The problem of 'immigration' has destroyed nations in the past, it continues today worldwide. Let US hope we do not fall for the same reason.

 

Trump Wants Immigration Enforcement Optics Corrected

Thomas Gallatin patriotpost.us 3-25-26

The question is not how far deportations should go. It’s how to correct the Left’s negative framing of immigration enforcement.

The key term is “mass deportations,” which President Donald Trump has identified as having created problematic and negative optics for his immigration enforcement policy.

According to reports, Trump became convinced through conversations with his wife, Melania, and other advisers like Chief of Staff Susan Wiles that his administration’s immigration enforcement had effectively gone too far, at least with the broad policy optics of “mass deportations,” and his immigration policy was souring on the American public.

Instead, Trump wants to refocus his policy messaging on arresting the “bad guys,” or, as Border Czar Tom Homan has repeatedly emphasized, have ICE target the “worst of the worst.” As Trump put it, “We’ve got to focus on the criminals.”

Following the confrontations in Minneapolis between immigration enforcement officers and anti-ICE activists, which left two agitators dead, the Trump administration has struggled to address a growing negative mainstream media framing of its immigration enforcement.

It helped to create a window for Democrat lawmakers to exploit in their demand for ridiculous and radical enforcement changes for ICE. Indeed, Senate Democrats have succeeded for a month now in shutting down the Department of Homeland Security as they seek to leverage the negative perception of ICE to gain concessions from Republicans and the Trump administration.

Trump’s removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, as well as Border Patrol commander at large Greg Bovino, was a not-so-subtle acknowledgement that while they met expectations when it came to getting results in tracking down, arresting, and deporting criminal illegal aliens, they had failed in effectively responding to the Democrats’ and Leftmedia’s framing of immigration enforcement.

In fact, months ago, Homan warned that leaning too hard on a wide net, a mass deportation approach, would end up backfiring on the positive political capital Trump had built up against the Biden administration’s willful negligence on immigration and its de facto open-border policy.

With Trump tasking Homan to take over ICE operations in Minneapolis and tapping Senator Markwayne Mullin to head DHS, he’s aiming to reframe the optics on his immigration enforcement policy, not change his original strategy — the targeting of criminal illegal aliens. As White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson explained, “Nobody is changing the Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. President Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities.”

Mullin also tacitly identified the problem of negative optics surrounding ICE, stating, “My goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every day.”

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, some 58% of respondents agreed with the statement that “Trump is going too far” with deportations. Just a month prior, 48% of respondents saw it that way. Given the actual data and success of Trump’s immigration and border enforcement, and the major benefits it has brought, with crime down by a significant amount across the country, it’s not Trump’s policy that was the problem; it’s that his administration had allowed the Democrats and the mainstream media to negatively frame his administration’s enforcement.

It’s unfortunate that months ago, when a disagreement arose within the White House over how best to focus on immigration enforcement, Noem’s hard-nosed, in-your-face messaging approach apparently won out over Homan’s advice of a more low-key but targeted operations prioritizing the arrest and removal of criminal illegals.

With midterms fast approaching and Republican lawmakers struggling to find an edge over Democrats on popular legislation like the SAVE Act, which the vast majority of Americans support, taking the issue of ICE enforcement off the front page should help GOP candidates in November.

As frustrating as it can be at times, how a policy is framed and packaged for the American public is just as important, if not more so, than its actual implementation. In politics, whoever wins the optics battle usually wins the issue.

 

JTF-SB successfully assisting CBP to secure our southern Border.

 

In one year, U.S. military conduct tens of thousands of missions at southwest border

More than 20,000 service members have served at the southwest border over the last year through Joint Task Force Southern Border

By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor justtthenews.com 3-23-26

In one year, U.S. military conducted tens of thousands of detection, monitoring and security site missions at the southwest border.

More than 20,000 service members have served at the southwest border over the last year through Joint Task Force Southern Border (JTF-SB). The operation reached its one-year anniversary on March 14 and is ongoing.

"During this first year, Joint Task Force-Southern Border and partners have proven what a whole-of-government approach to our nation's southern border can accomplish," Army Maj. Gen. David Gardner, commanding general of the JTF-SB and 101st Airborne Division, said in a statement. "Our joint teammates and partners have strengthened border security through unity of effort, accelerated decision-making and enhanced detection capability. While the environment is complex, our mission is clear: to secure the homeland with precision, professionalism and respect for the rule of law."

Soldiers assigned to the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, New York, were deployed to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to establish JTF-SB last March. Last October, the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, assumed control of the JTF-SB mission.

President Donald Trump established JTF-SB through several executive orders he issued on his first day and week in office. Trump was the first president to declare an invasion at the southwest border and directed the Department of Defense’s United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) to “seal the borders and maintain the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the United States by repelling forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities.”

JTF-SB's stated mission is to “safeguard U.S. territorial integrity and protect the American people.” It seeks to do this by increasing situational awareness across the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border by “accelerating response capabilities and supporting federal law enforcement partners so they can focus on frontline duties.”

By last March, more than 10,000 U.S. troops were deployed to support southern border security efforts, The Center Square reported. That number has since doubled.

JTFSB service members began conducting enhanced detection and monitoring, including providing “mobile ground-based support to detect, track and monitor movements of suspected illegal activity using military tactical vehicles or foot patrols” in areas identified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol. So far, five National Defense Areas (NDA) have been established and expanded along the southwest border including in New Mexico and Texas, The Center Square reported.

Over the past year, troops conducted remote and mobile detections, synchronized planning, rapid mobility and persistent presence along the Rio Grance River, in the air and in high traffic urban-to-urban corridors.

This involved roughly 22,000 enhanced detection and monitoring missions, including nearly 3,000 joint patrols with Border Patrol agents. Aviation assets executed nearly 1,600 aerial observation flight missions and 220 unmanned aerial missions last year.

Troops conducted more than 800 mirrored patrols on both sides of the southwest border, working with Border Patrol agents and the Mexican Secretariat of National Defense, according to Department of War data.

They also conducted more than 84,000 security site missions last year, providing continuous detection and monitoring across the southwest border using sensor-borne technology, fixed and mobile ground sensors and long-range systems. They tested new equipment and technology to conduct the operations, including: “the TRV-150C tactical resupply vehicle; an infantry squad vehicle Marines trained on for the first time in an operational environment; an unmanned surface vessel and solar-powered maritime detection device; and various kinetic and nonkinetic counter-unmanned aerial systems.”

JTF-SB troops also installed nearly 6,000 signs and 2,000 marine buoys along 656 miles of the southwest border to demarcate five new NDAs.

They delivered more than 51,000 rolls of concertina wire and erected wire barriers in key locations in conjunction with Customs and Border Protection. New barrier reinforcement measures represent “the largest of its kind in U.S. history, adding a layer of deterrence in areas most needed to deter and deny illegal crossings,” the DOW said.

Entering its second year, JTF-SB troops remain dedicated to their mission, to strengthening integration, advancing data-driven operations and providing support to CBP and Border Patrol, Gardner said. He added that JTF-SB operations are helping expand detection and monitoring and improve data sharing to enable federal, state and local law enforcement apprehend illegal border crossers, target drug and human smugglers and locate criminal elements in the interior of the U.S.

 

'Illegal immigration' is by far the most convoluted expression. Yet, it is simple, 'illegal immigration' is ILLEGAL - period.

 

Grady Judd’s Illegal Alien Amnesty Turn is the GOP’s Wake-Up Call

Never assume that, because someone appears to be a true conservative, he really is. Every voter must always apply Reagan’s “trust but verify” principle.

Joseph Ford Cotto | March 23, 2026

In Florida, immigration policy is not some empty, red-meat issue for cynical, blowhard career politicians. Brick by brick, the state has built America’s most aggressive sub-federal control system for illegal aliens.

This was driven by a clear premise: unlawful immigrants are bad news for Americans. 

That effort reached a turning point on May 10, 2023, when Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1718, a sweeping measure that required larger employers to use E-Verify. The law also restricted identification access for illegal aliens. It furthermore penalized the transport of unlawful immigrants and tightened the incentives that draw illegal aliens into the state. 

The law took effect on July 1, 2023, with the explicit goal of deterring illegal employment and reducing the taxpayer burden.

Florida did not stop there. 

In March 2024, additional legislation increased penalties for illegals re-entering the state and barred recognition of certain foreign-issued identification documents. This closed loopholes that had allowed unlawful aliens to carry on across Florida. 

Then, in February 2025, the state went further still. 

New laws criminalized illegals being present in Florida and mandated full local cooperation with federal deportation efforts. They also expanded immigration law enforcement funding and imposed enhanced penalties for crimes committed by unlawful immigrants. There is far too much more to itemize.

These reforms were not symbolic. They were deliberate steps to align state authority with immigration law enforcement in a way few states had attempted.

Within that context, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd became, for many conservatives, a symbol of clarity and resolve. His reputation was built on blunt speech and visible action, in a rapidly growing area between Orlando and Tampa. 

On March 5, 2024, after a human-trafficking operation that resulted in 228 arrests, including 21 illegal immigrants, Judd condemned federal inaction in unmistakable terms. He warned that weak Biden-Harris policy was a public safety threat.

On February 19, 2025, DeSantis appointed Judd to the State Immigration Enforcement Council, a body tasked with coordinating state and federal enforcement efforts. The sheriff, already a darling of Florida conservatives, quickly became the national personification of allegedly “based,” purportedly “red-pilled,” and seemingly “right-wing” law-and-order.

Of course, Judd once said this about inmates in his jail: “I don’t care whether they re guilty or not … What is of concern to me is that there’s probable cause to believe that they’re guilty.”

Conservatives should have been highly skeptical of him. If not for their starstruck gaze, they might have seen the rupture coming.

On March 16, 2026, at a meeting of Judd’s council, he took a position that stunned scores of his supporters. 

He argued that while illegal aliens who committed crimes should be deported, there should be a structured “path” for other individuals who entered the country unlawfully. He described certain illegals as people who “came here inappropriately” but were “adding to the American dream,” and said plainly that “we need to find a path for them.” The sheriff stated his plan to write a letter to politicians in Washington, D.C., promoting his vision of amnesty.

The next day, Judd doubled down, emphasizing that some illegal aliens who are working and not engaged in criminality should be considered for amnesty. He said they are “folks we need in this country that we embrace, because we are a country of immigrants.” Judd also claimed that his favored illegals are “adding to the wonderful society that we have in the United States” and “helping the community.”

This was hardly a minor adjustment in tone. It might as well have been a speech from Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, delivered with serpentine charm to swing voters.

Republicans do not buy this snake oil. 

A June 2024 Pew Research Center poll found that 66 percent of Republicans oppose legal status for unlawful immigrants, while 63 percent support a national deportation effort. A March 2025 Pew survey reported that 54 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents support deporting all illegal aliens. A June 2025 Quinnipiac poll found that 61 percent of Republicans prefer deportation, while only 31 percent embrace a pathway to legality.

Judd’s position is not aligned with that consensus, but in direct conflict with it.

Thankfully, the response from Sunshine State leadership was swift and decisive. 

On March 19, 2026, DeSantis rejected Judd outright, stating that allowing illegals to remain unless they commit serious crimes is “not consistent with our laws” and “not good policy.” He warned that such an approach would undermine law enforcement and contradict the principles on which recent legislation had been built.

On March 17, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier made clear that law enforcement’s role is not to reinterpret statutes but to enforce them. He elucidated that illegal aliens are breaking the law and will be treated accordingly. There was no ambiguity in his message.

Even within local law enforcement, the break was unmistakable. 

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey, who serves the Space Coast, publicly distanced himself from Judd’s position. He said that illegal entry is an unambiguous offense and that unlawful aliens should be deported, regardless of subsequent conduct. He described illegal immigration as an affront to those who follow the legal process.

What happened here matters far beyond one official or one state. Indeed, the Judd episode exposes a crucial flaw: The assumption that many Republicans make about whom they elect.

Words are worthless. Titles are formalities. However, when extraordinary policy decisions arise, when high-stakes trade-offs become real, and when gut-wrenching pressure mounts, people reveal who they actually are.

Judd’s earlier rhetoric made him a hero to many Republicans. His later advocacy placed him in a position that mirrors arguments shrewdly advanced by “commonsense” Democrats. The language is milder than Gavin Newsom’s. The framing is more ornate than Chuck Schumer’s. Yet the core idea is the same: amnesty for illegal aliens based on their perceived contributions.

This is a real wake-up call.

Primary elections determine who carries the GOP’s banner, up and down the ticket. Those choices shape policy outcomes for years, possibly decades, and perhaps even generations. In this midterm cycle, and well beyond, the temptation to rally behind familiar figures will be strong. It always is.

But familiarity is not reliability.

The lesson is simple, no matter how uncomfortable. Do not assume alignment based on tone. Do not presume conviction based on rhetoric. Do not infer that a title guarantees adherence to principle. Evaluate actions. Consider positions for the consequences they carry. Research what someone has supported when required to make a tough decision.

Judd’s amnesty advocacy did not occur in isolation. It occurred within a broader national debate that will only intensify. There will be more figures who speak forcefully about immigration control, then slickly subvert it. There will be more proposals framed as pragmatic solutions that, in reality, harm Americans.

Recognizing that pattern is the first step in resisting it.

This is not about personal attacks. It is about preserving first-world nationhood. It is also about ensuring that the policies voters support are the policies that are actually pursued.

The Grady Judd episode is not an anomaly. It is a warning.

For concerned citizens paying even the slightest attention, it is a siren that demands to be heard time and again.

YouTube screen grab.

 

This is a very important 'hearing' and if and when the SCOTUS renders a decision in June - will have lasting effect on our Nation's immigration policies.

 

U.S. Supreme Court to hear asylum case Tuesday

The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, focuses on a dispute between the Trump administration and an immigration advocacy group.

By Andrew Rice | The Center Square 3-22-26 justthenews.com

 (The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case to determine at what point an individual arrives in the United States he or she can claim asylum protections.

The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, focuses on a dispute between the Trump administration and an immigration advocacy group. The advocacy group argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security instituted a policy to prevent migrants from attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a brief to the court, lawyers for the immigration advocates said border patrol officers standing on the U.S. side of the border “identified asylum seekers, and prevented them from stepping onto U.S. soil.”

The 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act allows an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum status and be inspected by an immigration officer.

The case hinges on the definition of the term “arrives.” Lawyers for the Trump administration argue standing on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border is not sufficient to determine arrival.

“An alien stopped at the border in Mexico is definitionally not in the United States and therefore is not afforded what one would get were that alien in the United States,” said Eric Wessan, solicitor general in the Iowa Office of the Attorney General.

Wessan also argued that the executive branch is given constitutional authority to manage disputes that occur on the country’s borders.

Lawyers for the immigration advocates argued that the term “arrive” refers to a broader process that simply begins at the port of entry. They argued that longstanding interpretations of asylum law do not differentiate between what side of the border an individual is on.

“Federal immigration law requires inspection of all aliens who are applicants for admission,” Wessan said. “Once an individual presents himself at a port seeking entry, he becomes an applicant and the government cannot simply refuse to acknowledge the presence to avoid the statutory processing requirement.”

The way justices respond to this case could reveal a unique positioning for Trump v. Barbara, a landmark decision to determine the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case gets to the heart of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to guarantee citizenship for individuals born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

While the amendment was designed to confer citizenship for newly freed slaves, it became a landmark piece of legislation for immigration law and citizenship status generally.

“It seems unlikely that the 14th Amendment was intended to serve as a magnet for birth tourism or to reward illegal reentry,” Wessan said.

The Trump administration’s outcome in Noem v. Al Otro Lado could be a precursor to how the high court approaches the topic of birthright citizenship. Either way, Noem v. Al Otro Lado will fundamentally affect how the government approaches asylum processing.

“An ordinary English speaker would not use the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ to describe someone who is stopped in Mexico,” lawyers for the government said in a brief to the court.

Justices on the court will likely decide the case by the end June.