'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.

 

Some serious food for thought!

 

You’re in an abusive relationship with your phone

And AI is only going to make things worse.

Steve Scott | March 22, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

Imagine a partner who interrupts you dozens of times a day — not for anything important, just to make sure you’re still paying attention.  A partner who punishes you with anxiety the moment you try to create distance, then rewards you just often enough to keep you coming back.  A funny text.  A hit of good news.  A partner who has slowly, over years, replaced your ability to think your own thoughts with dependence on this person’s constant input.

If a person treated you this way, your friends would stage an intervention.

You are in this relationship right now.  So are 300 million other Americans.  And the aggregate effect of that fact explains more about our national dysfunction than any policy debate in Washington.

Strip the euphemism that your phone is a “productivity tool” and consider what it actually does.

It demands your attention constantly.  Reviews.org found that the average American checked his phone 205 times a day in 2024.  The number dropped to 186 in 2025.  That’s still once every seven minutes during waking hours.  No human being in your life makes that kind of claim on your attention.  Only an abusive partner operates this way, calling during meetings, texting during dinner, requiring you to demonstrate availability on command.

It manipulates you with variable rewards.  Most checks yield nothing.  But occasionally, something lights up the reward circuit: a message that matters, a piece of news that spikes your adrenaline.  This is the slot machine pattern.  It bonds you for the same reason intermittent reinforcement bonds abuse victims to their abusers.  Consistent reward creates satisfaction.  Inconsistent reward creates obsession.

It punishes you for pulling away.  University of Missouri researchers found that iPhone separation produced measurable increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and anxiety.  A 2017 study applied Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Test — originally designed to measure infant attachment to caregivers — to adults separated from their phones.  It found proximity-seeking behavior, physiological stress, and attentional bias toward separation cues.  That’s not habit.  That’s attachment at the level of your nervous system.

It erodes your independent judgment. You no longer know what you think about the news until you’ve checked what your feed thinks.  You absorb a position and adopt it.  An abusive partner replaces your judgment with his so gradually that you never notice the transfer.  A population experiencing that transfer simultaneously has outsourced self-governance to an algorithm.

Here’s what makes this harder than recognizing a bad relationship with a person: The bond is biochemical.  Your dopamine system responds most powerfully to unpredictable rewards.  Every app on your home screen has been optimized by behavioral scientists to deliver the ratio of disappointment to payoff that produces not satisfaction, but compulsion.  The same mechanism that keeps a gambler at the slot machine keeps you reaching for your pocket.

I’m old enough to remember driving around all day without a phone.  I was in sales, the one profession where constant availability was supposedly non-negotiable.  Deals closed.  Clients survived the wait.  The fact that this now sounds like heroism tells you how far the baseline has shifted.

We keep asking why Americans can’t evaluate evidence or tolerate disagreement without treating it as violence.  Maybe the better question is why we’d expect that from a population neurochemically bonded to a device that profits from the opposite.  The Founders designed a republic for people who could sit with a pamphlet for an hour and think.  We can’t sit with a thought for thirty seconds without reaching for a screen.

If you doubt the hold, try one thing: Put your phone in another room for an hour and notice what your body does.  The restlessness.  The phantom vibration.  The pull to go check, even though nothing urgent is waiting.  That’s withdrawal.

We talk endlessly about what’s wrong with America.  The collapsing attention spans.  The ideological capture.  Maybe the diagnosis starts closer to home.  Maybe it’s in the other room, buzzing.

And here’s what should keep you up tonight: the smartphone is the primitive version.  Artificial intelligence is already replacing not just your attention, but your capacity to reason, to write, to evaluate what’s true.  A population that couldn’t master a phone is about to be handed tools that make the smartphone look like a rotary dial.  Whether anyone will think clearly enough to govern their use depends on whether we master our own minds before the next wave arrives.

No technology can give you that mastery.  It requires something older and harder, even spiritual: the willingness to govern yourself by your own values and judgment rather than your next notification.  So far, the evidence is not encouraging.

One great countries across the planet are now a total wreck because of mass illegal immigration. The future looks bleak!

 

The U.K. and Canada seem hellbent on their own assisted national suicide

What else can one conclude from some recent government actions?

Eric Utter | March 20, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

According to a PJ Media report, a British teacher lost his job and was banned "from teaching altogether after reasonably arguing against mass illegal migration to his country.”

Sam Everett, the teacher, had recently expressed his opinion on social media that the British Navy should be enlisted to stop the unending invasion of third-world migrant men coming to the U.K. in small boats.

Everett, a physical education teacher in Darlington, once also had the temerity to state that illegal aliens should “respect our laws or leave.”

What a radical! What kind of monster wants people to respect the laws of the land?

An independent panel was promptly assembled to investigate the crazed educator. The panel subsequently recommended that Everett be allowed to retain his job and found that he was not guilty of racism. Or any other kind of “ism” for that matter. Numerous colleagues praised his record.

But the U.K. government, with the intrepid Keir Starmer at the helm, would have none of it. Independent panels be damned, Britain’s Department for Education (DfE) eschewed the panel’s findings, ignored the evidence, and imposed a comprehensive ban on Everett that could prevent him from ever teaching again.

Meanwhile, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, the Fairview School has banned all food in its cafeteria and lunchroom to respect Ramadan.

The U.K. -- and its similarly deranged dominion, Canada -- are off their respective rockers.

They have it in for themselves, bigly … to the point that they may well eventually become — even if inadvertently — a serious threat to the United States and the security and existence of the free world.

They are not only weak links as regards NATO, but appear to be actively seeking their own destruction, by inviting the Muslim world in and/or cottoning to communist China.

This will have to be addressed at some point if things don’t take a U-turn in the near future. Islam— and communism — are absolutely incompatible with a free, prosperous, democratic society or republic. It is one or the other.

This is terribly sad, and, in a sane world, would have been easily avoidable, but nonetheless here we are. Both the U.K. and Canada are far down a road that ought not have been travelled.

“Cartels to the south of us, morons to the north, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. ”