Media Mislead on Pew Poll about Border Wall

All too often, immigration polls are not designed to get at what Americans really think about immigration, but instead are written to create a certain narrative. Many polls are financed by activist groups who simply want to create the appearance of widespread public support for amnesty. The advocates have two main goals: (1) provide lobbyists with polling data that they can use to browbeat politicians into supporting their cheap-labor, open-border agenda; and (2) encourage the media to write headlines that don't really reflect the findings, but nevertheless advance the notion that Americans love open borders.The Pew Research Center has done just that with a new poll. The poll contains a few different questions, but the one getting all the press asks Americans about building a border wall.

Does Hillary Support a Border Wall? Someone Should Ask

For a recent article, PolitiFact called our office asking whether it was true that Hillary Clinton once wanted a border wall. Specifically, they were analyzing the truthfulness of the following statement made by Donald Trump:We're gonna have strong borders. We're gonna have a wall — a big, powerful wall. You know that Hillary Clinton wanted a wall, a number of years ago. She wanted a wall." (at 1:00:10)PolitiFact wasn't interested in the difference between the word "wall" and "fence" and noted in their article that "both block people." They just wanted to know if Trump's statement was accurate.

More Pinocchios for the Post's Immigration Editorial

The open-border, pro-cheap-foreign-labor editorial board of the Washington Post (a newspaper that once employed an illegal alien in direct violation of federal law, but was never held accountable because the Obama administration is letting employers get away with all sorts of lawlessness) recently argued that the Trump campaign was made of "sneer, not substance." Unfortunately, the paper doesn't seem to have done its research. Linked at the bottom of this blog post are the immigration platforms of both major presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that there’s quite a lot more substance in Trump’s platform than there is in Clinton's.

Sanctuary City Policies Must End

One year ago today, Kate Steinle was killed in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, allegedly by a five-times deported illegal alien from Mexico with seven felony convictions on his record.

It is well-past time that sanctuary city policies come to an end, yet today there remain over 300 jurisdictions throughout the United States that shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement. They're listed on my organization's interactive map. Despite public opposition to sanctuary policies, only weeks ago San Francisco largely upheld their dangerous policy to the applause of open-border advocates.

When Is Paul Ryan Suing Obama over DACA?

Ryan clearly feels that Obama's DAPA program and the extended version of DACA exceed the powers of the presidency and run afoul of the Constitution. Logically, he must feel the same way about the 2012 DACA amnesty.

Is Speaker Ryan being honest about his willingness to sue any president who exceeds his authority? Or was that line limited to actions that could be taken by a President Trump? Or, put another way, is Ryan only interested in suing over actions that might reduce immigration, but not over actions that reward illegal immigration?

If Obama's Immigration Actions Are Upheld, What's Left of Congress?

Congress may lose much of its authority over immigration this month.

For decades, the Supreme Court has held that authority over immigration is shared between the political branches — the legislative and the executive. But if the court sides with the Obama administration in United States v. Texas, that balance will forever be upset and Congress will find itself with little recourse. Put another way, if the White House wins, the voters will have greater difficultly shaping immigration policy through congressional elections, and petitioning Congress on immigration will serve little purpose.

Opposition To "Illegal Aliens" Is Opposition To Borders

Those who are driving the effort to control and contort language in the immigration debate are not truly motivated by the notion that the term "illegal alien" is a pejorative. This is a distraction. The real goal of those demanding that media outlets, courts, and now the Library of Congress supplant accurate legal terminology with activist-created terms is to eradicate the distinction between citizen and non-citizen, between legal activity and illegal activity, between "us" and "them" so that the concept of borders and the nation state slowly slip away. Any official heading an organization or governmental agency who thinks they are being sensitive by bowing to demands to alter their use of language is being played by the open-border crowd.

Federal Judge Issues Stinging Order on Obama Administration's Conduct in DACA Litigation

Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas, the court that ordered an injunction on President Obama's controversial illegal alien amnesties, issued a scathing order directed at the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) about their conduct during court proceedings last year. The underlying case, United States v. Texas, is currently before the Supreme Court. But Judge Hanen's focus in this order is on DOJ attorneys making "statements that clearly did not match the facts" about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the fact that the "attorneys effectively misled" the 26 plaintiff states involved in the litigation while violating "virtually every interpretation of candor" expected by a court.

Supreme Court Leaves Door Open to States Not Counting Aliens when Drawing Electoral Districts

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held in Evenwel v. Abbott that Texas's current methodology for drawing electoral districts based on total population is constitutionally sound. The Court did not rule on the question of whether states are required to include illegal aliens or other non-citizens when drawing districts. In fact, the Court noted that some states "have relied on the registered-voter or voter-eligible populations" for drawing districts and that 10 states already exclude some non-permanent residents.

Facebook and Other Companies Petition Supreme Court on Deferred Action

Companies seeking more cheap labor from abroad have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Obama administration, which is seeking to overturn an injunction on President Obama's controversial Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) amnesty and an expanded version of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty.