The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officially codified its policy of providing abortions for specific cases on Monday, including in states that ban the procedure.
The Biden administration’s VA has been providing veterans abortions under a temporary rule since September 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that June, giving states the right to legislate independent abortion policies.
Republicans fought unsuccessfully to overturn the rule that was published Monday without any changes, according to a posting in the federal register.
State abortion bans and restrictions “would have an immediate detrimental impact on the lives and health of veterans” and select beneficiaries “who are unable to receive the care that was available in the community before the Dobbs decision, especially as State laws prompted providers to cease offering abortion services altogether,” the VA wrote in the notice.
Veterans and their covered dependents will be able to seek abortions in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk under the rule. It also allows VA counselors to provide abortion services to patients.
VA Secretary Denis McDonough announced the interim rule in 2022 to allow the VA to provide abortions in specific cases while the final policy underwent the drawn-out official rulemaking process, including giving the public opportunity to comment.
Many commenters argued that the VA does not have legal authority to implement the rule, “most of which provided few details to explain their assertions,” the VA wrote in the final rule.
Some said the rule violates longstanding VA policy against providing abortions, saying the VA doesn’t have the authority to remove the ban on abortion counseling and create exceptions for abortions, according to an explanation in the notice. Others asserted the VA failed to demonstrate a good enough reason to implement the rule.
The VA countered that its broad mandate is to provide specified veterans with “hospital care and medical services which the Secretary determines to be needed.”
McDonough determined abortions are a necessary service. Delaying the rule, including by not implementing it on an interim basis, would have left an estimated 53% of veterans of reproductive age potentially living in states that would partially or completely restrict abortions, the rule stated.
51-48: The Senate votes DOWN a GOP measure to overturn the Veterans Affairs Dept.'s policy of providing abortions in cases of rape or health/life of the woman.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted with Dems. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted with Republicans. pic.twitter.com/o4OpBedOHi
Other commenters said the rule violates state laws; the VA countered that the states should not be able to interfere with federal operations.
The VA’s lawyers determined that “states may not restrict VA and its employees acting within the scope of their federal authority from providing abortion services as authorized by federal law, including VA’s rule,” based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
In April, the Senate voted down 48 to 51 legislation introduced by Republican Senator Thomas Tuberville of Alabama that would have overturned the VA abortion policy. Similar efforts to block the policy through VA spending bills also failed.
The VA performed 88 abortions under the first year of the temporary policy, according to a letter obtained by Military.com.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 Monday that former President Donald Trump cannot be removed from Colorado’s 2024 ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump ineligible for the state’s ballot in December, ruling he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil-war era provision bars individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court’s ruling stated.
The justices expressed concern about the “patchwork” of outcomes that would result from states reaching various decisions, noting an “evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.”
“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration,” they wrote.
A group of Colorado voters, backed by the left-wing group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to remove Trump in September, arguing his role in “recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob” on Jan. 6, 2021 was disqualifying. Maine and, just last week, Illinois, followed by also finding Trump ineligible.
Over 60 challenges have been filed in various states challenging Trump’s eligibility for the ballot, according to court documents.
All nine justices agreed that states cannot remove federal candidates from office from the ballot. But Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote separately to voice their disapproval of the majority going further and deciding Section 3 can only be enforced federally by Congress enacting legislation.
“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate,” they wrote. “It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also wrote separately to state that amid settling “a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election,” the Court’s writing “should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
“For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case,” she wrote. “That is the message Americans should take home.”
In April, the Supreme Court will hear another consequential case considering whether Trump is immune from prosecution in his federal election interference case. The trial in Washington, D.C., is currently on hold pending the decision on Trump’s appeal.
A federal appeals court issued a temporary stay of a lower court’s order to stop the implementation of Texas immigration law, allowing it to take effect this week unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
Last Monday, a federal court in Austin, Texas, prevented the state government from enacting Senate Bill 4, which would authorize state law enforcement to arrest and detain persons suspected of entering the country illegally.
In his Thursday ruling to block the measure, Judge David Alan Ezra stated, “If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws.”
Texas filed an appeal, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott declaring, “We will not back down in our fight to protect our state — and our nation — from President Biden’s border crisis.”
Over the weekend, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of Ezra’s judgment but postponed its decision for seven days to allow the Biden administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The measure is only banned until March 9, unless the Supreme Court keeps it on hold. It was initially scheduled to go into effect on March 5.
El Paso County, which joined the Department of Justice in its lawsuit against Texas, also stated that enacting SB 4 would overwhelm its jail system with thousands of more arrests, and praised Ezra’s decision last week to stop the legislation.
Texas has contended that SB 4 does not violate federal law and that the state is “entitled to defend itself from an invasion.”
“Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border,” Abbott said.
Saturday Night Live took an unironic shot at Biden regime propaganda on its “comedy” show last night by running a mock interview between CNN’s Dana Bash and impeached Department of Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas.
In the clip, the actor playing Mayorkas hams up the Biden crony gaslighting about the president’s supposed mental and physical ability to do the job.
“I was just with him and behind closed doors, he‘s a dynamo. Joe went into beast mode,” an actor playing Mayorkas said. “He said, we‘re going to tighten this border. Look how easy I can cross it. Then he parkoured up to the top of the border wall, front-flipped into the Rio Grande, and came back up with a fish in his mouth.”
Impeached cartoon villain Alejandro Mayorkas defended Joe Biden after an SNL skit mocked the regime propaganda about the president’s mental acuity and physical ability to do the job.
“They should spend a bit of time with Joe Biden… I prepare a lot for meetings with him and engagements with him, but he’s remarkably detail-oriented, probing, and operationally focused.”
This is the same President Biden who has spent more time on vacation than any first-term president, dodges press questions from real reporters, often spouts gibberish during speeches, gets lost without handlers, and asks for permission on what to do next.
But the regime’s gaslighting about Biden’s mental and physical ability to do the job of President of the United States is so ludicrous that even SNL is poking fun at it.
CNN’s Dana Bash and DHS Sec Mayorkas can joke about it, but to the American people it’s no laughing matter.
Donald Trump was on fire at a rally in Richmond, Virginia on Saturday night where he masterfully trolled his adversaries with pointed shots at their rampant corruption and rabid partnership.
Trump crowed at Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis’ travails and dragged her lover Nathan Wade with comedian-level potshots about ‘the only thing that he is good at.’
NEW: Donald Trump suggests the only thing prosecutor Nathan Wade is good at is pounding Fani Willis because she called him “2000 times.”
Remarkable.
“I was indicted by Fani in Georgia… her lover, Nathan Wade, and they hired him for almost a million dollars because of his… pic.twitter.com/27uQLUY8oG
“I was indicted by Fani in Georgia,” he said. “Fani, how did that work out? And her lover, Nathan Wade, and they hired him for almost a million dollars because of his great, great experience. Of course, he didn’t have any experience. He had experience in something else. You know that — a lot of experience. And at that, I’m quite sure he was very good based on the fact that she called him 2000 times.”
“I didn’t know the gentleman. I didn’t know him. Oh, you have 2000 phone calls, 3,500 text messages. How is it possible in a short — I know a lot of people, we like a lot of people, I happen to have a very good relationship with a woman called Melania. But I would venture to say in all the years that I’ve known her, I might not have called her 2,500 times. I know I didn’t send 3,500 text messages.”
Good Lord. But Donald Trump wasn’t done yet. On a more serious note, he took direct shots at the Biden Department of Injustice, including scathing criticism of judges presiding over his cases.
“I’m not a threat,” he said. “I’m the one that’s ending the threat to democracy.”
“Just yesterday it was revealed that Crooked Joe’s brother admitted under oath that Joe Biden personally received a massive check paid for with money that came directly from a Chinese energy company controlled by the Chinese Communist Party,” he remarked.
“Well, how about all the money that he’s getting from Penn, University of Penn? So I went there, the Wharton School of Finance, it’s great. I went there. So Penn, they give them hundreds of millions of dollars and Biden gets paid a lot of money by the Chinese. I’m glad that Republicans in Congress are going after the massive Biden crime, family corruption. I give them a lot of credit. I give them a lot of credit.”
“In particular, they’re going after Crooked Joe Biden, and I hope they keep doing it because he’s illegally after me with the DOJ in coordination with the district attorneys and attorney generals in the States,” he continued.
“We have as an example, Fani and her lover, Nathan Wade, in Georgia, Letitia James, Judge Engoron and Merchant in New York State. Alvin Bragg, the DA, and his puppet master from the DOJ. Think of it. Think of it. Biden put his top guy, one of his top guys in the DOJ into the DA’s office in Manhattan over bullsh*t. Bullsh*t. His name is Colangelo. And now he is essentially running the DA’s office in Manhattan and they go after. So they go after me with state agencies and city agencies, but it’s all run by the DOJ. It’s crooked stuff. Really. These are crooked people.”
Talk about bold. We’ll be sure to hear from the media come Monday about Trump’s criticism of the Biden DOJ’s political prosecution, but not a word about how this is the most egregious election interference campaign in U.S. history.
The U.S. government is providing taxpayer funding to universities and non-profits to develop AI-powered tools to permanently establish a mass online censorship regime.
The House Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee earlier revealed the U.S. government is funding Artificial Intelligence (AI) censorship technology through the National Science Foundation (NSF) in order to distribute to Big Tech platforms for the purpose of censoring public debate of political issues and government policies.
“This interim report details the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) funding of AI powered censorship and propaganda tools, and its repeated efforts to hide its actions and avoid political and media scrutiny,” the report states.
“In the name of combatting alleged misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election, NSF has been issuing multi-million-dollar grants to university and non-profit research teams. The purpose of these taxpayer-funded projects is to develop artificial intelligence (AI)- powered censorship and propaganda tools that can be used by governments and Big Tech to shape public opinion by restricting certain viewpoints or promoting others,” the report adds.
The NSF also developed a media strategy “that considered blacklisting certain American media outlets because they were scrutinizing NSF’s funding of censorship and propaganda tools,” the report added.
As reported by The Epoch Times on March 2, an NSF spokesman categorically rejected the report’s allegations.
“NSF does not engage in censorship and has no role in content policies or regulations. Per statute and guidance from Congress, we have made investments in research to help understand communications technologies that allow for things like deep fakes and how people interact with them,” the spokesman said.
“We know our adversaries are already using these technologies against us in multiple ways. We know that scammers are using these techniques on unsuspecting victims. It is in this nation’s national and economic security interest to understand how these tools are being used and how people are responding so we can provide options for ways we can improve safety for all.”
As the report added, “the spokesman also denied that NSF ever sought to conceal its investments in the so-called Track F program, and that the foundation does not follow the policy regarding media that was outlined in the documents discovered by the committee.”
The House committee report cites the Speaker’s notes from the University of Michigan’s first pitch to the National Science Foundation about its NSF-funded, AI-powered WiseDex tool.
“Our misinformation service helps policy makers at platforms who want to… push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside the company… by externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship,” the statement reads.
The Congressional report reveals the censorship and propaganda tools, universities and non-profits, as well as Big Tech companies involved in the mass censorship campaign.
The National Science Foundation is distributing grants to the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, the University of Wisconsin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the non-profit Meedan to develop public censorship tools such as WiseDex, Course Correct, SearchLit, and Co-Insights, which are or were to be used at Big Tech firms like Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, and Twitter (now X), among others, the report revealed.
The House Weaponization Committee’s report criticizes the “fact checking” industry developed to fight “disinformation” as a “pseudo-scientific” endeavor to censor disfavored ideological viewpoints and thereby to undemocratically crush political dissent.
The University of Michigan’s Wisedex, one AI-powered censorship tool costing taxpayers $750,000, is designed to “assess the veracity of content on social media and assist large social media platforms with what content should be removed or otherwise censored.”
Meedan’s Co-Insights, for example, models itself on a digital snitching program called “community tiplines” in order to conduct what it refers to as “disinformation interventions.” The taxpayer bill for this public censorship program is $5.75 million.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Course Correct is a tool to purportedly “empower efforts by journalists, developers, and citizens to fact-check” “delegitimizing information” about “election integrity and vaccine efficacy” on social media. The taxpayer-funded grant for this program is $5.75 million.
MIT’s SearchLit is designed to develop “effective interventions” to educate Americans—specifically, those that the MIT researchers alleged “may be more vulnerable to misinformation campaigns”—on how to discern “fact from fiction” online, the report notes, adding, “In particular, the MIT team believed that conservatives, minorities, and veterans were uniquely incapable of assessing the veracity of content online.”
Thus, concerns that this is an ideologically biased operation to suppress political dissent are substantiated, according to the researchers’ own statements.
As the report notes as background about the National Science Foundation, “The scope of NSF’s mission has shifted over the years to encompass social and behavioral sciences. For example, NSF used to fund political science projects from the 1960s until 2012, when Congress banned such research from receiving NSF funding. However, in recent years, and after the academic outcry that Americans elected President Trump only because
of “Russian disinformation,” NSF has spent millions of taxpayer dollars funding projects to
combat alleged mis- and disinformation.”
In June 2023, the National Science Foundation responded to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) by deflecting criticism with the claim the tools are designed to protect the American public from “foreign interference” in elections and public health emergencies.
“NSF is encouraged to consider additional research efforts that will help counter influence from foreign adversaries on the Internet and social media platforms designed to influence U.S. perspectives, sow discord during times of pandemic and other emergencies, and undermine confidence in U.S. elections and institutions,” the NSF claimed. “To the extent practicable, NSF should foster collaboration among scientists from disparate scientific fields and engage other Federal agencies and NAS to help identify areas of research that will provide insight that can mitigate adversarial online influence, including by helping the public become more resilient to undue influence.”
However, in the attached NSF documents, previously not available to the public, the agency states openly that, “The overarching goal of this work is to equip the general public with the knowledge and skills needed to find trustworthy information online.”
But what if the watchdogs appointing themselves to be gatekeepers of “trustworthy” information are themselves not trustworthy?
The Biden administration is laundering billions in taxpayer funds through Non-Governmental Organizations to facilitate illegal migration into the United States.
The State Department, for example, is offering a “loan” program to any foreigner around the world who desires to travel to the United States, claim without evidence that he or she is a “refugee,” and then resettle in the country — all subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.
As described by the the United States Refugee Admissions Program on its official website, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Travel Loan Program “helps to provide penalty and interest-free loans to refugees arriving in the United States.”
“Refugees who accept these travel loans are required to sign a promissory note prior to departure, committing themselves to repayment of the debt within a determined period after arrival,” the program description notes.
IOM “arranges travel for refugee using funds furnished by the Department of State and is mandated to subsequently receive refugees’ repayments on behalf of the Department of State,” the website explains. “Repayments made are remitted to a revolving fund created between the Department of State and IOM for use by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to defray the cost of future refugee travel.”
“A Travel Loan repayment is initially assigned either to IOM itself or to a resettlement agency,” the website adds.
There is a single video on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) YouTube channel. It advertises the travel loan program, which can be viewed below.
As further elaborated by the organization, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Travel Loans Program “works with resettlement agencies to administer penalty- and interest-free loans to refugees arriving in the United States.”
However, the federal government’s spending on “Refugee and Entrant Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Health and Human Services” amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars each year paid out to dozens upon dozens of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
The U.S. government’s allocation for spending on “refugee” resettlement and unaccompanied minors, as well as associated programs, is $14 billion for Fiscal Year 2024 (due to $3 billion in unspent funds rolling over and $3 billion in new allocations).
As stipulated by the United States’ Citizenship and Immigration Services, “You must receive a referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for consideration as a refugee.”
The difference between a refugee and asylee is noted in a Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2023.
Under Section 101(a)(42) of the INA, a refugee is a person who, generally, has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Individuals who meet the statutory definition may be considered for either refugee status under Section 207 of the INA if they are outside the United States, or asylum status under Section 208 of the INA, if they are already in the United States or present themselves at a U.S. port of entry. Both refugee and asylum status are forms of humanitarian protection offered by the United States.
The proposed ceilings for refugee admissions for fiscal year 2023 is shown below.
It should be added that these numbers do not include “the admission of spouses and unmarried children under 21 who are still abroad or are located domestically but did not accompany the principal refugee by filing a ‘following-to-join’ petition, which does not require a separate refugee adjudication for these family members overseas.”
The report also notes Priority 4 (P-4) – Privately sponsored refugees:
The Department of State, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, is developing a private sponsorship pilot program for refugees admitted through the USRAP that it anticipates launching in late calendar year 2022 as part of efforts to expand community participation in refugee resettlement.
Private sponsorship is a specific form of community sponsorship whereby private sponsors work independently of resettlement agency partners to welcome refugees, accepting primary responsibility to provide core services and other basic supports to newly arrived refugees to facilitate their resettlement.
The Biden administration’s approach to resettling “refugees” in the United States is to funnel taxpayer funds to NGOs and INGOs such as the United Nations who carry out the human trafficking scheme for them.
This scheme was illustrated well by the interview of Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, with NPR. The January 2023 report notes the State Department’s launch of Welcome Corps, “a private sponsorship program that will harness the generosity and goodwill of American citizens to resettle refugees.”
The Department of State, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services, is pleased to announce the creation of the Welcome Corps, a new private sponsorship program that empowers everyday Americans to play a leading role in welcoming refugees arriving through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and supporting their resettlement and integration as they build new lives in the United States. […]
The Department of State will roll out the Welcome Corps in two phases to identify, evaluate, and scale-up the most successful elements of private sponsorship as an innovative, community-led model of resettlement, with the goal of cementing the Welcome Corps as an enduring feature of our refugee resettlement system.
The Fact Sheet then notes a “consortium” of private groups that are trafficking migrants into the United States.
“The Department of State is funding a consortium of non-profit organizations with expertise in welcoming, resettling, and integrating refugees into U.S. communities to support the Welcome Corps,” the State Department notes. “This consortium is being led by the Community Sponsorship Hub, and includes Church World Service, IRIS – Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the International Rescue Committee, and Welcome.US. This consortium will offer expert guidance and support to Americans joining the Welcome Corps.”
The Biden administration’s illegal alien trafficking scheme was effectively exposed and criticized by Lora Ries in a May 2023 piece at the Heritage Foundation.
For more than two years now, the Biden administration has been encouraging and mass-releasing millions of illegal aliens into the country. To accomplish its goal of unlimited illegal immigration, the administration relies heavily on NGOs to receive, process, transport, lodge, and counsel the illegal aliens.
The administration pays the NGOs billions of taxpayer dollars through numerous federal departments—including Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, State, and Justice—for this migration weaponization used against America’s interests.
These NGOs and the Left hide behind faith-based organizations to keep their federal grants flowing and to distract from the horrific results in terms of human devastation, death, sex trafficking, forced child labor, national security and public safety threats, and more. Unfortunately, the faith-based organizations are more than willing to lead the pressure campaigns to safeguard their revenue streams.
What started out decades ago as faith-based organizations supporting the State Department to resettle genuine refugees in the U.S. after a legitimate application process has evolved into mass illegal immigration and downstream activities, creating an immigration industrial complex worth billions of dollars.
Worse, those same faith-based organizations also advocate for more migration to the U.S. and against immigration enforcement. They claim they are merely helping vulnerable populations, but these NGOs clearly benefit financially from more immigration in this corrupt money-changing circle.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) also raised attention and condemned the Biden administration’s policy.
“This is appalling,” he remarked in response to a post by John Basham on X. “US support for the UN must end.#DefundTheUN”
Berry Razi has also shone the spotlight on the Director of the UN’s IOM, a former Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official named Amy Pope.
Meet Amy Pope, new Director of the UN IOM International Organization on Migration. Pope was DHS advisor to Obama and then Biden, and said Trump’s immigration policy was racist because “Since the attacks of 9/11, there have been no successful foreign terrorist attacks on our… pic.twitter.com/mosthgwXgk
Devex notes that UN IOM has an annual operating budget of “an estimated $1.4 billion and some 9,000 staff working in over 150 countries worldwide. IOM currently has 165 Member States and a further 8 states holding Observer status.”
RAV News has been extensively investigation UN IOM camps that are funneling illegal migrants into the United States.
The United Nations sent their security to try to intimidate us at our hotel in Panama City today so we decided to expose the hell out of them!
I don’t usually post videos this long, but this one was necessary. Please share and help expose them! #DefundTheUN and prosecute… pic.twitter.com/mU6GrAjeT7
— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) March 2, 2024
Ben Bergquam reported on Friday that “The United Nations sent their security to try to intimidate us at our hotel in Panama City today so we decided to expose the hell out of them!”
Bergquam and his colleague Oscar el Blue toured an area near the Panama Canal that was known as Fort Clayton that the United States ceded and was subsequently turned into a UN IOM hub. The RAV team subsequently found offices for over a dozen NGOs, including OIM/IOM, UNICEF, the Clinton Global Initiative.
In 2022, investigative journalist and war correspondent Michael Yon was interviewed by the Epoch Times about the unprecedented migration going through the Darien Gap, which extends from Panama into Columbia.
“They’re building, they’re adding on the back of it,” Yon said. “So they’re expanding this camp. There were 130,000 that went through last year between this camp and a couple of others.”
The New York Post’s editorial board remarked on the human wreckage being caused by the NGO-facilitated illegal migrant trafficking that led to the death of Laken Riley.
The suspect, Jose Antonio Ibarra, illegally crossed the border into El Paso in September of 2022. Yes, illegally.
Despite what activists might claim, he was not an “asylum seeker.” That’s a designation for someone who is fleeing religious or political persecution. […]
Despite what activists might claim, he was not an “asylum seeker.” That’s a designation for someone who is fleeing religious or political persecution.
Instead, President Biden has allowed millions to game the system.
They cross the border, then, coached by charity groups, make bogus claims of asylum.
Ibarra’s wife admits that’s why they got married, “so we could join our asylum cases,” she told The Post, and look more sympathetic.
It will be years until their case is heard in court, and by that point even if they’re rejected no one will deport them.
In 2023, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum to the State Department in which he stated: “The admission of up to 125,000 refugees to the United States during Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
Joe Biden had set the cap at 125,000 beginning in 2022, as he stated on World Refugee Day. In early 2021, Biden revised the annual refugee admissions cap to 62,500 from what it referred to as a “historically low” cap of 12,500 the year prior.
In February 2023, President Joe Biden announced a new asylum policy that critics derided as an “asylum ban.” The International Rescue Committee, which benefits of the IOM program blasted the policy change.
“Despite promises made on the campaign trail to overhaul inhumane policies and stop forced deportations that violate due process, the Biden Administration implemented further restrictions on asylum,” IRC remarked.
“The asylum ban bars asylum seekers who crossed through another country on their way to the southern U.S. border, unless they have previously applied for (and been denied) asylum elsewhere or managed to receive an appointment at a port of entry through a new U.S. government app for smartphones,” IRC continued.
However, IRC notes that “[o]n July 25, 2023, a federal judge blocked the Biden Administration’s asylum ban, calling it ‘arbitrary and capricious’.”
But in August, as reported by Politico, “a panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to put a temporary stay on a court ruling from last month that was slated to stop the asylum restrictions.”
As far-left activist group FWD.US bemoaned prior to the initial court decision, “Under the new asylum and transit ban, the number of individuals who will actually be allowed to apply for asylum is expected to drop substantially; large numbers of people will be preemptively disqualified from applying for relief, even though they have long had the legal right to seek asylum under U.S. and international law.”
In February, the federal government filed a motion to place the appeal in abeyance, a motion that was granted. However, dissenting Judge Lawrence VanDyke, blasted the decision.
“The administration’s abrupt about-face makes no sense as a legal matter,” he wrote. “Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance. Given its success thus far in defending a rule it has consistently characterized as critical to its control of the border, and the fact that it has to realize its odds of success in this case can only improve as it works its way vertically through the federal court system, the government’s sudden and severe change in position looks a lot like a purely politically motivated attempt to throw the game at the last minute. At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year.”
“This court is a legal institution, not a political one,” he added. The Biden administration begs to differ.
In February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton begun suing NGOs for their alleged role in facilitating illegal migration into the United States.
“The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling,” said Attorney General Paxton. “While the federal government perpetuates the lawlessness destroying this country, my office works day in and day out to hold these organizations responsible for worsening illegal immigration.”
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has decided that hundreds of January 6 offenders were sentenced to excessive jail terms based on abuse of a statute regarding “the interference with the administration of justice.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Friday that defendant Larry Brock, a retired Air Force colonel sentenced to two years in federal prison for peacefully demonstrating in a building, was wrongfully sentenced.
According to Circuit Judge Millett, who wrote the court’s ruling, alleged interference with Congress’ certification of the presidential election in 2021 does not qualify for a sentence increase. Thus, the court affirmed Brock’s conviction but disagreed with his sentence.
“Regarding Brock’s sentence, we hold that the ‘administration of justice’ enhancement does not apply to interference with the legislative process of certifying electoral votes,” Judge Millett concluded.
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Brock’s conviction under 18 U.S.C § 1512(c)(2), but we vacate Brock’s sentence for his Section 1512(c)(2) conviction and remand to the district
37 court for resentencing without the application of Section 2J1.2(b)(2)’s sentencing enhancement,” the court ordered.
The massive court decision might have an impact on hundreds of January 6 defendants who were charged with the Biden DOJ’s “obstruction of an official proceeding” crime, which is based on a dubious legal theory derived from the Enron corruption crisis. Dozens of January 6 offenders were sentenced to severe federal prison sentences as a result of the felony, even though they would have been charged with misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court is also considering the legitimacy of the Biden DOJ’s use of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” law.
Attorney William Shipley provided extensive legal analysis of the impact of this ruling.
“HUGE decision out of DC Circuit this morning saying the proceedings before Congress on Jan. 6 did not involve the ‘administration of justice’ as that phrase is used in the Sentencing Guidelines,” Shipley, who also posted about it on his Substack entitled Shipwreckedcrew’s Port-O-Call, commented on X.
“This will be moot if the SCOTUS throws out the 1512 count altogether in the Fischer (case),” Shipley added. “But this has been a MASSIVE point of conflict between defense counsel and the DOJ/Judges in sentencing J6 defendants on 1512 counts.”
“That was the ‘go to’ felony for DOJ early on, and the reason for that is the Govt was asking for — and getting ’11’ levels of enhancements,” he continued. “This is real ‘inside baseball’ stuff, but here is how it worked. The ‘Base Offense’ level for 1512 is ’14’.”
“The higher that number, the longer the recommended sentence,” he said. “The Govt was asking for, and the Judges — except one — were giving two different enhancements to that ’14’. Both enhancements involved interfering with the ‘due administration of justice’. An ‘8’ level enhancement for violence. Another ‘3’ level enhancement if proceedings were actually interfered with. The application of these two enhancements increased the offense level to 25.”
“For someone with no criminal history, the recommended sentencing range for a Level 14 is 15-21 months,” he went on. “For someone with no criminal history, the recommended sentencing range for a Level 25 is 57-71 months. Difference is 1.5 years and over 5 years in prison. By pleading guilty, the range was lowered to 41-51 months for ‘acceptance of responsibility’.”
“The Govt plea offers REQUIRED that defendants agree that the two sentencing enhancements apply,” he added. “If a defendant refused he/she could go to trial where the convictions are nearly 100%. If the 1512 counts are throw out by SCOTUS, this will not matter because most of those defendants will be entitled to resentencing based on a calculation that doesn’t involve the two enhancements.”
“But even if SCOTUS upholds the 1512 convictions, this ruling could require a huge number of cases to come back to District Court for resentencing — with the new sentences being much shorter than the sentences that were imposed,” Shipley said. “By my recollection, only one Judge ruled that these two enhancements did not apply because congressional proceedings did not involve the ‘Administration of Justice.’ Every other judge engaged in various forms of linguistic gymnastics to twist the words to fit the facts.”
Therefore, Special Counsel Jack Smith is in jeopardy of watching hundreds of J6 cases get blown up due to prosecutorial abuse of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge, which just-so-happens to be one of the charges facing former President Donald Trump.
The FBI detained Blaze Media journalist Steve Baker and transported him to a Texas federal courthouse in handcuffs, a belly chain, and foot shackles to face four nonviolent misdemeanor counts for being in the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
At 7 a.m. on March 1, Baker surrendered to the FBI field office in Dallas, accompanied by defense attorneys James Lee Bright and Edward Tarpley Jr.
On the lapel of his suit jacket, he sported a button with an upside-down FBI badge that forms the logo of “the Suspendables,” a group of FBI whistleblowers including Kyle Seraphin, Steve Friend, and Garret O’Boyle. The FBI had urged him to wear shorts and sandals, but he showed up in a suit.
Baker was led out of the FBI facility in handcuffs and escorted to the Earle Cabell Federal facility and United States Courthouse to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Clinton Averitte. He was turned over to the United States Marshals.
As reported by Breanna Morello, Baker had to take off his shoelaces and his tie, provide a DNA sample to authorities, and report to supervised release his whereabouts at all times.
In a criminal complaint filed in Washington, D.C., Baker was accused of knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds without authority, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
“I had to march in, in front of everybody with leg chains on,” Baker told The Epoch Times. “That was not my favorite moment in life. Just a deliberate humiliation. It was something they didn’t have to do.”
When Baker came in court wearing belly and leg chains, he stated that there was another non-Jan. 6 criminal defendant in the courtroom who was also due to appear before Judge Averitte. She didn’t have handcuffs or leg shackles.
“Absolutely, stunningly ridiculous on misdemeanor charges,” said William Shipley, who leads Baker’s six-attorney legal team, in response to a video of Baker being led away.
“I could not get an explanation for why it was necessary for Steve to go to the FBI,” he added. “We considered defying that demand and have him simply appear at the courthouse and go to the U.S. Marshal’s Office for processing.”
As reported by the Epoch Times, Baker remarked that the 16-page statement of facts prepared by the FBI to support his accusations had “a couple” of falsehoods and focused almost entirely on what he said about Jan. 6 rather than what he did that day.
FBI agents cited a YouTube video recorded by Baker on the night of Jan. 6, in which he told a buddy that his reaction to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office being looted was, “It couldn’t happen to a more deserving [expletive].”
“There’s nothing in there about my behavior,” Baker told The Epoch Times. “It’s all about my words. Everything. It’s all about stuff I said before, stuff I said after, and that’s it. No more complicated than that.”
Steve Baker can make a strong case this is an act of retaliation for exposing inconvenient stories that raise serious questions about federal coordination and potential complicity in the events of January 6.
His most explosive story is reportage on the Democratic National Committee headquarters pipe bomb threat, which took place during a mysterious visit from Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris, and despite the ostensibly inert ‘dummy bomb’ allegedly being at the DNC overnight, it was reported only ten minutes before the election challenges started at the Electoral College. The DNC headquarters was evacuated, as was a Cannon building.
The incident defies ready explanation because the Municipal Police Department in Washington D.C. and the Secret Service detail for Kamala Harris were shown on surveillance video at the DNC building to have reacted to the reported ‘bomb threat’ with reckless disregard for the safety of passersby, including small children. Nonetheless, a robot dog was later deployed to deactivate the supposedly “viable” device, as the FBI would later, and falsely, claim.
Baker’s stunning addition to the story is that person who “discovered” the inert pipe bomb at the DNC is reportedly a plain clothes Capitol Police officer, which he learned from Congressional sources.
Another major story broken by Steve Baker that put him in the crosshairs of powerful Capitol Hill politicians is that the security chief for former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Special Agent David Lazarus, appears to have given false testimony on the events of January 6, as corroborated by video surveillance footage.
The upshot of the allegedly false testimony is that it played a role in convicting Oath Keeper defendants for “seditious conspiracy,” the closest the federal government has gotten to convicting any defendant for “insurrection,” and subsequently handed the stiffest prison sentences of any J6 defendants to date: 18 years for Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and 12 years for Kelly Meggs. Jessica Watkins and Keith Harrelson were convicted in the case on separate crimes and were given eight-and-a-half and four years in prison, respectively.
Owen Shroyer of InfoWars, who served a 60-day jail sentence for his January 6 conviction, blamed the Biden administration for the arrest of Steve Baker.
I knew Democrats would arrest more journalists after my sentencing & incarceration. I did spend some time in jail & cuffs when I turned myself in but was let out later that day. I hope the same for @TPC4USA, but this doesn’t look good. Will Republicans in Congress stay silent… https://t.co/QA2NjZWxMk
“I knew Democrats would arrest more journalists after my sentencing & incarceration,” Shroyer wrote on X. “I did spend some time in jail & cuffs when I turned myself in but was let out later that day. I hope the same for [Steve Baker], but this doesn’t look good. Will Republicans in Congress stay silent again & let this continue?”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) also blasted the Biden regime for the police state tactics.
“The Biden regime just arrested journalist Steve Baker for covering Jan6,” she said. “Owen Shroyer was locked up as well. Free Press is dead in America when the government jails journalists who refuse to report the regime’s political agenda and lies.”
The Biden regime just arrested journalist Steve Baker for covering Jan6.
Owen Shroyer was locked up as well.
Free Press is dead in America when the government jails journalists who refuse to report the regime’s political agenda and lies. https://t.co/Sn2SD9FXyD
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) March 1, 2024
Glenn Beck, the founder of Blaze Media, described Baker’s arrest and perp walk as “unbelievable.”
“I’m experiencing a day I never thought I would experience in America. A company I founded is under attack by the government,” Beck said on the Friday broadcast of his show.
Where is the outrage from the left side of the aisle over @TPC4USA’s FBI ARREST and SHACKLING of his legs?! I have stood with EVERY journalist, even those I disagree with, because the First Amendment is crucial for our republic to remain. pic.twitter.com/NofH3mq8G6
“The fifth person through a broken window to enter the Capitol was a New York Times journalist and they are not being charged,” he cited from a Glenn Beck podcast.
“Steve Baker did not enter through a broken window,” Waller added. “He entered through an open door.”
Meanwhile, in Putin’s Russia, thousands of demonstrators turned out to mourn the loss of a journalist and opposition leader named Alexei Navalny, who died under suspicious circumstances at a penal colony known as the Polar Wolf.
How soon before we see the same mass protests in our own country over independent journalists who are taken as political prisoners for defying the Biden regime?
During his Wednesday impeachment inquiry deposition, first son Hunter Biden confirmed that his father, Joe, was “the big guy” referred to in an email about a business deal with a Chinese state-linked energy firm that resulted in millions for Biden family members and other associates.
Hunter Biden then denied that the president was ever allotted a 10% stake.
“At one point, we asked Hunter about the 10% for the ‘big guy,’” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, told Breitbart. “We showed him the email … And he said, ‘Oh, that was after my father left office.’”
“Hunter said, ‘When it came down to the agreement that we signed,’ he said, ‘there was no percentage for my father in the business,’” Greene recounted.
Greene stated Hunter then sought to justify Joe Biden’s ten percent stake.
“What’s wrong with having a pie-in-the-sky idea?” Hunter allegedly responded to the line of questioning by stating that he felt his father “was done” with public service in 2017 after his stint as Barack Obama’s vice president.
This is the first time the 54-year-old Hunter Biden has admitted that his former business partner James Gilliar was referring to Joe Biden when he mentioned the possibility of Hunter Biden holding a 10% stake in CEFC China Energy “for the big guy.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also weighed in on the bombshell testimony.
JUST IN: Matt Gaetz drops bomb on Hunter Biden corruption.
"It is a mirage to believe that Hunter Biden was engaged in international business. THIS WAS A BRIBE masquerading as an international business transaction–nothing more, nothing less."
“It is a mirage to believe that Hunter Biden was engaged in international business. THIS WAS A BRIBE masquerading as an international business transaction–nothing more, nothing less,” Gaetz said.
Two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler, in testimony before the House Oversight Committee, had raised questions about the email referring to Biden as “the big guy” and testified that they were not allowed to investigate it.
“We were interested in following leads that went to Joe Biden – President Biden – not because he was Vice President, but because in any normal investigation, if you see financial transactions between son and father, and email correspondence going back and forth, text messages, and WhatsApp messages, in every investigation we have ever worked, we would follow those leads to the father,” Shapley said. “We’ll never know because we weren’t allowed to investigate…For example, we wanted to go and say, ‘location data – we want to look into that.’ And you know, it just wasn’t supported, and things just fell off the priority list.”
“[Were you] stopped because of who it was? Could you even offer a hunch about what you would have found?” asked Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).
“When you see 10 held by H for the big guy and we have other correspondence where they are saying, don’t call dad – you know, call dad something else, call him – because we are trying to confuse or conceal who it is, that is issue for concern. And was there 10 percent that went to the big guy?” Shapley asked. “We will never know because we weren’t allowed to investigate that.”
“Joe Biden’s $240,000 better off because of his family’s influence-peddling scheme,” Comer said. “That is a fact. And we do not have any evidence at the White House is saying that would prove that that was a loan.”
House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) had earlier explained the stunning origins of a $40,000 check given by James Biden to his brother Joe Biden.
“If you go back to that email that you just put on the screen [the ‘Big Guy’ email], Tony Bobulinski, who was also supposed to be in on that deal with CEFC and the Bidens, where Joe Biden was supposed to get 10%, according to Hunter Biden, it matches up perfectly,” he said.
“We traced the $40,000 check that Joe Biden received all the way back to that WhatsApp message where Hunter Biden claimed his father was sitting beside him, where he was shaking down the Chinese operative. That’s where that $40,000 was triggered week. Just a few weeks after that text message, that $40,000 landed in Joe Biden’s pocket after the Biden’s laundered it. But that money came from China.”
“Further evidence that Joe Biden benefited from his family’s influence peddling scheme,” Comer added.
Biden Laundering Billions in Taxpayer Funds Through NGOs to Traffic Illegal Migrants to United States
The Biden administration is laundering billions in taxpayer funds through Non-Governmental Organizations to facilitate illegal migration into the United States.
The State Department, for example, is offering a “loan” program to any foreigner around the world who desires to travel to the United States, claim without evidence that he or she is a “refugee,” and then resettle in the country — all subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.
As described by the the United States Refugee Admissions Program on its official website, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Travel Loan Program “helps to provide penalty and interest-free loans to refugees arriving in the United States.”
“Refugees who accept these travel loans are required to sign a promissory note prior to departure, committing themselves to repayment of the debt within a determined period after arrival,” the program description notes.
IOM “arranges travel for refugee using funds furnished by the Department of State and is mandated to subsequently receive refugees’ repayments on behalf of the Department of State,” the website explains. “Repayments made are remitted to a revolving fund created between the Department of State and IOM for use by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to defray the cost of future refugee travel.”
“A Travel Loan repayment is initially assigned either to IOM itself or to a resettlement agency,” the website adds.
There is a single video on the International Organization for Migration (IOM) YouTube channel. It advertises the travel loan program, which can be viewed below.
As further elaborated by the organization, the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Travel Loans Program “works with resettlement agencies to administer penalty- and interest-free loans to refugees arriving in the United States.”
A list of those agencies:
However, the federal government’s spending on “Refugee and Entrant Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Health and Human Services” amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars each year paid out to dozens upon dozens of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
The U.S. government’s allocation for spending on “refugee” resettlement and unaccompanied minors, as well as associated programs, is $14 billion for Fiscal Year 2024 (due to $3 billion in unspent funds rolling over and $3 billion in new allocations).
As stipulated by the United States’ Citizenship and Immigration Services, “You must receive a referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for consideration as a refugee.”
The difference between a refugee and asylee is noted in a Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2023.
Under Section 101(a)(42) of the INA, a refugee is a person who, generally, has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Individuals who meet the statutory definition may be considered for either refugee status under Section 207 of the INA if they are outside the United States, or asylum status under Section 208 of the INA, if they are already in the United States or present themselves at a U.S. port of entry. Both refugee and asylum status are forms of humanitarian protection offered by the United States.
The proposed ceilings for refugee admissions for fiscal year 2023 is shown below.
It should be added that these numbers do not include “the admission of spouses and unmarried children under 21 who are still abroad or are located domestically but did not accompany the principal refugee by filing a ‘following-to-join’ petition, which does not require a separate refugee adjudication for these family members overseas.”
The report also notes Priority 4 (P-4) – Privately sponsored refugees:
The Department of State, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services, is developing a private sponsorship pilot program for refugees admitted through the USRAP that it anticipates launching in late calendar year 2022 as part of efforts to expand community participation in refugee resettlement.
Private sponsorship is a specific form of community sponsorship whereby private sponsors work independently of resettlement agency partners to welcome refugees, accepting primary responsibility to provide core services and other basic supports to newly arrived refugees to facilitate their resettlement.
The Biden administration’s approach to resettling “refugees” in the United States is to funnel taxpayer funds to NGOs and INGOs such as the United Nations who carry out the human trafficking scheme for them.
This scheme was illustrated well by the interview of Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, with NPR. The January 2023 report notes the State Department’s launch of Welcome Corps, “a private sponsorship program that will harness the generosity and goodwill of American citizens to resettle refugees.”
As a Fact Sheet on Welcome Corps notes:
The Department of State, in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services, is pleased to announce the creation of the Welcome Corps, a new private sponsorship program that empowers everyday Americans to play a leading role in welcoming refugees arriving through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and supporting their resettlement and integration as they build new lives in the United States. […]
The Department of State will roll out the Welcome Corps in two phases to identify, evaluate, and scale-up the most successful elements of private sponsorship as an innovative, community-led model of resettlement, with the goal of cementing the Welcome Corps as an enduring feature of our refugee resettlement system.
The Fact Sheet then notes a “consortium” of private groups that are trafficking migrants into the United States.
“The Department of State is funding a consortium of non-profit organizations with expertise in welcoming, resettling, and integrating refugees into U.S. communities to support the Welcome Corps,” the State Department notes. “This consortium is being led by the Community Sponsorship Hub, and includes Church World Service, IRIS – Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services, the International Refugee Assistance Project, the International Rescue Committee, and Welcome.US. This consortium will offer expert guidance and support to Americans joining the Welcome Corps.”
The Biden administration’s illegal alien trafficking scheme was effectively exposed and criticized by Lora Ries in a May 2023 piece at the Heritage Foundation.
For more than two years now, the Biden administration has been encouraging and mass-releasing millions of illegal aliens into the country. To accomplish its goal of unlimited illegal immigration, the administration relies heavily on NGOs to receive, process, transport, lodge, and counsel the illegal aliens.
The administration pays the NGOs billions of taxpayer dollars through numerous federal departments—including Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, State, and Justice—for this migration weaponization used against America’s interests.
These NGOs and the Left hide behind faith-based organizations to keep their federal grants flowing and to distract from the horrific results in terms of human devastation, death, sex trafficking, forced child labor, national security and public safety threats, and more. Unfortunately, the faith-based organizations are more than willing to lead the pressure campaigns to safeguard their revenue streams.
What started out decades ago as faith-based organizations supporting the State Department to resettle genuine refugees in the U.S. after a legitimate application process has evolved into mass illegal immigration and downstream activities, creating an immigration industrial complex worth billions of dollars.
Worse, those same faith-based organizations also advocate for more migration to the U.S. and against immigration enforcement. They claim they are merely helping vulnerable populations, but these NGOs clearly benefit financially from more immigration in this corrupt money-changing circle.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) also raised attention and condemned the Biden administration’s policy.
“This is appalling,” he remarked in response to a post by John Basham on X. “US support for the UN must end.#DefundTheUN”
Berry Razi has also shone the spotlight on the Director of the UN’s IOM, a former Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official named Amy Pope.
Razi pointed out that Amy Pope’s stated mission for the UN IOM is to “promote orderly, safe, and regular migration.”
Devex notes that UN IOM has an annual operating budget of “an estimated $1.4 billion and some 9,000 staff working in over 150 countries worldwide. IOM currently has 165 Member States and a further 8 states holding Observer status.”
RAV News has been extensively investigation UN IOM camps that are funneling illegal migrants into the United States.
Ben Bergquam reported on Friday that “The United Nations sent their security to try to intimidate us at our hotel in Panama City today so we decided to expose the hell out of them!”
Bergquam and his colleague Oscar el Blue toured an area near the Panama Canal that was known as Fort Clayton that the United States ceded and was subsequently turned into a UN IOM hub. The RAV team subsequently found offices for over a dozen NGOs, including OIM/IOM, UNICEF, the Clinton Global Initiative.
In 2022, investigative journalist and war correspondent Michael Yon was interviewed by the Epoch Times about the unprecedented migration going through the Darien Gap, which extends from Panama into Columbia.
“They’re building, they’re adding on the back of it,” Yon said. “So they’re expanding this camp. There were 130,000 that went through last year between this camp and a couple of others.”
The New York Post’s editorial board remarked on the human wreckage being caused by the NGO-facilitated illegal migrant trafficking that led to the death of Laken Riley.
The suspect, Jose Antonio Ibarra, illegally crossed the border into El Paso in September of 2022. Yes, illegally.
Despite what activists might claim, he was not an “asylum seeker.” That’s a designation for someone who is fleeing religious or political persecution. […]
The suspect, Jose Antonio Ibarra, illegally crossed the border into El Paso in September of 2022. Yes, illegally.
Despite what activists might claim, he was not an “asylum seeker.” That’s a designation for someone who is fleeing religious or political persecution.
Instead, President Biden has allowed millions to game the system.
They cross the border, then, coached by charity groups, make bogus claims of asylum.
Ibarra’s wife admits that’s why they got married, “so we could join our asylum cases,” she told The Post, and look more sympathetic.
It will be years until their case is heard in court, and by that point even if they’re rejected no one will deport them.
In 2023, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum to the State Department in which he stated: “The admission of up to 125,000 refugees to the United States during Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
Joe Biden had set the cap at 125,000 beginning in 2022, as he stated on World Refugee Day. In early 2021, Biden revised the annual refugee admissions cap to 62,500 from what it referred to as a “historically low” cap of 12,500 the year prior.
In February 2023, President Joe Biden announced a new asylum policy that critics derided as an “asylum ban.” The International Rescue Committee, which benefits of the IOM program blasted the policy change.
“Despite promises made on the campaign trail to overhaul inhumane policies and stop forced deportations that violate due process, the Biden Administration implemented further restrictions on asylum,” IRC remarked.
“The asylum ban bars asylum seekers who crossed through another country on their way to the southern U.S. border, unless they have previously applied for (and been denied) asylum elsewhere or managed to receive an appointment at a port of entry through a new U.S. government app for smartphones,” IRC continued.
However, IRC notes that “[o]n July 25, 2023, a federal judge blocked the Biden Administration’s asylum ban, calling it ‘arbitrary and capricious’.”
But in August, as reported by Politico, “a panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to put a temporary stay on a court ruling from last month that was slated to stop the asylum restrictions.”
As far-left activist group FWD.US bemoaned prior to the initial court decision, “Under the new asylum and transit ban, the number of individuals who will actually be allowed to apply for asylum is expected to drop substantially; large numbers of people will be preemptively disqualified from applying for relief, even though they have long had the legal right to seek asylum under U.S. and international law.”
In February, the federal government filed a motion to place the appeal in abeyance, a motion that was granted. However, dissenting Judge Lawrence VanDyke, blasted the decision.
“The administration’s abrupt about-face makes no sense as a legal matter,” he wrote. “Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance. Given its success thus far in defending a rule it has consistently characterized as critical to its control of the border, and the fact that it has to realize its odds of success in this case can only improve as it works its way vertically through the federal court system, the government’s sudden and severe change in position looks a lot like a purely politically motivated attempt to throw the game at the last minute. At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year.”
“This court is a legal institution, not a political one,” he added. The Biden administration begs to differ.
In February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton begun suing NGOs for their alleged role in facilitating illegal migration into the United States.
“The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling,” said Attorney General Paxton. “While the federal government perpetuates the lawlessness destroying this country, my office works day in and day out to hold these organizations responsible for worsening illegal immigration.”
NOW READ: