddle v. Perovich, 274 US 480,486 (1927), where the Supreme Court found that the pardon permits the President to decide “that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than the judgment fixed.”     The Human Rights Watch report written by Michael Garcia Bochenek, “We Need to Take Away Children, Zero Accountability Six Years After 'Zero Tolerance,'” December 16, 2024' contains the quote that we cited at p. 10 of the report:    https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/16/we-need-take-away-children/zero-accountability-six-years-after-zero-tolerance    We apologize for mistakenly claiming President Biden pardoned the former Treasurer of Dixon, Illinois and that she embezzled 62 million dollars.  President Biden commuted her sentence.  She was convicted of embezzling 53.7 million dollars. See: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-dixon-comptroller-rita-crundwell-sentenced-nearly-20-years-federal-prison-537  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/19/us/politics/ann-selzer-iowa-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/nyregion/trump-immunity-criminal-case.html    

This week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy highlights the pivotal role regulations and litigation will play in shaping U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration. The episode features Elizabeth Jacobs, the Center's Director of Regulatory Affairs and Policy, who talks through the top immigration regulatory moves and legal battles likely to occur during the Trump administration.Jacobs in conversation with podcast host Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, describes how the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning Chevron deference — once a cornerstone of judicial deference to agency interpretations — has reshaped the legal terrain. This landmark shift gives courts greater authority to scrutinize agency actions, making many Trump-era policies more likely to withstand judicial challenges.Key topics discussed include:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): The legal challenges surrounding this long-contested program, created through regulation, and its alignment with congressional intent.Optional Practical Training (OPT): How regulatory changes could curtail this massive guestworker program, created by regulation, that permits foreign nationals to work on student visas despite having completed their studies.Public Charge Rule: The potential return of Trump's 2019 definition to replace Clinton's definition created by memorandum that Biden returned to without public comment.Temporary Protected Status (TPS): The implications of Biden's expansions of the protection from removal afforded under TPS and how they may face rollbacks. The first battle could start in March when TPS for aliens from El Salvador will be up for renewal.National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The likelihood of the new administration challenging the 14 finalized rules impacting immigration enforcement — enacted under Biden and deemed exempt from NEPA requirements. A court ruling recently disagreed.Work Authorization Policies: Reforms targeting employment permits, including H-1B visa spousal work authorizations, which include fewer restrictions than the H-1B visa itself.As Krikorian notes, “The regulatory and legal battleground will be ground zero for immigration policy starting on January 20.”HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestElizabeth Jacobs is the Director of Regulatory Affairs at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedCourt Rejects Challenge to Work Permits for H1-B SpousesUSCIS Auto-Extends Work Permits for Many TPS BeneficiariesThis Week's Other Quasi-Amnesty: Biden Orders Expansion of Work Visa Options for DACAsIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Hispanic voters, once considered a Democratic stronghold, are now a pivotal swing demographic in U.S. elections. In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jim Robb, Vice President of Alliances and Activism at NumbersUSA, joins the Center's Executive Director, Mark Krikorian, to discuss this shift in voting trends and its implications for the future of American politics with the Center's Executive Director, Mark Krikorian.In the last two presidential elections, Hispanics, the fastest growing minority group in the country, have shown a notable move toward Republican candidates. Robb highlights the political journey of Hispanic voters, the factors driving the changes, current trends, and future expectations, including:In the recent presidential election, almost every demographic group moved toward Republicans.Economic concerns like inflation, followed by immigration, were cited as the top issues for Hispanic voters in the 2024 election.Traditional identities of class and economic interests trumped racial identity politics.The political journey of Hispanic Americans and African Americans, and how they vote, are very different.Populism and nationalism trends are reshaping party dynamics.Hispanic voting trends are a catastrophe for Democrats.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJim Robb is the Vice President of Alliances and Activism at NumbersUSA.RelatedSlide Deck Immigration Campaign PollingWhy did Hispanics vote so heavily for Donald TrumpIs Demography Still Destiny after 2024Political Migrants: Hispanic Voters on the MoveHispanics' Voting Preferences on ImmigrationIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of the Center for Immigration Studies' Parsing Immigration Policy podcast, host Mark Krikorian and CIS Fellow Andrew Arthur examine what a large-scale deportation effort might look like under the next administration. Using FY 2024 border statistics as a starting point, the episode highlights the logistical, political, and diplomatic challenges involved in cleaning-up the disaster the Biden administration has created by refusing to enforce the law.Key discussion points Include:Policy Shifts and Enforcement Challenges: Under the current administration, ICE has faced restrictions that limit detention and deportation capabilities. Arthur argues these limitations have enabled 1.4 million aliens under final removal orders to remain in the country.Logistics of Mass Deportation: The conversation explores how detention facilities, country jails, military bases, and expedited court proceedings could be leveraged, as well as the use of commercial flights for deportations.Diplomatic Complexities: Arthur outlines the challenges of, and solutions for, securing cooperation from home countries that do not accept their nationals to be returned, including using economic leverage or diplomatic incentives. There are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in the U.S. from recalcitrant countries, like Venezuela.Future Administrative Priorities: Arthur emphasizes that securing the border and reinstating ICE's operational authority will be critical first steps to enacting mass deportation.In his closing remarks, Krikorian highlights a recent blog post by CIS Fellow John Miano which discusses the executive branch's broad use of work permits to bypass congressional limits on immigration. By granting Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) to individuals without statutory eligibility, successive administrations have created a parallel immigration system, undermining legislative intent. Krikorian calls for statutory reform to ensure that Congress — not the executive branch — determines who is authorized to work in the United States.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 StudiesRelatedMass Deportation is Just Another Term for Immigration NormalcyThe Executive Branch Has Created Its Own Separate Immigration SystemIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Today's podcast takes a deep dive into the left's dark-money networks and their impact on federal policy, particularly immigration. Our guest, Tyler O'Neil, managing editor of The Daily Signal and author of the upcoming book, The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government, discusses how left-leaning organizations have infiltrated and embedded their ideologies into the administrative state.Drawing from a chapter in his book on immigration, O'Neil explains the rise of the “immigration industrial complex,” where federal funds fuel non-governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating for open-border policies and facilitating the housing and transportation of illegal immigrants across the country. These NGOs have become financially dependent on government grants and contracts, which now far exceed private donations, creating a loop of influence and profit.“The Biden administration's open-border policies have amplified the unaccompanied minors phenomenon and expanded the reach of these organizations,” O'Neil notes. “What began with refugee resettlement has exploded into a sprawling network that thrives on taxpayer dollars, even bypassing Congress's authority in many cases.”Immigration industrial complex started with refugee resettlement, it then grew under the unaccompanied minor phenomenon caused Congress changing the law so that they could not be sent back unless they were from contiguous countries, Canada or Mexico. The organizations involved in resettling both of these populations started making a lot of money under the Biden administration.O'Neil offers practical solutions for the ordinary American to pushback against the “Woketopus” and its influence. From scrutinizing charitable donations and union dues to advocating for reforms that cut off taxpayer funding to activist NGOs, he outlines a roadmap for restoring balance in governance. Starving the beast is essential; reducing revenue streams weakens the influence of these organizations.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTyler O'Neil is an author and Managing Editor of The Daily Signal.RelatedThe Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal GovernmentMaking Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law CenterTyler O'Neil's Twitter AccountTyler O'Neil's The Daily Signal Author 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Over the last few weeks, V has been getting messages from trans and non-binary folks about how to prepare for Trump's next presidency. While not comprehensive, and people may disagree, V shares their thoughts on the steps trans & non-binary people should consider taking. We also address policies under the Trump administration that may lead to increased discrimination against trans individuals under the 14th Amendment. Then, we introduce the first of Trump's Cabinet of Crazies: Stephen Miller. Sami breaks down Miller's upbringing including his involvement in the Duke lacrosse scandal, that time he threw a tantrum and flipped over a desk, and his work with Jeff Sessions. Sami & V end the episode by debating whether Trump will move into the White House, and the exorbitant price tag of becoming an ambassador. Have questions, thoughts, or just want to rant? Email us at americanfeverdream@betches.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's episode of the Center for Immigration Studies podcast Parsing Immigration Policy features an in-depth discussion on the vital role the Department of State can play in combating illegal immigration and alleviating the enforcement burden. The episode revisits a previous panel hosted by the Center, which discussed Foggy Bottom and the Border: Harnessing the State Department to lead a U.S. foreign policy that fights illegal immigration and promotes border security, a Center report which includes key policy recommendations for the next administration.The topic gains fresh relevance as President-elect Donald Trump recently named Sen. Marco Rubio as his nominee for Secretary of State. Rubio's selection comes at a pivotal time when the Department of State's leadership could help shape U.S. immigration policy.The conversation highlights the need for the Department of State, the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, to play a key role in tackling the current migration crisis. The panel explored how a coordinated approach within the next administration could empower State and other foreign affairs agencies to combat illegal immigration. From visa issuance and international diplomacy to integrating State Department activities with DHS, DOJ, and other federal and state authorities, the report underscores the potential of a “whole-of-government” effort to address border security effectively.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsChristopher Landau is a Former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico (2019-2021).Phillip Linderman is a Retired senior Foreign Service officer at the State Department and Board Member at the Center for Immigration Studies.Jessica Vaughan is the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedReport: Foggy Bottom and the BorderPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptPRM: The Obscure State Department Bureau that Fosters Global Illegal MigrationIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Ends Bus SegregationOn November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court took a pivotal stand against racial segregation by refusing to hear the appeal in Browder v. Gayle, a landmark case challenging bus segregation laws in Alabama. This action upheld a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which had declared state and local bus segregation laws unconstitutional. This legal victory effectively ended the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a 381-day protest sparked by Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama.The boycott, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association under the leadership of a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had drawn national attention and served as a major catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement. By ruling against bus segregation, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing component of Jim Crow laws in the South, emphasizing that enforced racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision marked a significant legal and moral victory, highlighting the role of the federal judiciary in upholding civil rights in the face of local and state resistance.The end of bus segregation had immediate impacts, enabling Black citizens to ride buses alongside white passengers without enforced separation. More broadly, it emboldened the Civil Rights Movement, inspiring additional challenges to racial discrimination and unequal treatment across the United States.Donald Trump's push for a loyal attorney general highlights his intention to reshape the Justice Department to align closely with his agenda, a move seen as a bid to consolidate power and settle scores. Trump's past frustration with Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who he viewed as disloyal for permitting investigations against him, underscores his desire for an attorney general who will prioritize his directives, even if it undermines traditional Justice Department norms. Trump's team, led by conservative lawyer Mark Paoletta, is signaling that department employees must either support Trump's agenda or risk losing their positions, signaling a deep commitment to loyalty over impartiality.Trump has promised to prioritize mass deportations, pardon January 6 rioters, and aggressively pursue individuals and officials he believes have wronged him, including political figures like Joe Biden, prosecutors like Alvin Bragg, and past critics like Liz Cheney. Legal experts warn that this approach could undermine prosecutorial independence, a principle established after the Watergate scandal. Trump's transition team suggests a shift in priorities for the Justice Department, where cases involving immigration and religious freedom would take precedence over issues like police accountability and diversity programs.With the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, Trump's power to leverage the Justice Department is greatly expanded. Critics, including attorney Bradley Moss, believe Trump is prepared to exploit these legal boundaries to fulfill his promises of “retribution.” The list of potential attorney general candidates includes loyalists like Andrew Bailey, Mike Lee, and Matthew Whitaker, hinting at Trump's intent to install officials willing to carry out his vision without hesitation.Trump seeks loyal attorney general | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from Nvidia, which seeks to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing it of misleading investors about the extent of its revenue dependence on cryptocurrency-related sales. The case, led by Swedish investment firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, claims Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang made false statements in 2017-2018 that downplayed how much of the company's revenue growth stemmed from volatile crypto markets. When cryptocurrency profitability declined in 2018, Nvidia's revenue fell short of projections, leading to a stock price drop that hurt investors.The lawsuit initially dismissed by a federal judge was later revived by the 9th Circuit Court, which found the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Nvidia's leadership knowingly or recklessly made misleading statements. Nvidia contends the plaintiffs have not met the high bar required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which aims to limit frivolous securities lawsuits by requiring clear evidence of intentional misrepresentation.The Biden administration has sided with shareholders in this case, while Nvidia argues the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. This case, along with a similar one involving Meta, could shape the legal threshold for private securities fraud cases, potentially making it harder for investors to sue companies for alleged misleading statements. Rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court to hear Nvidia bid to avoid securities fraud suit | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is debating how broadly to interpret what constitutes a "crime of violence" in a case involving mobster Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder-for-hire. The legal question revolves around whether a crime can qualify as violent under federal law even when no physical force is directly used. Delligatti's case challenges a firearms statute that imposes a minimum five-year sentence for crimes involving “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.”The justices grappled with “absurd” hypotheticals to explore if a crime can be violent in nature without actual force, as the statute requires. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted a hypothetical involving a lifeguard refusing to save someone, pointing out that under the court's “categorical approach,” even passive omissions could be considered violent. Justice Elena Kagan noted the oddity of this approach since failing to act doesn't fit typical violent behavior but could theoretically fulfill the statute's requirement, even for murder.Delligatti's defense argues that attempted murder isn't always inherently violent, as some cases might involve indirect actions or omissions. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the court could separate violent acts from omissions to avoid “absurdity.” Yet, the debate underscores the challenge: whether the law's strict categorization aligns with common-sense definitions of violent crimes, especially in cases involving complex, indirect criminal conduct like murder-for-hire.Mafia Case Tests Supreme Court on Crime of Violence Limits (1)Wealth managers are increasingly turning to strategies like the “tax-aware long-short” to help high-net-worth clients avoid taxes. This tax-loss harvesting approach involves holding one stock expected to appreciate long-term and another stock likely to decline in value short-term. When the anticipated loss occurs, the losing asset is sold to offset gains from the appreciating one, reducing taxable income and the overall tax bill. At the macro level, this strategy effectively shifts the tax burden from wealthy investors to average taxpayers and ultimately reduces public funds for essential services.The preferential treatment of long-term capital gains—taxed at up to 20%, compared to a 37% maximum for ordinary income—already favors investment income over wages. While this policy was intended to promote investment, its default high cost to public funds and the extensive tax planning that can be used to exploit it reveal systemic failures in the tax code. When tax professionals and investors go to such lengths to sidestep taxes, this reflects inefficiencies and inequities in tax policy.Addressing this issue requires substantial policy reforms. One solution would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages, removing the impetus to shift income into capital gains and thus increasing tax equity between ordinary income and investment income. While this might simplify the tax code and raise substantial revenue, it could discourage investment and lead to market volatility as investors bear more risk without tax-offset options.Another option is to tax unrealized gains, similar to property taxes which tax value without the need for realization, where gains are taxed at regular intervals even if the asset isn't sold. Under this approach, unrealized capital losses could offset unrealized gains during these set intervals, reducing opportunities for manipulative tax timing. This method would diminish the appeal of strategies like the long-short by minimizing the benefits of timing short-term losses against long-term gains. In sum, the effect of timing-based tax loss planning strategies would largely be blunted. On the polar opposite policy spectrum, lowering capital gains rates would reduce the financial incentive to hire advisors for complex tax avoidance strategies. Lowering rates might make it more cost effective for investors to pay taxes directly rather than invest in costly avoidance techniques.Ultimately, tax reform should prioritize policies that effectively generate revenue while minimizing the need for complex, resource-intensive planning.We Need a Better Way to Reduce Tax Avoidance and Enhance Equity This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Optional Practical Training program (OPT), which began as a post-graduation internship program, has evolved into the largest foreign worker program in the United States, authorizing work for years beyond graduation for foreign nationals on student visas. Notably, OPT was developed by DHS under pressure from Silicon Valley tech leaders looking for ways around worker protections built into the H-1B visa program.In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Jon Feere, the Center's Director of Investigations and former ICE Chief of Staff, examines the controversial OPT program. This timely discussion reveals the implications of the underregulated program that has allowed over half a million foreign students to work in the United States without work visas, impacting American employment and wages, national security, and Social Security and Medicare revenues.Key Points:Economic Impact: Employers hiring foreign students under OPT are exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, leading to an estimated $4 billion in annual lost revenue. This tax advantage can incentivize the hiring of foreign workers over Americans.Oversight Challenges: Over 7,400 schools certified by ICE to enroll foreign students rely on Designated School Officials (DSOs) to maintain and update records. These officials often face university pressure to ignore the required strict oversight.Fraudulent Practices: "Day 1 CPT" schemes allow students to work almost immediately upon arrival, undermining the educational purpose of their visas and enabling work without genuine educational intent.National Security Concerns: The unchecked growth of the OPT program poses significant national security risks, allowing foreign nationals to work for years in sensitive fields.Solutions: Limit the fields of study available to foreign students, and eliminate or significantly tighten up the OPT program to make it more manageable for DHS and less likely to have a significant impact on national security and the U.S. labor market.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJon Feere is the Director of Investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBloomberg Investigates 'Elaborate Charade' Known as Day1 CPTOptional Practical Training for Foreign Students Now a $4 Billion Annual Tax ExemptionICE's Controversial Foreign Student Employment Programs Are Not Protecting WorkersForeign Student Fraud Case HIghlights Serious ProblemsIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Immigration shifts political power in the United States – without a single immigrant having to vote.Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus votes in the Electoral College are apportioned among the states based on each one's total population — not by the number of citizens or legal residents. The Center for Immigration Studies today released two reports explaining how this works, which are the subject of this week's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy.The first report examines how the enormous scale of legal and illegal immigration in recent decades has redistributed House seats and electoral votes to high-immigration states, which provides a net benefit to Democrats.The second report looks at congressional districts, and shows how immigration redistributes representation from districts comprised primarily of U.S. citizens to districts with large non-citizen populations. This too has a significant partisan dimension, but it has nothing to do with non-citizens possibly voting illegally.“Because of the way reapportionment and redistricting work, immigration, including illegal immigration, redistributes political power in Washington,” said Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research and lead author of both reports. He added, “This redistribution is directly proportional to the scale of legal and illegal immigration and exists independent of whether or how immigrants themselves vote.”HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestSteven Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedPress ReleaseEstimating the impact of legal and illegal immigration on apportionment and political influence in the U.S. House and Electoral CollegeHow Non-Citizens Impact Political Representation and the Partisan Makeup of the U.S. House of RepresentativesHow Many Non-Citizens Would Have to Vote to Affect the 2024 Presidential Election?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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Recent Center for Immigration Studies field work reveals a growing crisis in the Mexican southern state of Chiapas. Why are thousands of migrants bottled up in this area near the Guatemala-Mexico border, and why are caravans forming but only moving within Chiapas? On-the-ground reporting by Todd Bensman, the Center's national security fellow, highlights the impact of the Biden-Harris administration's December 2023 deal with Mexico and the potential consequences leading up to and following the U.S. election.Key findings:Biden-Harris Agreement: In December 2023, the U.S. and Mexico reached a secretive deal to keep migrants in southern Mexico to reduce the appearance of a border crisis in the U.S. The deal has resulted in the Mexican military setting up roadblocks in the region, particularly around the border town of Tapachula, to slow the flow of migrants.Migrants Bottled Up: Bensman visited Tapachula, where an estimated 150,000 migrants are stranded, with 500 to 1,500 more arriving daily. The city is overwhelmed, with high poverty levels and unrest.Caravans and Military Escorts: Migrant caravans are forming, but they are not headed to the U.S. Instead, the Mexican military is escorting them to other cities within Chiapas to ease pressure on Tapachula. Bribes and mafias enable wealthier migrants to escape the blockade, but poorer migrants remain trapped.CBP One App: The U.S. extended access to the CBP One app, previously only usable in northern Mexico, to allow migrants in southern Mexico to schedule appointments for processing into the U.S. However, delays and limited access make it difficult for most to advance quickly.Upcoming Election Tension: Many migrants feel an urgency to reach the U.S. before a potential change in leadership. Those interviewed fear that a Trump win would mean a closed border and no benefits, while they believe a Harris win would maintain the status quo and provide access to benefits.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, contends that Mexican government's prevention of migrants from approaching the U.S. border is largely political and temporary. If the administration were serious about halting the migrant flow, they would support Panama's efforts at the Darien Gap, to prevent migrants from getting to southern Mexico in the first place. He highlights Bensman's recent fieldwork in Panama, where he explored the new president's initiatives to control migrant traffic through the Darien Gap. Despite the positive implications for the U.S., the Biden-Harris administration has been slow to provide the diplomatic and financial support promised to Panama.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTodd Bensman is National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedCIS in the southern Mexican state of ChiapasDaily Mail Op-edInside ‘Zone 47': Biden's Ruthless Mexico Immigration Crackdown Is Working, but Media Won't Tie Him to ItRecent Sky-High Levels of Illegal Migration Are Dropping Fast — and Here's WhyPodcast: Investigating Panama's Efforts to Cut MigrationIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the Center examines how a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program – originally designed for homeless veterans – has evolved into a controversial funding source for illegal immigrants.This program has received wide public notice in the wake of the two recent hurricanes and claims that FEMA is putting the needs of illegal aliens ahead of Americans suffering from natural disasters.Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, walks the audience through the creation of an emergency food and shelter program in 1987 under President Reagan, its expansion and current role as a funding pipeline for NGOs and blue states to pay for the consequences of the Biden-Harris migrant crisis.Highlights:History of FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP): Originally meant to provide relief to homeless Vietnam veterans and others, this program has expanded beyond its intended purpose.Shift in Focus: After more than 111,000 adult migrants with children and unaccompanied minors crossed the border illegally May 2019, President Trump requested additional funds to move migrant children out of Border Patrol custody. He ultimately received the money, but only in exchange for a $30 million expansion of EFSP for transporting and housing illegal migrants. His administration unsuccessfully tried to end the program in subsequent budget requests.Biden-Harris Administration Funding Surge: Under President Biden, regular EFSP grew, but a new line item also appeared called EFSP-H, for “humanitarian”, i.e., to facilitate the settlement of illegal border-crossers. It later morphed into the FEMA Shelter and Services Program (SSP). Funding grew from the original $30 million to $650 million in 2024 – a 20-fold increase in just a few years. Much of this money is directed to NGOs and local governments in blue states.Undermining Incentives for Policy Changes: The government creates disaster through bad policy, then requests and receives funding to cope with the disaster, which is funneled to NGOs which support the policies responsible for the disaster in the first place. This removes much of the incentive to address the illegal immigration problem or to push the federal government for policy changes.Reprogramming FEMA Funds: The podcast highlights DHS's ability to reprogram FEMA money from immigration support to disaster relief, raising questions about the prioritization of illegal immigration over natural disaster recovery.In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and podcast host, highlights the arrival and expansion of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, emphasizing that its establishment is a direct consequence of the Biden-Harris administration's policies.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.RelatedMaking Sense of FEMAs Migrant Payment SchemesHow FEMA Distributes Moneys to Cope with the Surge of MigrantsMassive Spending Bill Includes $785 Million to Feed, House and Transport MigrantsIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines a groundbreaking legal case that has set a new precedent for how immigration policies intersect with environmental law. Julie Axelrod, Director of Litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies, joins the conversation to discuss the federal court's landmark decision that holds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable for violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The Center bought a case against DHS on behalf of a rancher in the first case to successfully apply NEPA — often regarded as the "Magna Carta" of environmental laws — to immigration actions. NEPA, enacted in 1970, mandates that federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of significant actions, including their impact on human environments. Yet, immigration policies have never undergone such analysis, despite their direct influence on population growth and environmental conditions.Key HighlightsWhat is NEPA? Axelrod explains the origins of NEPA and its importance in shaping government decision-making. She emphasizes that NEPA requires agencies to "look before they leap" by conducting thorough environmental reviews before implementing actions that could affect the environment. While NEPA has long applied to policies regarding energy, agriculture, etc., immigration authorities have never been held to the same standard — until now.Why It Matters: The ruling underscores the environmental impacts of mass immigration, which contribute to population growth, urban development, and strain on natural resources. Axelrod points out that, paradoxically, environmental groups — which typically champion NEPA — have not pursued this angle, leaving the Center to lead the charge.Future Implications: The court's decision paves the way for future lawsuits that could hold the government accountable for immigration policies' environmental consequences.Remedies: The case will now move forward to determine appropriate remedies, with briefings scheduled for later this year. Axelrod highlights the need for future public engagement and hearings to assess how immigration impacts local communities and ecosystems.In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of the podcast, addresses the recent announcement that the U.S. government will not be renewing the parole of Haitians and Venezuelans who were let in unlawfully by the hundreds of thousands by the Biden-Harris administration. While this may seem like a tough stance, Krikorian explains that the decision is largely symbolic with no real impact and purely designed to influence the election.HostMark 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 Actions50th Anniversary of NEPA: Five Decades of Ignoring Environmental Impacts of ImmigrationIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, the growing threat of transnational criminal organizations, how we got here, and potential solutions to address the issue. Guest host Jon Feere, the Center's Director of Investigation and former Chief of Staff of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is joined by retired U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Denver Field Office Director John Fabbricatore who shares insights from his new book De-Iced: America in the Era of Open Borders and Unchecked Immigration.Fabbricatore focuses on the Venezuelan transnational criminal organization “Tren de Aragua,” which has quickly established itself in the U.S., particularly in cities like Chicago and New York, and even in smaller cities like Aurora, Colorado. He explains how the gang, involved in human trafficking and drug smuggling, has been expanding rapidly since first arriving in the country in 2023.Drawing on decades of experience in immigration enforcement, Fabbricatore shares personal stories from his career, including the challenges of deporting criminals and the complexities of international law enforcement. He stresses the need for a stronger commitment to enforcing immigration laws to ensure public safety and national security.Key Points:Tren de Aragua has already established a foothold in the U.S., with an estimated 5,000 members. He warns that unless there is swift action, the gang's influence will only continue to grow.The challenges posed by sanctuary city policies hamper ICE's ability to tackle gang violence and organized crime: "Sanctuary policies protect criminals, not citizens."Fabbricatore criticizes the Biden-Harris administration's handling of immigration, particularly the abuse of parole programs, which he claims has overwhelmed the system. "Our system cannot handle the flood of illegal immigrants. The chaos being created now will eventually result in a push for amnesty."HostJon Feere is the Director of Investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestJohn Fabbricatore is a retired U.S. Customs and Border Protection Field Office Director.RelatedDe-Iced: America in the Era of Open Borders and Unchecked ImmigrationVenezuelan Gang Stirs Fears in Colorado's Third Largest CitySanctuary MapIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy examines two key issues for the upcoming election: how former President Donald Trump might approach interior enforcement of immigration laws if elected, and the ideology behind the Biden-Harris policies that have led to the current border crisis.In a pre-recorded segment from a recent seminar, Andrew Arthur, the Center's fellow in law and policy, outlines what a return to normal immigration enforcement under a Republican presidency might look like.Key topics discussed include:Prioritizing Removals: How might Trump prioritize the removal of illegal aliens? Just for starters, the priority could be to find and remove the 99 aliens on the terrorist watch list who were released under Biden-Harris policies, followed by criminal aliens, and then the 1.29 million individuals already under orders of removal.ICE and Law Enforcement: ICE will be challenged due to staffing declines under Biden-Harris in ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division. But officers from the other main division of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), would help make up the shortfall.Sanctuary Policies and Criminal Aliens: How state and local police might handle criminal aliens under sanctuary policies.Detention and Deportation Logistics: The use of military bases and county jails for detention, commercial and charter flights for deportations, and potential obstacles from uncooperative countries are examined.E-Verify and Workplace Enforcement: Workplace enforcement, especially E-Verify, would likely play a critical role in Trump's approach.Our special commentary in this episode is the opening statement that Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director, provided before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. He testified that the Biden-Harris administration's immigration policy is not the result of incompetence or failure but a deliberate ideological stance. Describing the current border crisis as the largest in U.S. history, he highlights the over 10 million encounters with inadmissible aliens since January 2021. The administration's approach bypasses legal limits set by Congress and is driven by a belief in unlimited immigration. This, according to Krikorian, represents a significant departure from U.S. law and poses a challenge to national sovereignty.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.RelatedGraph from Andrew Arthur's presentationMark Krikorian's TestimonyIntro 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

The latest podcast episode from the Center for Immigration Studies highlights recent fieldwork conducted in Colombia and Panama. This episode explores the migration flow through the Darien Gap and examines new developments under Panama's leadership designed to manage the number of migrants traveling through this dangerous area en route to the U.S. border. Despite these initiatives carrying positive implications for U.S., the U.S. has been slow to provide the diplomatic and financial support promised to the Panamanian government.National Security Fellow Todd Bensman joins the podcast after returning from a lengthy trip to the Darien region. He shares how Panama's newly elected president, who took office on July 1, is working to close the Darien Gap to the massive surge of migrants. This region, a roadless jungle connecting Colombia and Panama, has become a strategic choke point for migrants traveling north to the United States. Many of the migrants come from Venezuela, Haiti and countries with high potential security risks. Last year, over 550,000 migrants made their way through the gap, a significant increase from previous years. So great had the volume become that Panama went from screening 90 percent of those passing through the country for terrorism or espionage before 2021 to less than 3 percent in 2024.Bensman emphasizes that the Darien Gap matters to U.S. national security as it's a transit point for migrants from over 170 countries, including those of terrorism concern. Panama's new president recognized this and moved swiftly to set up roadblocks, erect barbed wire, target smuggling networks and more. However, U.S. support, particularly financial backing for deportation flights, has been slow to materialize, allowing the flow to continue.Bensman also delves into the armed militia group that controls critical smuggling routes on the Colombia side of the Darien Gap and speaks about his exclusive CIS interview with the chief of Panama's National Border Service, Director General Jorge Gobea.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestTodd Bensman is the National Security Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedProgress Report: Has Panama Closed the Notorious ‘Darien Gap' Mass Migration Route to the U.S. Border as Promised?Exclusive Interview: Panama Border Security Chief Says Many U.S.-Bound Terror Suspects Caught in Darien Gap RegionCIS at the “Darien Gap”, heart of the U.S. Border Crisis?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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

What does the Constitution mean to an elected official? Or to the United States Attorney General? Why should we respect, and perhaps even revere, the United States Constitution, and can this 18th Century document still hold together a diverse, often fractious republic in the 21st Century? #constitution #americanhistory Host: Jeff Sikkenga Producer: Jeremy Gypton Subscribe: […]

What does the Constitution mean to an elected official? Or to the United States Attorney General? Why should we respect, and perhaps even revere, the United States Constitution, and can this 18th Century document still hold together a diverse, often fractious republic in the 21st Century? #constitution #americanhistory Host: Jeff Sikkenga Producer: Jeremy Gypton Subscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanidea

Robert Mueller had just 22 months to persuade Trump's aides to cooperate against him. Just 22 months to learn whether Russia had asked for sanctions relief and to carve up Ukraine in exchange for help getting Trump elected.  Had the House used Volume II of the Mueller Report as an impeachment referral, the investigation might have proceeded further into the truth of what Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Trump's closest allies had done in 2016 and beyond. Instead, Trump outlasted Jeff Sessions' tenure and installed an Attorney General – Bill Barr – who would shut everything down. Episode 6 of Ball of Threads explains how all that happened. Want to know more? Join the Ball of Thread Patreon for bonus episodes on breaking news and to ask your questions, which could be answered in a bonus episode. For as little as $1 a month, you can support us and help spread the word.

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new episode of its Parsing Immigration Policy podcast based on a recent Center report, “Sen. Kamala Harris's Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law Enforcement”, which examines then-Sen. Kamala Harris's immigration track record during her four years in Congress. Based on this comprehensive review of legislation that Harris either wrote or co-sponsored, the episode offers key insights into what immigration policies might look like under a potential Harris administration.George Fishman, the Center's senior legal fellow and podcast guest, says, “If Harris were elected on the same immigration platform she advocated in Congress, her policies would be far more extreme than those of the Biden administration or even the impeached Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. I have never seen anything so extreme.”Fishman discusses radical legislation authored or co-sponsored by Sen. Harris on the border, detention, deportations, asylum fraud, and the handcuffing of immigration enforcement officers – all examples of Harris's views on immigration policy. In his closing remarks, Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and the host of the podcast, highlights the recent presidential debate and missed opportunities by both candidates to clearly articulate their views on immigration.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestGeorge Fishman is Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedSen. Kamala Harris's Attempted Sabotage of Immigration Law 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.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

AlabamaCongressman Moore calls out DNC for sacrificing babies at ConventionSoS Wes Allen says Biden admin. registering felons to vote, breaking state lawJudge dismisses lawsuit against AL re: new state law on voting rights criteriaAL joins 27 other state asking SCOTUS to dismiss ATF rule on firearm partsFormer Sen. Jeff Session says illegal immigration is lowering US wagesReport on AL Pharmacy Board reveals egregious mismanagementNationalUS House committees want answers on massive data hack of NPDSCOTUS partially grants AZ request to require proof of citizenship for electionTrump spoke at AZ border about new punishments for traffickersRFK Jr. seems likely to endorse Trump due to comments from his VP pickNY Post: Butler shooter at Trump rally had encrypted messaging accounts

From November 10, 2018: With the firing of Jeff Sessions and his replacement with former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker, all eyes this week are focused on whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians will get to run its full course. But even before the Sessions firing, Benjamin Wittes and Paul Rosenzweig had inquiries into the presidency on their minds. On Tuesday morning, they sat down to discuss Paul's recent 12-part lecture series on presidential investigations released through the online educational platform The Great Courses.They talked about how Paul structured the lecture series, Paul's own experience on Independent Counsel Ken Starr's team investigating the Clinton White House, and the course's relevance to the Mueller investigation.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.