It's amazing when 'Lawyers and Judges' legislate and implement federal immigration laws.

 

Rhode Island judge rules Trump admin is 'anti-immigrant' and bans block on asylum seekers from terrorist-harboring nations

McConnell claims that the administration's policies "were motivated by anti-immigrant animus" and not by national security concerns.

Libby Emmons Brooklyn NY Jun 6, 2026 thepostmellenial.com

 A federal judge in Rhode Island has decided that he, and not the federal government, is responsible to decide who should enter the United States and under what circumstances. Judge John James McConnell Jr., against whom impeachment has been sought by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, determined that the Department of Homeland Security is not permitted to pause asylum claims to the US.

 McConnell claimed in his ruling that the plaintiffs, in this case non-profit groups Dorcas International, Refugee Dream Center, Service Employees International Union, International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, African Communities Together, Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans and American Gateways, "have observed the legal processes that Congress enacted by statute and USCIS promulgated by regulation so that they may one day obtain immigration benefits."

He complained that though the plaintiffs "have, for example, filed the appropriate paperwork, paid the required filing fees, submitted to this requested biometrics collection and attended the necessary in person interview," they are now "stuck waiting, for months on end, for benefit requests that USCIS refuses to adjudicate."

In other words, those seeking entry into the United States are entitled to it and cannot be denied. McConnell stated that the federal government's immigration authority has "violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering, as well as the administrative laws that govern the agency's actions."

"Local judge says it’s illegal to restrict migration and that America actually belongs to 8 billion foreigners—not you or your family and that no matter who you vote for you will be dispossessed. If SCOTUS doesn’t restrain these judges the people will lose all faith in the courts," said White House aide Stephen Miller.

In making his ruling, McConnell claims that the administration's policies "were motivated by anti-immigrant animus" and not by national security concerns. He worried that those already in the US would be thrown into "indeterminate legal limbo." McConnell didn't believe DHS of the Secretary of State's assertions that those from these nations posed national security risks.

In June 2024, the Biden administration offered a sweeping mass amnesty to illegal immigrants, dismissing 77% of asylum cases without giving them either asylum or legal status. That resulted in hundreds of thousands of people who applied for asylum under Biden's lax rules staying in the country without their cases being heard or assessed.

 Biden had also changed the asylum rules, without Congressional approval, to allow asylum seekers to wait in the United States for their hearings, often years down the road. The administration claimed it was "prosecutorial discretion" to terminate the cases "without a decision on the merits."

McConnell has taken it upon himself to determine both the national security risks posed by nationals from nations where terrorism is harbored, encouraged, and flourishing, and to create a new bias category that he believes the government has fallen prey to, "anti-immigrant animus." 

The Trump administration had sought to bar asylum claims from 39 countries. President Donald Trump issued a proclamation restricting entry from nationals of those nations and suspended the entry to the US of nationals from 19 countries.

The proclamation states that the US has an obligation to protect her citizens from foreigners "who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security and public safety, incite hate crimes, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes." The Immigration Nationality Act gives the president the authority "to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens" when the president "finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

Those nations Trump wished to suspend from making asylum claims include Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma, Chas, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Suda, Syria, Yemen, Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Many exceptions to the rules were included. Many of these are nations that harbor terrorists and have animus and hatred for the United States.

McConnell has ruled against the Trump administration repeatedly. Appointed by President Obama, McConnell has ruled against the Department of Agriculture's plan to pause food benefits while Congress shut down the government, refusing to fund the programs. He ruled against Trump after the administration sought to revoke funds for public works projects in states that refused to follow federal immigration law.

In the impeachment resolution against him, he is accused of allowing "his personal, political opinions to influence his decisions and rulings." In 2021, he spoke about the processing of sentencing, saying "When you’re sentencing someone that you have to take a moment and realize that this you know middle class, white, male privileged person needs to understand the human being who comes before us that may be a woman or may be black maybe be transgender maybe poor maybe rich maybe whatever may had experiences but not yours and may have to walk in their shoes and understand that the law applies to them where they are um and then you have to apply the law accordingly."

 

If you have often asked yourself 'who or what is funding these devastating supposed protests', this article may answer your questions.

 

Democrat Senator has been funding left-wing group behind anti-ICE protests, mass unrest strategy

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., created a political committee that has funded the Indivisible Project, a group at the center of coordinating anti-ICE protests alongside anti-Israel, Marxist and left-wing organizations, several with questionable foreign actor relationships.

By Steven Richards justthenews.com 6-5-26

The political committee of Democratic Senator Chris Murphy — himself well versed in the "Resistance" talking points against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — is dedicated to resisting President Donald Trump and has funded a prominent left-wing nonprofit that has been at the center of highly organized, “mass mobilization” anti-ICE protests around the country.  

Murphy’s newly rebranded Political Action Committee, American Mobilization, donated $100,000 last year to Indivisible, a progressive movement and organization formed in the wake of Trump’s first election in 2016 and dedicated to resisting the Trump agenda, Federal Election Commission records for the PAC show.

Indivisible says that it “drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government” and it claims that “an alliance of white nationalists and the ultra-rich have been actively working to further undermine democracy.”

Indivisible is part of a network of left-wing organizations that have recently been at the center of various protest movements against the Trump administration, from being the lead organizer of the No Kings rallies, to anti-ICE protests, to opposing the U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this year. 

Network includes entities under subpoena regarding the Foreign Agent Registration Act

Some of its partners in this network, including the People’s Forum, funded by self-proclaimed Marxist Neville Roy Singham, have drawn scrutiny from lawmakers for alleged foreign ties, specifically to China and Cuba, as well as possible violations of nonprofit laws. This network has been responsible for organizing the most prominent demonstrations against the Trump administration. Just the News previously reported on the subpoena targeting Singham.

Murphy’s PAC has also partnered with organizations that provide legal representation to illegal immigrants in both Texas and Minnesota. Both states have been rocked by anti-ICE protests and alleged left-wing anarchist activity targeting immigration facilities. 

The American Mobilization PAC did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News. 

The Connecticut senator said the purpose behind the new PAC was to achieve “mass mobilization” to ensure that President Trump is unable to “convert a democracy to something very different.” 

“We may not have another election, at least a free and fair election, if we don’t stop this slide away from free speech and democracy quickly,” Murphy said. And what we know from history is that the only way to stop a, you know, would-be tyrant from cratering, from destroying a democracy is mass mobilization.” 

Murphy, who was first elected to the Senate in 2012, originally built a reputation in the chamber as a bipartisan operator willing to seek out deals with the other side. But, after President Trump returned to office last year, the senator went all in on a new, aggressively partisan message, a shift that he has publicly acknowledged. 

Murphy: "This threat is unique" 

“This may look a little schizophrenic, having gone from spending two years writing big bipartisan deals on guns or on immigration to now being out front in trying to fight for the survival of the democracy and using really tough language about my Republican colleagues,” Murphy told NBC News in an interview in March 2025. 

“I mean, every Democrat could just continue to run in the same direction they’ve been running for the last 10 years. Or you could realize that this moment is different, that this threat is unique—and to me, you know, we don’t have another year to fight this attempt to destroy democracy. Our democracy might be gone in six months,” he explained. 

The rebranded Murphy took to Instagram and Facebook, spending lavishly on ads, to boost his new message. His PAC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2025. Recipients include Democratic candidates across the country, immigrant rights groups, and environmental organizations, according to Federal Election Commission records for the PAC. 

Indivisible is unique as one of the single largest recipients of funds from Murphy’s PAC in 2025. In December 2025, the American Mobilization PAC donated $100,000 in two separate payments to Indivisible, one from its political account and one from its non-contribution account, records show. 

Murphy's own website confirms the partnership, describing the funds as going to help Indivisible "ramp up for their next chapter of work and build up durable mass mobilization capacity across the country," including "training staff and volunteers, paying for materials, recruiting volunteers, acquiring permits, and more." 

The Indivisible Project was the primary organizer for No Kings protests in 2025, coordinating demonstrations in nearly every U.S. state. The NoKings.org website identifies Indivisible as a founding coalition partner.

At the same time, its "Halt the ICE Terror Machine" campaign, was primarily geared towards pushing back on the administration’s enforcement actions in Minnesota last year, where confrontations between protesters and immigration officers resulted in two shootings. The Trump administration eventually scaled back its operations there in response to the pushback.

Years of strategic planning

Indivisible was again at the forefront of the latest round of organized anti-ICE demonstrations, this time in Newark, New Jersey, that have been ongoing for weeks, at Delaney Hall, the Newark, N.J., ICE detention facility. The local New York chapter of Indivisible teamed up with a coterie of anti-Israel, Marxist and Democratic organizations, including "Palestine Solidarity Working Group" to Al-Awda and 50501. 

A Fox News Digital investigation found that the protests there are far from a spontaneous demonstration of rage, but rather are the “result of years of strategic planning” by the network of groups seeking to exploit a local controversy to carry out a wider attack on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations. 

The operation bears other signs of advanced planning, including tents stocked with respirators, goggles, protective pads, and decontamination supplies, Fox News Digital reported.

Just the News has previously reported on the work of the at times amorphous network of protest groups and organizers that surface at such demonstrations. For example, the radical Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), the left-wing BreakThrough News media outlet, and the Manhattan-based Marxist revolutionary People’s Forum were all involved in either promoting or organizing Minnesota-based anti-ICE protests and boycotts. 

Murphy's American Mobilization Project represents a significant and deliberate shift for the Connecticut senator, from bipartisan dealmaker to financier of the activist left's protest infrastructure, whose organization is helping build, fund, and sustain a nationwide protest apparatus whose reach extends well beyond the Democratic mainstream Murphy long called home.

 

With Praise, Honor and Glory to 'All Gave Some, Some Gave All'!

 

D-Day Reminds Us Who the Real Public Servants Are

Another D-Day come and gone, and another reminder that veterans deserve the benefits that politicians give themselves.

J.B. Shurk | June 7, 2026 www.americanthinker.com 

Another D-Day anniversary has come and passed, yet the significance of the date lingers with me.  In some ways, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, receives greater commemoration than so many similarly heroic feats.  Americans had been fighting in the Pacific Theater for more than two years before arriving in France, and both the Battle of Midway and the Battle of Guadalcanal in the summer of ’42 saw some of the bloodiest combat and self-sacrifice of the entire war.  

Still, D-Day suitably binds those of us alive today to the brave generations who came before us.  As the largest seaborne invasion in history and the lynchpin to the hard work of overwhelming and ultimately defeating Nazi Germany, thoughts of our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers storming exploding beaches covered in barbed wire while taking heavy fire from all directions remain indelible reminders that the men who fought for our freedom were of nobler, sturdier stock than most alive today.

Those men were a different breed altogether.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting quite a few over the years, and one of the first things you notice about the warriors from that generation is that they have no interest in singing their own praises.  They do not seek recognition — and certainly not adulation.  Nor do they describe lightly what they witnessed.  I think most would stop talking after merely acknowledging, “I was there.”  I’ve always interpreted that soft declaration as a polite reminder that those who read about history do not know what history feels like when the blood of fallen friends suddenly streaks across one’s face.  It is also, I think, part of an enduring promise to those friends who were lost: that their final moments will be reverently guarded and kept from prying eyes.  The living witnesses remain on duty until their final breath.

It is a very different mentality to the one we often see today.  Politicians who served in the military are particularly flashy while running for office.  Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal told Connecticut voters that he had fought in the Vietnam War, when he had, in fact, never left U.S. soil as a Marine reservist.  Maine’s Democrat senatorial candidate, Graham Platner, has such little respect for fellow warriors that he mocked Purple Heart recipient Ted Daniels for heroically shielding his squad during combat in Afghanistan by drawing enemy fire toward himself.  Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton (whose father has been staging his run for the presidency since he was a freshman in college) likes to show pictures of himself holding a rifle in Iraq as some kind of quasi-patriotic proof that his desire to gut the Second Amendment and disarm American citizens should be taken seriously.  These Democrats have nothing in common with the brave men who fought and died during WWII.

When important dates such as D-Day arrive on the calendar, I cannot help but think of the courage and sense of duty that inspired so many great men to lay down their lives in service to their country. 

Politicians and government bureaucrats often call themselves “public servants.”  I mean no disrespect to the good civil workers out there, but in my experience, those who are most eager to describe themselves as “servants” tend to behave more as masters.  It’s not just the three Democrat politicians I’ve mentioned above, who have used their military service as a springboard for obtaining higher office (following the John Kerry guide to exploiting the courage of others for personal political gain). 

Members of Congress, in general, cannot be confused for “public servants.”  Public servants don’t become wealthy by using their insider knowledge from secret committee meetings to make stock trades.  Public servants don’t force overpriced, subpar Obamacare on citizens while awarding themselves top-shelf medical insurance coverage.  Public servants don’t authorize warrantless, unconstitutional electronic surveillance of all Americans while creating lucrative causes of action for themselves should the Intelligence Community decide to spy on lawmakers, as well as citizens.  Public servants don’t vote on their salaries, perquisites, and retirement benefits while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet.

Likewise, the vast army of government bureaucrats don’t behave as public servants either.  For several decades now, our “public servants” have been better paid than their counterparts in the private sector.  Because of self-dealing public union agreements and quid-pro-quo collusion between lawmakers and bureaucrats, an arcane system of rules and regulations makes it incredibly difficult to fire even the most indolent and useless of government “workers.”  Our bureaucratic “public servants” have better pensions and health benefits than the average American.  

Taken together, would it not be more accurate to call a taxpaying American citizen in the private sector a “servant” of our public officials?  After all, if somewhere between a third to half of your income is deducted from your paychecks in the form of local, state, and federal taxes, does that not indicate that you work for the government for four to six months each calendar year?  Is that not just a non-violent and socially accepted form of modern slavery?  However one sees this relationship from the average taxpayer’s point of view, our so-called “public servants” are beneficiaries of a generous transfer of wealth, prestige, power, and privilege from supposedly self-governing citizens to the self-described governing “experts” who laughably refer to this imbalanced arrangement as “our democracy.”

This insulting inversion of what it means to be a servant of the public is all the more vulgar when compared to the authentic sacrifice members of the military make for the American people.  It seems to me that we would all be better off if some of the salary and benefits awarded to the average cubicle king in D.C. were siphoned off and rerouted to those warriors’ families still paying the personal price for their loved ones’ commitment to real public service.

To no one’s surprise, both veterans and active members of the armed forces do not tend to plume their own feathers or seek new government benefits.  They struggle with the health effects from having been exposed to toxic agents during combat.  They struggle with the loss of friends.  They struggle with suicidal thoughts.  Some struggle to keep a job and find a home.  And if they were members of Congress, government bureaucrats, or part of just about any recognized “victim class” in American society, their stories would be front-page news.  We would organize support groups and fundraisers.  We would go street-by-street and door-by-door checking on those who put their lives on the line when it mattered most.  We would invite them into our homes and make sure that they left with full bellies and warm coats.  

The public servants most deserving of our attention, however, receive none of the rewards that our self-described “public servants” enjoy.  In fact, members of Congress often work extra-hard to make sure that our veterans’ names are added to red-flag lists depriving them of their most basic right to self-defense — one of the unalienable personal rights that our veterans fought to preserve.

How does that make sense?  It doesn’t.  Unless you force yourself to step into the boots of the kind of man who clawed his way through the sands of Normandy to establish beachheads amidst chaos.  That kind of man rarely asks for anything.  Because when you survive hell, it’s difficult to recognize that hell has a way of following you home.  It’s difficult to recognize invisible wounds when physical injuries claimed friends on the battlefield.  It’s difficult to take someone else’s help when you are the one who usually offers it.  

D-Day is an anniversary we should commemorate by honoring America’s true public servants every single day. (Image via Picryl.)

 

When a Democrat Governor does this type of action - there must be a hidden agenda.

 

Colorado governor vetoes legislation allowing ICE to be sued

The Democratic governor’s veto comes amidst a series of vetoes against

By Liam Hibbert | The Center Square contributor justthenews.com

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis had vetoed a Democrat-backed bill that would have allowed citizens to sue immigration enforcement officers for civil rights violations.

The Democratic governor’s veto Wednesday comes amidst a series of vetoes against legislation passed by his own party. Questions of constitutionality surrounded the immigration enforcement lawsuits bill.

“I applaud the sponsors of this legislation for tackling this critical issue,” Polis wrote in his explanation of the veto. “Unfortunately, after careful consideration, I believe the legal risks of the actual language in SB 26-005 outweigh the potential benefits.”

The Rights Violation in Immigration Enforcement Remedy bill, Senate Bill 26-005, would have allowed Colorado citizens to sue federal agents who violated their civil rights while participating in civil immigration enforcement. Any legal action against federal officers would need to take place within two years of the alleged violation.

The Colorado bill came in reaction to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's crackdown on illegal immigrants across the country in Democrat-led cities. The bill was introduced before the highly publicized killings of U.S. citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good by ICE, U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents in Minneapolis. President Donald Trump said the killings should not have happened.

Wider legal questions about SB 26-005 have focused on its effort to govern federal officials. The bill could have presented a potential violation of supremacy law in the U.S., which says that contradictory local laws are trumped by federal law, according to the Constitution Center. Recent legislation in other states, such as a California law to require federal agents wear identification, have been blocked for supremacy clause violations.

Polis’ issue with the lawsuit bill, however, was that its focus was too narrow.

“This bill doesn't apply to any other context besides civil immigration enforcement - including rights violations in protests, elections, prisons, or the workplace,” said Polis. “For example, even in the narrow context of immigration, the bill doesn't cover violations of constitutional rights during criminal investigations in immigration.”

Polis added that he would have been more likely to support a more expansive federal official lawsuits bill. In fact, one was proposed in the Colorado General Assembly or legislature, SB 26-176, but several Democratic lawmakers joined Republican colleagues to quash the measure.

“Unfortunately, and despite the sponsors' admirable and tireless work to move that bill forward, it died in the process due to overly intense and misleading lobbying from local governments and public entities,” Polis said of SB 26-176.

Polis, who has a reputation for being a centrist or moderate Democrat, has split from the Colorado Democratic Party on several major issues in the wake of his last legislative session in office, including the commutation of Tina Peters, who was convicted of election tampering.

“Reducing her sentence now, under pressure from Donald Trump, is not justice,” the Colorado Democratic Party said in a statement on Peters’ commutation. “It sends a message to future bad actors that election tampering has consequences, unless you’re friends with the president.”

The state Democratic Party removed Polis as a speaker at multiple upcoming party-organized events.

The Colorado Democratic Party did not respond to The Center Square's request for an interview.