What Is the Laken and Riley Act?

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

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

Partisan Divide Over the Bill

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

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

Implications for the Senate

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

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

Comparison to Kate’s Law

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

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

Broader Public Impact

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Video summary generated with the assistance of AI.

Biden presided over the highest level of net migration in American history, according to The New York Times’ December analysis of government data. Despite this, Sellers on “CNN News Central,” claimed that net migration under Biden has dropped to a lower level than it was before Trump’s first term.

“If you look at the fact that something like net migration at the border, [it] is lower than it was even before Donald Trump took office,” Sellers said, prompting Jennings to laugh and shake his head.

Jennings apologized but suggested that “the idea that immigration is under control” is laughable.

“Two things can be true,” CNN anchor Kate Bolduan chimed in. “The border needs to be secured further and his numbers can be accurate.”

Annual net migration, the difference between individuals entering and departing the U.S., averaged 2.4 million from 2021 to 2023, according to the NYT.

Since Biden unveiled an executive order in June restricting the number of illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border, encounters between ports of entry have declined, according to a September press release by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Biden administration touted the reduction in illegal border crossings, despite the latest immigration data at the time also showing that over 500,000 foreign nationals have been flown into the nation via a mass parole program.

Trump has committed to oversee a large-scale deportation operation during his second term. Trump’s incoming border czar Tom Homan in December told the Daily Caller News Foundation that any individual or jurisdiction that directly impedes the work of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent should prepare to face repercussions.

“There are federal statutes on the books for knowingly concealing and harboring an illegal alien away from ICE officers,” Homan told the DCNF. “There are statutes on the books about impeding federal law enforcement officers – they’re all felonies.”

“Now these sanctuary cities cannot assist – ok, that’s fine. They can stand aside, that’s fine, but they cannot cross that line,” he continued. “If they cross that line, we’ll be asking the attorney’s office to consider prosecution.”

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

Tom Homan — a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the man tapped to lead the Trump administration’s ambitious immigration enforcement initiative — told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he plans to focus on the “worst first,” but also cautioned that every single individual living unlawfully in the country is also fair game. The comments came after some border hardliners had openly speculated whether the Trump team was watering down its agenda before inauguration day.

“Like the first Trump administration, we’re going to prioritize public safety threats, national security threats and fugitives,” Homan said to the DCNF, adding that gang members and other criminals would be their main focus. “Those that had due process at great taxpayer expense, were given orders of deportation, never left and became a fugitive – them too, they’re a priority.”

“The ones who pose the biggest threat to the country – they come first. The worst first,” Homan continued. “But let’s be clear, if you’re in the country illegally, you’re not off the table.”

Trump, who recently won the presidential election in an electoral landslide, campaigned off a pro-immigration enforcement agenda. The Republican has tapped Homan to lead deportation efforts, South Dakota GOP Gov. Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Caleb Vitello to lead ICE and Rodney Scott to lead Customs and Border Protection, among other key immigration-related appointments.

The president-elect has pledged a slate of hawkish border policies, such as a return of the Remain in Mexico program, construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the end of birthright citizenship for those born to illegal migrant parents and, perhaps most notably, a vow to conduct the largest deportation operation in the country’s history. While estimates vary, organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform calculate that around 17 million illegal migrants are in the U.S., meaning the Trump administration would have its hands full removing just a fraction of this population.

Homan and others within Trump’s circle have repeatedly stated that their deportation operation would run on a “worst first” policy, giving priority to convicted criminals, gangbangers and others that pose a public safety threat to the country. While such a policy ostensibly reflects the basic logistical and financial constraints of mass enforcement efforts, the mantra had sparked some concern by border hawk advocates that the upcoming administration is watering down its lauded goal.

Homan, nonetheless, reiterated that no illegal migrant has reason to think they are completely safe from deportation.

While the Biden administration assumed office in 2021 by placing a moratorium on ICE deportations and overseeing the lowest number of removals in the agency’s history, it has recently boasted about sky-high deportations for the past fiscal year. However, Homan said these numbers are mostly subterfuge as they largely consisted of removals of individuals originally apprehended by Border Patrol — not those arrested by ICE in the interior of the country.

Public debate over illegal immigration spread during the Biden administration not only because of the record-levels of border encounters experienced in recent years, but also due to a number of high-profile crimes allegedly committed by illegal migrants. Venezuelan national Jose Ibarra was found guilty in November of murdering Georgia nursing student Laken Riley; Guatemalan national Sebastian Zapeta is accused of burning a woman alive on a New York City train earlier this month and Tren de Aragua gang members have been blamed for a litany of crimes across the U.S.

The incoming border czar said the removals happening now under the Biden administration will look meager come January, when Trump enters office and he is able to allow deportation officers to operate across the country with far fewer restraints.

“We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them do what they do best,” Homan declared to the DCNF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass Deportations: A National Security Priority

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

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

Addressing Sanctuary Policies: A Key Roadblock

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

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

Economic Pressure on Sanctuary Cities

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

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

Tensions Along the Border

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

Article generated with the assistance of AI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. They Pretended Legal and Illegal Immigration Are the Same

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

2. They Said Illegal Aliens Commit Fewer Crimes Than Americans

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

3. They Told You That All Immigrants Boost the Economy

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

4. They Told You Illegal Immigrants Cost Nothing

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

5. They Told You It Was Inevitable

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

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

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

1. Reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols

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

2. Turn Off the Cash Spigot

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

3. Seal the Border

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

4. Enforce Laws in the US Interior

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

5. Get States on Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

A strong team for BORDER SECURITY

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

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

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

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

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

More related stories:

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

Sources include:

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

This massive flow of humanity crosses multiple national borders, involves every mode of transportation, accounts for billions of dollars paid in fees to smugglers, and describes a fantastically complex economy of suffering and hope. In an effort to get a handle on this human tide, noted muckraker James O’Keefe – known for his hidden camera “gotcha” interviews with abortionists, media executives, progressive nonprofit executives, and other degenerate types – traces the migrant onrush from its source, and seeks to trace the machinery of profit and influence that is conducting it from great removes.

“Line In The Sand,” the resulting documentary, is a remarkable and humane exposition, revealing perspectives and images American audiences have mostly been prevented from seeing. O’Keefe and his intrepid team begin on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, where we witness migrants crossing the border through holes that their guides have cut in a fence that serves as a target as much as a barrier. Infrared cameras show dozens of illegal aliens streaming toward “pick-up” vehicles on the U.S. side while smugglers – presumably cartel members – a few feet away taunt O’Keefe and his group. “What if I were to run up to them right now, what would happen?” O’Keefe asks his guide. “I would highly advise you against that,” he is told, in a classic understatement.

The fact that coyotes and other human traffickers are paid to assist northbound migrants with their passage is no scandal; we all know what their motivations are and why they are doing what they do. But O’Keefe documents multiple examples of U.S. Border Patrol agents standing idly by while illegal aliens cross, virtually under their noses. “Why aren’t you doing anything?” he asks. “Have a good day, guys,” a border agent desultorily responds before driving off in the general direction of the episode. Later, a migrant stands in front of a Border Patrol truck, clearly trying to alert the agents of his intention to surrender, but is studiously ignored until O’Keefe and his team call their attention to him.

There is a kind of sad comedy in the operations of U.S. border security, and O’Keefe is not unsympathetic to the absurd position that border agents have been put in. Trained to defend the national border and to serve as the first line of defense of American soil, these agents have been recommissioned as a perverse Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens, charged with making their undocumented and uninvited entrance to the United States as commodious as possible.

Looking to get deeper into the heart of this migratory avalanche, O’Keefe went deep into Mexico, to the city of Irapuato, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City. Irapuato is a popular railway junction where thousands of migrants climb aboard “La Bestia,” or “The Beast,” a cargo train that chugs northward toward the United States. In the film’s most remarkable footage, O’Keefe and his team join with migrants, mostly from South and Central America, to ride The Beast, also known as “el Tren del Muerto,” or the Train of Death. O’Keefe talks to the migrants without condescension, asking them their destinations and what they plan to do when they get there, and their concerns about the perilous nature of the journey. We see the film crew race to jump on a moving train and clamber on top to sit in a pile of coal; O’Keefe is shocked at how truly dangerous this small element of the trip is and sympathizes with the migrants’ difficult choices. These scenes are among the film’s most affecting, along with the crew’s random encounter with a little girl who had just crossed the border after journeying from Guatemala by herself. There is a human dimension to illegal immigration, and O’Keefe does not ignore it.

However, there is also an impersonal dimension to this massive population transfer, and O’Keefe determinedly aims to uncover it – to put a face to the institutions and administrators that benefit from the rough injection of millions of people into American society. From government agents to bus companies to nonprofit resettlement groups to private contractors running huge, walled compounds housing thousands of children, O’Keefe doggedly tries to penetrate the mechanics of a system that resolutely hides itself behind a screen of silence, usually in the name of “safety” and “privacy.”

Some of the film’s more comical moments pertain to these segments, such as when the team follows some just-arrived Chinese migrants in San Diego to an employment agency, where other Chinese aliens, already in the country for several months, complain that it’s much harder to live in the United States than they had imagined. O’Keefe tries to sniff out a connection between the owner of the agency and more powerful actors, but it emerges that there really isn’t much going on; in fact, the owner asks O’Keefe if he knows of a way to apply for government grants.

Elsewhere, O’Keefe tries to get information about the operations of several huge residential centers for unaccompanied minors and tries to spin their refusal to give him access to the centers or submit to interviews as evidence of the existence of vast, government-funded child sex trafficking networks. But it seems more likely, though no less troubling, that the open borders policy of the last four years has created a tremendous humanitarian crisis of alien children roaming the continent by themselves, and the government is probably trying to keep them from becoming prey to sex traffickers while they sort out where to send them. Though O’Keefe does not uncover a salacious network of child predators, his vigorous pursuit of the truth does reveal the existence of a large, shadowy, government-funded, and lucrative system of child “welfare.”

So, “Line In The Sand” is correct in the larger sense that billions of dollars are being spent managing this human flow, and many people are getting rich off of it. The last thing these parasitical administrators of the nonprofit industrial complex want is for the border to close. O’Keefe does a great job of capturing in real time the corruption of a local New York City nonprofit called La Jornada, whose leader, Pedro Rodriguez, evidently perpetrates fraud, demanding fees for services that the city provides for free. O’Keefe also sends a Spanish-speaking reporter undercover into the Roosevelt Hotel, New York City’s main processing center for newly-arrived migrants, which offers him free housing, medical care, and even airplane tickets, even though the reporter explains that he has no identification of any sort. How, O’Keefe asks, in our post 9/11 security-obsessed era, are we to make sense of a system that admits millions of unvetted foreigners into the country, and then offers to fly them anywhere they care to go?

“Line In The Sand” is rough in parts, but intentionally so. Its subject is so sprawling and tangled that a neat and clean representation would be a lie. Even with a nine-figure budget – which this film assuredly did not have – a documentary about the border and the 30 million-footed human swarm that has crossed it would be messy and incomplete. But James O’Keefe and his small team have done something remarkable. They have taken on the decade’s biggest story, given it form, and preserved the humanity of its subjects. It is worth watching.

Seth Barron is a writer in New York and author of the forthcoming “Weaponized from Humanix.”