Category: Joe Guzzardi

Sanctuary City Virtue Signalers Complicit In Steinle, Riley Murders

By Joe Guzzardi

In her interview with CNN anchor Erin Burnett, U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) said that the murder of 22-year-old University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley by Jose Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, “shouldn’t shape our overall immigration policy.” Porter, a long-shot Senate candidate to replace retiring fellow Democrat Laphonza Butler, said that instead of enacting real border security and allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to apprehend violent illegal immigrants, Congress should work harder to keep its “promise to Dreamers.” Since 2023, Porter has consistently cast votes against strengthening border and interior enforcement.

The “one instance” claim that Porter made is 100 percent wrong and offends the hundreds of illegal aliens’ victims’ families. The website Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime lists dozens of preventable tragedies.

The most highly publicized illegal-alien-murders-citizen heartbreak occurred in 2015, four years before Porter was elected to the House. Porter lived in Southern California where she was certainly aware of the circumstances surrounding Steinle’s murder in sanctuary city San Francisco. The perpetrator was José Inez García Zárate, a five-time deported illegal alien and a Mexican national who had seven felony convictions. Prosecutors later learned that García Zárate had stolen the murder weapon, a .40-caliber SIG Sauer P239 handgun, from a Bureau of Land Management ranger’s personal vehicle.

Two years after Steinle’s murder, and after five days of deliberations, a jury acquitted García Zárate of all murder and manslaughter charges but convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. García Zárate was sentenced to time served for previous crimes, a total of seven years. When the Steinle family announced its intention to file a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Bureau of Land Management, alleging complicity and negligence in their daughter’s death, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the family’s claims against the city and then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. In January 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the magistrate’s ruling that Kate’s family could not sue San Francisco. Despite his obvious crimes, immigration-related and otherwise, illegal alien García Zárate got off easy — no justice for Kate, however.

Because immigration is voters’ top issue, the publicity around Riley’s murder may soon reach or exceed the coverage given to Steinle’s case. Similarities abound. Like García Zárate, Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan national, was in the U.S. illegally. Ibarra entered the U.S. illegally through the Southwest border. According to a recently filed arrest affidavit, Ibarra “disfigured Riley’s skull,” and is charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and hindering a 911 call.

ICE records document that Ibarra was detained on September 8, 2022, after illegally crossing the U.S. from Mexico near El Paso, Texas, before being released. ICE also said Ibarra was arrested on August 31, 2023, in New York and charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child less than 17 but was released because of New York’s sanctuary policy. Biden’s catch-and-release agenda paroled Ibarra into the U.S. interior. Parole is an immigration status that includes work permission and makes alien removal more difficult.

The common denominator in Steinle’s and Riley’s cases is that their murders took place in sanctuary cities which protect violent criminals who too frequently prey on innocent citizens. When Steinle was killed, President Barack Obama was in the White House. Obama’s administration made it clear that it would not act against sanctuary jurisdictions. Instead, Obama moved to convert the entire nation into a sanctuary by giving work permits to illegal aliens and drastically scaling back enforcement for all but the most egregious criminal offenders. Obama terminated what was perhaps the most effective enforcement program ever, Secure Communities, the information sharing program between the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to identify in-custody aliens. The former president replaced an efficient program with the Priority Enforcement Program that explicitly allowed localities to obstruct ICE.

Although Athens officials insist that it isn’t a sanctuary city, during a 2020 interview, then-Athens-Clarke County Sheriff candidate John Williams, since elected, explicitly said he had no interest in cooperating with ICE officials.

Williams said: “It is not my intention to cooperate with detainers [from ICE]. I see it as the sheriff’s responsibility to protect the community. We can’t help with a culture of fear in our community and expect our community to respond and help us in situations.” Deborah Gonzalez, Athens’ district attorney urged abolishing ICE. Gonzales said that her charging decisions would “take into account collateral consequences to undocumented immigrants.” Gonzalez’s statements raised serious questions about her ability to prosecute Ibarra and she has brought in a special prosecutor to handle the case.

Federal, state and local governments failed Riley, Steinle and hundreds before them. Misguided virtue signaling has laid the foundation for protecting instead of deporting criminals. Gonzalez and Williams got their wish — Biden’s non-enforcement policies effectively abolished ICE. For now, he best Laken’s family can hope for is a token, insincere, Biden phone call, which, several days after her murder, has not been placed. Come to think of it, Obama never called the Steinle family either. Biden’s and Obama’s callous dismissal of Riley’s and Steinle’s murders are the ultimate betrayal of innocent Americans that prove their favoritism toward illegal alien criminals.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifssp.org.

Sanctuary City Virtue Signalers Complicit In Steinle, Riley Murders

Mayorkas Impeachment About Constitutional Crimes, Not ‘Policy

By Joe Guzzardi

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ impeachment has set off a barrage of error-infused stories which prove that print and broadcast journalists haven’t done their homework. Echoing the talking points of the three House Republicans that voted against Mayorkas’ impeachment, the nearly universal story line is that policy differences don’t merit his removal from the Cabinet.

Here’s how The New York Times described the vote: “It[impeachment] put Mr. Mayorkas in the company of past presidents and administration officials who have been impeached on allegations of personal corruption and other wrongdoing. But the charges against him broke with history by failing to identify any such offense, instead effectively declaring the policy choices Mr. Mayorkas has carried out a constitutional crime.”

The Times went on to further defend Mayorkas when it wrote that former DHS secretaries Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano and Jeh Charles Johnson labeled the House effort “groundless,”while the Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, and several law experts denounced the impeachment as a blatant attempt to resolve a policy dispute with a constitutional punishment. All claimed that the House Republicans had presented no evidence that Mr. Mayorkas’s conduct rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard for impeachment the Constitution requires.

The three Republicans who voted against impeachment reiterated the same narrative—Mayorkas committed no crimes; he just enacted policies that the House disagreed with. The dissenters are Ken Buck (Color.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Mike Gallagher (Wis.). Explaining their decisions, Buck said “maladministration or incompetence does not rise to what our founders considered an impeachable offense;” McClintock claimed that Republicans lacked the grounds to impeach, and Gallagher, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed wrote that “incompetence doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors.” 

Had the House dissenters, Republican and Democrats alike, read H. Res. 863 Article I: “Willful and Systematic Refusal to Comply with the Law,” they may have come to a different conclusion. The resolution charged Mayorkas with violating hissworn constitutional oath to support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to well and faithfully discharge his office’s duties of his office. Mayorkashas willfully and systemically refused to comply with federal immigration laws. 

More from the Resolution: Throughout his tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Mayorkas has repeatedly violated laws enacted by Congress regarding immigration and border security. In large part because of his unlawful conduct, millions of aliens have illegally entered the United States on an annual basis with many unlawfully remaining in the United States. His refusal to obey the law is not only an offense against the Constitution’sseparation of powers, it also threatens our national security and has had a dire impact on communities nationwide. Despite clear evidence that his willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law has significantly contributed to unprecedented levels of illegal entrants, the increased control of the Southwest border by drug cartels, and the imposition of enormous costs on states and localities affected by the influx of aliens, Mayorkas has continued to act against U.S. interests. 

Specifically, the Resolution identified seven Mayorkas crimes, all impeachable offenses. Among them, he 1) refused to comply with the detention mandate included in section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and instead implemented catch and release; 2) refused to comply with the detention mandate set forth in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act, requiring that an alien who is placed into expedited removal proceedings and determined to have a credible fear of persecution “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” and 3) willfully exceeded his parole authority set forth in section 212(d)(5)(A) of such Act that permits parole to be granted “only on a case-by-case basis”, temporarily, and “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Instead, Mayorkas paroled aliens en masse torelease them from mandatory detention.

The impeachable criminal offenses the House brought against Mayorkas are inarguable; Mayorkas has committed high crimes, not, as the pro-immigration lobby insists, carried out a border policy that Republicans disagree with. If stripped of partisanship and instead adhering to their constitutional duties, the senators would support the impeachment articles. But Capitol Hill insiders predict that, to avoid the ugly spectacle of a trial, Schumer will table the resolution which would be the first time in the nation’s 248-year history that such brazen disregard for a constitutional process has been attempted. 

But Schumer’s a figurative four-star general in Biden’s war to destroy America through the open border invasion. Schumer admitted his agenda when, in 2020, he said if the Democrats win the Senate “We will change America.” So far, Schumer has made good on his promise and, by blocking Mayorkas’ impeachment, is poised to deliver another blow to sovereign America.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@isfpp.org

Mayorkas Impeachment About Constitutional Crimes

Senate Passes Ukraine Funding Bill Without Border Protection

By Joe Guzzardi

On Super Bowl Sunday, shortly before kickoff, the Senate voted 67-27 to advance a $95.3 billion funding bill, a step toward its passage. Two days later, after an all-night session, the bill passed 70-27 but without the border security measures that the House had originally demanded.

The funding package includes $60 billion for Ukraine; $14 billion in security assistance for Israel; $9 billion in humanitarian assistance for Gaza, the West Bank and Ukraine; and $4.8 billion to support allies in the Indo-Pacific.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spoke passionately about the urgent need for the bill’s approval. Schumer described Eastern Europe’s war-torn regions as dire as last seen during World War II. McConnell warned that failing to support Ukraine would put America’s allies at risk by giving China a “green light” to project power in Asia and the Indo-Pacific.

Highlighting the tension among Republicans that could culminate in the Senate minority leader’s removal, fellow Kentuckian GOP Senator Rand Paul called McConnell’s support for the bill “outrageous” and accused him, Schumer and President Joe Biden of “criminal neglect” by working to “send $100 billion overseas to fix someone else’s border before addressing our [own] border.” Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) charged Schumer with dictating which amendments he would be permit—“essentially all of them are not.”

To Paul’s point, days before the Senate voted to proceed on the Ukraine-Israel funding bill, it rejected a very bad immigration bill that, instead of including HR-2’s border protections, established an emergency authority to shut down the border when a 5,000 daily average alien encounters over a consecutive seven-day period is reached or 8,500 encounters occur in a single day. By law, a single alien’s entry violates immigration statutes. Worse, the Senate’s proposed bill allows Biden to suspend this authority at his discretion, which could allow for thousands more illegal immigrants to cross.

Schumer and McConnell’s urgency to help Ukraine protect its border with Russia is reflected in its unprecedented Super Bowl Sunday vote during a period when the Senate was scheduled to be on holiday. Neither Schumer nor McConnell cares about the southwest border invasion. McConnell, worried that China might interpret nixing Ukraine funding as a “green light” for aggression, is indifferent to the thousands of Chinese nationals pouring aggressively across the Southwest border.

Among the millions of migrants flooding the southern border, Chinese illegal immigrants made up the fastest-growing faction last year. In FY 2023, CBP apprehended 24,000 Chinese nationals, about 12 times the 1,970 arrests in the previous fiscal year. Since October 1 when fiscal year 2024 began, a staggering 20,000 Chinese nationals have crossed. If the 20,000 per fiscal year quarter influx continues, a projected 80,000 Chinese nationals will enter.

The annual 2023 U.S. Threat Assessment report published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) warned that China’s Communist Party (CCP) will continue efforts to achieve President Xi Jinping’s vision to make China East Asia’s preeminent power, a major global threat that will undercut U.S. influence, and “drive wedges between Washington and its partners.” In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, former DNI  director John Ratcliff wrote that “Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically.” Resisting Beijing’s attempt to reshape and dominate the world is, Ratcliff concluded, the challenge of our generation. China, national security experts agree, is the U.S.’s biggest geopolitical enemy.

Assuming Ratcliff is right, the Biden administration is failing spectacularly to meet the challenge. In December, a large group of well-dressed, military-age Chinese crossed into San Diego and surrendered to immigration agents. The El Paso sector’s Chief Patrol Agent Anthony Good told the Homeland Security Committee during a private September hearing last year that his agents suspect that the Chinese aliens are active CCP operatives, and confirmed by committee chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.)  as a “massive” concern.

Despite the potential threat that Chinese nationals represent to America, the DHS makes no attempt to detain them or no effort to locate them after border officers release them into the interior. Schumer, McConnell and Biden continue to turn a blind eye to the risks China poses, and instead are determined to pour more good money after bad into the forever Ukrainian war.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

Senate Passes Ukraine Funding Bill Without Border Protection

US Workers Lose Ground To Foreign-Born In January

By Joe Guzzardi

The monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report should be called the original “fake news.” Such is the case with the January 2024 report which announced that the economy added 353,000 jobs. Each month, District of Columbia’s anonymous civil servants grind out much-anticipated jobs data that Wall Street and financial journalists latch onto as the nation’s financial health indicators. Market analysts tout the monthly data to reaffirm their existing economic beliefs, be they good or bad. The first BLS Commissioner, Carroll D. Wright, described the Bureau’s mandate as “the fearless publication of the facts.” The BLS website claims that “Just the Facts” is a core value. When asked, “Is the glass half empty or half full?” BLS responds elusively that it sees an 8-ounce glass containing 4 ounces.

A few years ago, a critic called the BLS report “the big lie” because among its other flaws the original monthly data was subject to revisions, often significant. These late changes concern Federal Reserve officials. We must make decisions in real time,” Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Christopher Waller said late last year. “Whatever data is released, that’s the data I have to use. The problem with data is it gets revised.”

Revisions, which can come more than months after initial reports are published, wouldn’t necessarily be so much of an issue if they were relatively small. However, many revisions over the past few years have been game-changers.

The January BLS report could trigger history’s biggest game-changing revision. Zero Hedge (ZH), which lists as one of its manifestos, “to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become” mocked the January release as a “clown show,” and as the election season heats up, fulfilling its mandate from the White House “to make the economy look double super good-good.” And, speaking of revisions, ZH noted that in January BLS conducted its “annual re-benchmarking and update of seasonal adjustment factors.” The bottom line—what was until December a decline in jobs, the BLS has now been miraculously transformed declines into gains. 

The glowing report ignored the following lay-offs as a total percentage of their workforce: Twitch, 35%; Hasbro, 20%; Spotify, 17%; Levi’s, 15%; Xerox, 15%; Qualtrics, 14%; Wayfair: 13%; Duolingo, 10%; Washington Post, 10%; eBay, 9%; Business Insider, 8%; PayPal, 7% Charles Schwab, 6%; UPS, 2%; Blackrock, 3%; iRobot, 31%; Citigroup: 20,000 employees and Pixar, 1,300 employees. This month, nearly all Sports Illustrated staffers received layoff notices from the Arena Group, devastating the 70-year-old magazine that once set the standard for sports journalism. Most staff received 90-day notices, but many were immediately laid off. 

More inconvenient truths ZH exposed: BLS reported that in January 2024, the U.S. had 133.1 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. The totals may sound good but look back one year to find that in February 2023, the U.S. had 133.2 million full-time jobs, slightly more than the economy did one year later. Predictably, the job growth is in low-paying, part-time jobs, which have increased by 870,000 since February 2023 from 27.020 million to 27.890 million.

The mainstream media, which had 20,000 job losses in 2023 across broadcast, digital and print industries with more recent media layoffs that include CBC, Vice Media and others, mostly ignored the most important fact buried in the January BLS report. In January, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560, 000 to just 129.8 million. Add to this the December data, and a near-record 1.9 million plunge in native-born workers has occurred in the past two months. Not only has all job creation in the past four years gone exclusively to foreign-born workers, but since July 2018 there has been zero job-creation for native-born workers. 

With the illegal alien invasion poised to continue throughout the remainder of Biden’s first term—eleven months—and legal permanent residents added at one million-plus annually, the labor market will expand by about two million foreign-born workers each year. The Biden administration has unlawfully given about one million aliens parole, an immigration status that includes work permission. 

Foreign-born workers displacing Americans is an ongoing and accelerating tragedy that President Biden willfully imposed on citizens. Biden’s malfeasance should provide talking points for the White House and congressional candidates that seek to remove office holders who support the status quo.

 Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

US Workers Lose Ground To Foreign-Born In January

‘Bipartisan’ Senate Bill Would Keep Border Open

By Joe Guzzardi

Oklahoma Senator James Langford has not officially announced his long-term political goals. But deep-red Oklahoma’s senior senator has done a superb job of shooting himself in the foot by joining up with three open borders advocates in what they laughingly refer to as a bipartisan border agreement. Under Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer’s watchful eyes, Langford’s negotiating colleagues are Arizona Senator Kristen Sinema, a faux Independent who caucuses with Democrats, and blue Connecticut’s Chris Murphy. Sinema and Murphy have consistently voted against border and interior enforcement while favoring amnesty enticements. Neither Sinema nor Murphy, however, have served close to Schumer’s three decades-plus in Congress during which time he has unbendingly fought for higher immigration levels and less enforcement. Up against Schumer and company, Langford is out of his element.

Even the most cursory review of the Senate’s proposed deal shows that the details would not only keep the border open but also encourage more illegal immigration. Leaked details include a disastrous provision that once border crossings reached a seven-day 5,000 rolling daily average, the Department of Homeland Security would have the authority to shut down migration. Daily encounters between 4,000 and 5,000 would allow for discretionary expulsions, and any single day where there were over 8,000 encounters, expulsions would be mandatory even if the 7-day average were lower. Those expulsions would also be exempt from judicial review. Not only would such levels be inconsistent with border security, but President Biden has complete authority to shut the border down tight without more congressional legislation. The legislation would also, say advocates close to the talks, tighten asylum standards, speed up the hearing process, double deportation flights, and expedite work permits. Only expedited work permits are likely to become a reality, a harmful feature that expands the labor force with unskilled workers and takes away jobs from U.S. workers.

Andrew Arthur, a Center for Immigration Studies Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, and a former immigration judge, wrote in his New York Post op-ed that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens.” Moreover, in 2018, the Supreme Court rejected immigration advocates’ challenges to travel restrictions that President Donald Trump implemented on certain nationals of terrorist hotspots and countries hostile to the United States and wrote that Section 212(f) “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, reflecting most Americans’ sentiments and promising that if the Senate bill should ever reach the House it would be DOA, said that the “goal should be zero illegal crossings a day, not 5,000.” Unlike the Senate trio, Johnson knows that in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, immigration ranked with the economy as the two issues that most troubled voters.

Langford,  an ordained Southern Baptist minister, has pushed back against criticism and claims that election year politics and not the bill’s details hamper the Senate process. Voters are increasingly aware that Biden’s lack of political will to enforce existing laws is the main reason the border remains open. Deep skepticism with the White House’s immigration agenda has intensified, and a bad Senate bill will not soothe voters’ immigration anxiety. 

Langford got a sample of how getting cozy with Schumer could derail his career. The Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) voted to censure Lankford for his close work with Democrats on border legislation. However, since not all OKGOP members were present, the censure was not official. Still, the vote could be a signal of trouble ahead for Langford. 

History’s lesson: Florida Senator Marco Rubio got a rude awakening to the long-term consequences of a Schumer connection. In 2013, only his second full year in office, Rubio was one of four GOP Senators who teamed up with four Democrats including Schumer to pass the disastrous immigration “Gang of Eight” bill, never taken up by the House. Rubio’s betrayal shocked Florida’s Republicans. In 2015, Rubio was one of 17 GOP announced presidential candidates. When the crucial Florida primary time rolled around in March 2016, Rubio needed a win over Donald Trump to remain viable. But Florida’s voters didn’t forget Rubio’s duplicity and overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Trump, 46% to 27%. Once considered a frontrunner, Rubio’s presidential aspirations ended that night.

Langford’s next re-election cycle, should he choose to run, is 2028. Myriad border outcomes could occur in the next six years. But Oklahoma Republicans are unlikely to forget, much less forgive, Langford’s eagerness to join the Democrats to keep the border open and subvert U.S. sovereignty. 

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

‘Bipartisan’ Senate Bill Would Keep Border Open

Spineless GOP Rejects Border Bill

By Joe Guzzardi

A spineless House of Representatives just gave Americans a big, in-your-face middle finger. In the invasion’s third year, the southwest border surge continues relentlessly. Eight million illegal aliens plus one and a half million gotaways from more than 150 nations continue to lawlessly surge the border in willful defiance of United States law. The invaders have brought death and destruction with them — -death via the fentanyl they’ve trafficked in, destruction to the communities both large and small in which they’ve settled, and senseless homicides. Although the House has legislation that could end the border crisis, HR-2, the Secure Border Act of 2023 which it passed in May, and despite House Speaker Mike Johnson’s insistence that border security be included in any bill that might provide President Biden with more Ukraine funding, nothing changes.

To date, the U.S. has sent $133 billion to Ukraine for humanitarian and military aid. In December, Biden urged Congress to pass a $110 billion aid package that included $61.4 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel in its war against Hamas. Biden also seeks funding for Taiwan. Facing a government funding deadline, Johnson kicked the border security can down the road. Instead of demanding HR-2, the Speaker settled for a Continuing Resolution with a vote that included 108 weak-kneed Republicans who joined with Democrats to keep parts of the government open until March 1 and other sections until March 8. The final vote: 314–108.

Among the Republican nays were many who are, at least publicly, vocal about the dire need for border enforcement: Speaker Johnson, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer, Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement Chair Tom McClintock, Chairman, House Committee Chair on Foreign Affairs and Chairman Emeritus and House Committee on Homeland Security Michael McCaul, and Nancy Mace, National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs Committee member. Although Johnson, Jordan, Comer, et al appear solid on security, exasperated voters wonder if they’re squishes disguised as patriots. The House’s most conservative members, thoroughly disgusted with Johnson, threaten to remove him and set off another bitter round of votes to replace him. Johnson’s unconvincing excuse that enforcement legislation which includes HR-2 would take too much time, and that the border catastrophe must be addressed correctly — -he provided no details.

With the November election only nine months away, and with polling showing that not only Republicans but Democrats and Independents all express deep dissatisfaction with Biden’s immigration agenda, Johnson should use the few weeks his enforcement cave-in bought him to get busy. Johnson must take a firm stand and make his and his fellow Americans’ positions clear that if H.R. 2 is not included in the supplemental foreign aid package, the House will not approve another CR that would fund the same disastrous, illegal border policies at the FY 2023 open border level. House Republicans, even with a slim majority, have the power of the purse, and with that leverage can end Biden’s sovereignty-busting immigration vision. Either in a comprehensive FY 2024 budget bill or included in the supplemental Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan foreign aid package that the president demands, HR-2’s border reforms must be included.

This marks the third time since the current fiscal year began on October 1, 2023 that Congress has failed to pass a budget. Assuming HR-2 is included in March — -an assumption only the most optimistic can embrace — -five months will have elapsed or, expressed differently and based on Customs and Border Protection statistics, more than one million illegal aliens will have been processed and released into the interior. Americans want the border sealed shut and interior enforcement returned to protect the public from criminals that have literally walked into the nation, unvetted, and rarely pursued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

With a terrible Senate bill in the works that could keep the alien invasion going, the nation’s message to Johnson and House Republicans is simple and direct — -no more sell outs!

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

Spineless GOP Rejects Border Bill

Nuggets Of Good Immigration News In 2023

By Joe Guzzardi

Scouring calendar year 2023 for good immigration news is a challenge. But a nugget here and there provides a glimmer of hope, however faint, for long-elusive border enforcement to become reality. The year’s highlight came in May when the House passed, 219–213, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, HR-2. The bill’s provisions include, among several other pro-enforcement features, a mandate that employers use the legislatively elusive E-Verify that would protect American jobs, require the Department of Homeland Security to restart border wall construction, reinstate Remain in Mexico, end asylum fraud, and close the loopholes that frivolously grant parole.

Another positive in the endless battle for sensible immigration is Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) election as Speaker of the House. Since entering Congress in 2017, Johnson has earned A+ immigration grades in strengthening border and interior security as well as ending asylum and refugee fraud. Johnson and like-minded GOP reps have so far insisted that HR-2 be included in any legislation that may provide funding for Ukraine and Israel. The show-down between House enforcement advocates and a Senate dominated by open-borders backers is scheduled to begin January 8. Johnson must not yield an inch, and must absolutely reject the Senate’s demand for amnesty as a quid-pro-quo to any agreement.

Unlike finding the positive immigration news during 2023, the bad news stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. The House Homeland Security Committee released a shocking report titled “Startling Stats” that detailed the extent of President Biden and DHS Secretary Mayorkas’ illegal, unconstitutional disregard for obeying immigration law and their criminal indifference to defending national security.

In FY23, Customs and Border Protection recorded more than 2.4 million encounters at the southwest border and more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide. During the current fiscal year, 169 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally, and at least 1.7 million known gotaways have evaded apprehension since FY2021. Since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million encounters nationwide and 6.2 million encounters at the southwest border, in addition to 1.7 million known gotaways.

Also in FY 2023, CBP arrested 35,433 aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants, including 598 known gang members, 178 of those being MS-13 members. Including its Air and Marine Operations, CBP also seized enough fentanyl coming across the Southwest border to kill, the House Homeland Security Committee estimates, about 6 billion people.

The report’s findings did nothing to influence the administration to end the invasion. Not only did the illegal alien influx remain steady, it accelerated unabated. Proof that the border crisis will continue unchecked: in December, CBP processed and released a historic monthly high 302,000 aliens. Since the start of FY 2024 which began on October 1, 2023, CBP has encountered more than 785,000 aliens at the southern border alone.

With Johnson serving as speaker, and with HR-2 in place as potential leverage to use in the upcoming Ukraine-Israel funding negotiations, optimism for the first steps toward border enforcement can be harbored. But as long-time veterans of immigration enforcement versus immigration chaos conflicts can attest, there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

 Dems Will Dump Biden?

By Joe Guzzardi

As of today, Washington D.C.’s conventional wisdom holds that the Democrats prefer a 2024 candidate other than President Joe Biden but feel that the incumbent has earned the right to run. Nonsense! Under no circumstances will the power-hungry Democrats let Biden, unwilling to engage primary debate challengers, and refusing to campaign in the time-honored fashion, again become the party’s standard bearer. Seven months remain until Chicago hosts the Democratic National Convention, an eternity in politics, and doubly so if party leaders and donors perceive that presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump continues his upswing while Biden drops even further in national polling.

Influential Democrats and deep-pocketed party supporters could lean hard on Biden to withdraw gracefully with their promise that on his way out, they would hail him as a modern-day FDR. If Biden resists, Democrats could play hardball, a technique the party is familiar with. Since there are no secrets in Washington, everyone who’s anyone knows about Biden and his family’s nefarious dealings. Threaten to leak internal dope on the Biden family to the Republican-led Judiciary and Oversight committees and Biden might change his mind. The scenario may appear improbable but it’s not impossible.

Should Biden exit, voluntarily or otherwise, that would solve only half of the Democrats problems. The other half would be to choose a viable replacement. Many of the names floated don’t resonate with the general public—Vice-President Kamala Harris, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Energy Secretary and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. All have net negative polling.

Still available is California Governor Gavin Newsom, anxiously waiting in the wings, fingers crossed, ready to pounce should the opportunity present itself. But if Newsom is tapped, a vexing hurdle remains—the governor would need to script a platform that will connect nationally, a tough task given his abysmal governance record.

Typically, a stumping candidate highlights his successes. Not only does Newsom have no tangible, tout-worthy achievements, his failures and misjudgments are colossal. The elitist, multimillion net worth governor will never shake his Napa Valley French Laundry birthday party fiasco. During the COVID-19 pandemic when Newsom shutdown Orange County beaches, he dined maskless with lobbyists. The incident, which showed Newsom’s disregard for his constituents, will haunt him. The dinner is a small potatoes blotch compared to California’s exploding homelessness, wide-spread poverty, soaring housing prices, rotten public education system that ranks 44^th nationwide, rampant smash-and-grab crime, and dramatic cost of living spikes.

Although California’s bullet train fiasco has dropped from the national news, the story reflects another costly Newsom blunder. Four years ago, when Newsom unveiled his scaled-down concept for the bullet train, he proposed constructing a 171-mile starter line in the Central Valley that would begin operating in 2030 and cost $22.8 billion. Today, the projected costs are $35 billion, and exceed by $10 billion future committed funding. Adding to the bullet train’s woes: an official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25%, and the operating schedule has been pushed further into the future. Waste, waste, and more waste on a project that Californians didn’t want, and few would benefit from.

Newsom’s gravest miscalculation is, during a sustained southern border illegal alien invasion, his immigration advocacy. California’s official government website prominently includes a section captioned “California for All” which reads as follows: “every person can achieve a better life regardless of where they start out,” an open invitation to illegal immigrants. Newsom is out of step with public opinion. At a time when the nation is coping with an estimated eight million aliens released into the interior since Biden’s inauguration and coming from more than 150 nations, Newsom as of January 1, will provide all low-income illegal aliens, regardless of age, with Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

As many as 764,000 illegal aliens could be added to Medi-Cal, costing California taxpayers an extra $3.1 billion annually. The rub is that pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, illegal aliens are generally barred from receiving federally funded means-tested public benefits like Medicaid. Therefore, the burdensome cost falls solely on California’s residents, a foolish, inexplicable decision since the state is sinking under a $68 billion deficit.

Deservedly, California is synonymous with failure. Residents are fleeing for more hospitable states. Newsom would have to be a magician to sell his California as a model for the other 49 states. If Democrats examine Newsom’s résumé and conclude he’s not electable, then they may be stuck, like it or not, with an equally unelectable Biden.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org