DHS/ICE accomplishing their duties and responsibilities in a timely manner.

 

Laken's Legacy: More than 17,500 illegal aliens captured under law named for slain nursing student

By John Solomon justthenews.com

 Law passed by Congress mandates the federal arrest of illegal immigrants accused of theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and any crime that causes death or serious bodily injury.

More than 17,500 illegal aliens with criminal records were captured in the first year of the Laken Riley Act, the first law that President Donald Trump signed after taking office this year to honor a Georgia nursing student slain by a migrant unlawfully in the United States.

The first-year tally was announced this week by the Homeland Security Department just as it was ending Operation Angel’s Honor, a 14-day nationwide roundup of more than 1,030 criminal illegal aliens.

“In honor of Laken Riley, ICE launched Operation Angel’s Honor – in the last 2 weeks alone arresting more than 1,000 criminal illegal aliens under the authority of the Laken Riley Act.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said. “President Trump has empowered us to arrest and remove the millions of violent criminal illegal aliens unleashed on the United States by the previous administration.

"Now, these criminals will face justice and be removed from our country. We can never bring Laken back, but we can do everything in our power to bring these heinous criminals to justice. I am so proud of what our brave men and women of ICE have done to remove these criminals from America’s streets," she added.

The law passed by Congress mandates the federal arrest of illegal immigrants accused of theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and any crime that causes death or serious bodily injury.

It was named after a Georgia nursing student who was killed by José Antonio Ibarra, an illegal alien from Venezuela and member of the Tren de Aragua gang who was previously arrested and released under New York City's laws under the Biden administration in September 2022.

In his speech to Congress in March, Trump paid tribute to Laken Riley and her family and said the law he signed would make sure her death was not in vain.

“Laken was stolen from us by a savage, illegal alien gang member who was arrested while trespassing across Biden’s southern border and then sent to the United States under the heartless policies of that failed administration,”Trump said.

“Last year, I told Laken’s grieving parents that we would ensure their daughter would not have died in vain,” he added.

 

At least some restrictions apply. If only the other States would follow Tennessee.

 

New Tennessee law bars out-of-state driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

By Kim Jarrett | The Center Square justthenews.com 12-26-25

Illegal immigrants with driver's licenses in other states could face penalties if caught driving in Tennessee after Jan. 1.

House Bill 749, signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee in April, creates a Class B misdemeanor charge for the offense, with penalties of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

Nineteen U.S. states and Puerto Rico allow illegal aliens to obtain driving privileges, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Tennessee's new law required the Department of Safety to list which licenses would not be valid in the state. The department's website lists only Delaware and Connecticut as of Friday.

The legislation was separate from a sweeping immigration bill approved during lawmakers' special session in January.

The provisions of Senate Bill 6002 require lawful permanent residents who renew a license or permit after Jan. 1 to show proof of U.S. citizenship. Those who cannot show proof will be issued a temporary version with a distinct marker.

Residents with a temporary driver's license or state identification card cannot use it as proof of identification to vote, according to the new law.

Also included in the law was the creation of a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division. Lee appointed Ryan Hubbard, a former federal immigration enforcement agent, to lead the division shortly after the law went into effect in July.

Another provision created a Class E felony for Tennessee elected officials who vote for sanctuary city policies. Sanctuary cities are illegal in the state.

The bill prompted debate among lawmakers about why a criminal penalty was needed. An amendment removing the penalty, proposed by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, was defeated.

The General Assembly, scheduled to return to work on Jan. 13, could take up another immigration bill that spurred debate during the 2025 session.

Senate Bill 836, sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, would allow schools to question a student's immigration status before enrolling them. The Knox County Board of Education opposed the bill in its 2026 legislative agenda.

The legislation, approved by the Senate, has moved to the House and could be revived when lawmakers return to Nashville.

 

Illegal immigration is by far the most destructive 'thorn in our side' - if not exposed and stopped - it will destroy our Republic.

 

Will the Government Follow Trump’s Lead on Illegal Immigration?

Armstrong Williams patriotpost.us 12-26-25

The question for America is whether the nation’s leaders will adopt his boldness in addressing illegal immigration.

In politics, few figures have demonstrated the kind of transactional decisiveness that Trump exemplifies. His recent dealings with the Colombian government underscore the efficiency of his approach. Regardless of whether you agree with his broader policies, it’s hard to deny the fact that so far the president has been decisive and effective on his biggest campaign promise: tackling illegal immigration. When Colombia’s president initially refused to accept flights carrying deported criminals from the United States, Trump’s response was immediate and unrelenting: the threat of tariffs, governmental sanctions and a complete freezing of critical clearances for Colombian officials. Within 30 minutes, the Colombian president reversed his stance, even offering his own plane to expedite the deportation process. It’s moments like these that illuminate the undeniable efficacy of Trump’s tough negotiation tactics, which I predict will be a hallmark of his presidency.

Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration, including his recent executive order to end birthright citizenship, which was stopped by a federal judge, delivers on his campaign promise to the American people. On this front, it’s hard to deny the data fueling Trump’s argument. In 2023, approximately 250,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. To put this in perspective, that exceeds the total number of births in each of 48 individual states. If that rate has been consistent over the last four years (the last CIS estimate before 2023 was a 2018 report), the cumulative impact is staggering: 1 million births to illegal immigrants during the Biden administration alone. Such numbers aren’t sustainable for any nation, regardless of its wealth and generosity.

These figures point to a broader issue of national identity and resource allocation that even past Democratic leaders have acknowledged. Then-Sen. Barack Obama, in a 2005 interview, stated, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed similar sentiments during her Senate tenure when she noted, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Clinton emphasized the strain on public resources, saying, “People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” and called for stricter border enforcement. The issue of illegal immigration may be polarizing today, but once upon a time even Democrats had a sentiment similar to Republicans today.

Even the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas), a pioneering civil rights leader and chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, firmly believed in upholding the rule of law. In a 1995 speech, she stated, “It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” Jordan emphasized the need to limit illegal immigration to preserve social cohesion and ensure the country’s long-term stability.

Critics often accuse Trump and his allies of cruelty or xenophobia, but these accusations ignore the legitimate concerns about how illegal immigration strains public resources, disrupts social cohesion and devalues the lawful processes that millions of immigrants respect and follow. Trump’s decision to end birthright citizenship via executive order, regardless of its legal fate, sends a clear message: The United States cannot continue incentivizing illegal entry.

The sheer scale of illegal immigration poses questions about the long-term sustainability of American infrastructure and welfare systems. The fact that 250,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in a single year highlights the profound demographic and economic implications. These are children who, under current laws, gain automatic citizenship and access to taxpayer-funded benefits. While the moral imperative to care for children is undeniable, the broader question remains: at what cost to the integrity of the system?

Trump’s decisive actions, whether in negotiating with foreign leaders or confronting immigration issues head-on, have drawn both praise and ire. However, the numbers and the historical context provided by leaders across the ideological spectrum reveal that illegal immigration is not just a political talking point; it is a real and pressing challenge. Resolving it will require a combination of firm enforcement, legal reforms and a renewed commitment to the principles of fairness and sovereignty.

Love him or hate him, Trump’s ability to “get things done” is undeniable. The question for America is whether the nation’s leaders will adopt his boldness in addressing illegal immigration — a problem that, if left unchecked, threatens the very fabric of American democracy and the rule of law.

 

SCOTUS rejects Trump ICE protection! Egad! Law enforcement in the USA is in shambles!

 

Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Chicago as Alito Issues Scathing Dissent

12-26-25 americanconservatives.com

The Supreme Court made a profoundly questionable decision this week, blocking President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago in a 6-3 ruling that prioritizes legal technicalities over the safety of federal officers. Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent that exposes the majority’s flawed reasoning.

Let’s examine the facts. President Trump invoked a rarely used federal statute to federalize approximately 300 National Guard members for deployment to Chicago. The purpose was straightforward: protect federal immigration officers and personnel from violent agitators who were obstructing, assaulting, and threatening ICE agents attempting to execute federal law. The Trump administration’s position rested on a simple premise: Illinois Democratic leadership and local law enforcement were either unwilling or unable to address the escalating violence against federal officers.

Illinois sued, and lower courts blocked the deployment. The Supreme Court upheld those lower court decisions, finding that Trump had not satisfied the statutory requirement that the president can only deploy reserve forces when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Here is where the logic falls apart. The majority determined that “regular forces” means the U.S. military, not ICE or civilian law enforcement. Since Trump had not justified deploying the regular military domestically in Chicago, the majority concluded he had not exhausted that option before turning to the National Guard. This interpretation is absurd on its face. The administration was attempting to protect federal officers from violent attacks, and the Court essentially demanded that Trump first consider sending active-duty military forces into American cities before utilizing the National Guard.

Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, correctly identified this reasoning as “unwise” and “imprudent.” The majority accepted what Alito characterized as an “eleventh-hour argument” about the meaning of “regular forces” without proper consideration of the implications. Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a separate dissent, bringing the total opposition to three justices.

Alito’s dissent cuts to the heart of the matter: “Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted.”

This statement deserves emphasis. Regardless of one’s position on immigration enforcement, federal officers executing lawfully enacted federal statutes deserve protection from violence. The fact that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago’s Democratic leadership refused to provide adequate protection should have been sufficient justification for federal intervention.

The Department of Homeland Security specifically criticized Governor Pritzker for failing to respond proactively to chaotic anti-ICE protests in Broadview, Illinois. When state and local authorities abdicate their responsibility to maintain order and protect federal personnel, the federal government must have recourse.

The Supreme Court’s decision creates a dangerous precedent. By requiring the president to justify deploying active-duty military before utilizing National Guard forces, the Court has established a nearly impossible standard. No president would casually deploy active-duty military into American cities for domestic law enforcement purposes, given the political and practical implications. The majority has effectively created a catch-22 that prevents the federal government from protecting its own officers.

This ruling demonstrates how judicial overreach can hamstring executive authority even when that authority is being exercised for legitimate security purposes. The case will proceed through the courts, but in the meantime, federal officers in Chicago remain vulnerable to the very violence the National Guard deployment was meant to prevent.

The three dissenting justices understood what the majority apparently did not: protecting federal officers from lethal threats is not a partisan issue. It is a fundamental requirement of functional government.