This post describes one of the most horrific examples of crime against humanity by the previous administration.

 

The party of 300,000 abandoned and abused children

The Biden-Harris administration created a nightmare, and the reckoning is only just coming.

Monty L. Donohew | June 17, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

In Rotherham, England, between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 children, many as young as 11, were systematically groomed, raped, trafficked, beaten, and passed around by networks of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage.  Local authorities, police, and social services knew.  They documented the horrors: girls doused in gasoline, threatened with guns, gang-raped as a routine “lifestyle choice.”  Yet they did nothing meaningful.  The reason, laid bare in the Jay Report and subsequent inquiries, was fear of being labeled racist.  Community cohesion and political correctness trumped the protection of vulnerable white working-class girls.

The Biden-Harris administration created an eerily similar nightmare, only on a vastly larger scale.  Hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied migrant children were funneled into the United States, rushed through an intentionally broken system, and released to unvetted sponsors, many based on fraudulent documents or single addresses housing dozens of unrelated minors. 

A DHS inspector general report exposed massive failures and obvious signals: tens of thousands of missing court dates, hundreds of thousands without proper Notices to Appear, and a complete systemic failure to track or protect these minors.  Official estimates and inspector general reports put the number of lost or unaccounted-for children at 300,000 or more. 

The scale of the influx and the glaring signs of trafficking were obvious to anyone with access to the data.  Children later recovered in raids were, not surprisingly, found in sex-trafficking rings, forced labor operations, and abusive placements, often in sanctuary jurisdictions like New York and Chicago that shielded illegal migrants without regard for child safety.  Taxpayer-funded NGOs accelerated the pipeline.  Congressional hearings and whistleblowers called it negligent at best, criminal facilitation at worst. 

Recent Trump administration efforts have located over 146,000 of the lost children, exposing with horrific clarity the widespread trafficking, rape, and exploitation.  DHS secretary Markwayne Mullin stated bluntly that investigators are examining reports of children “raped 600 to 700 times.”  He noted that roughly one third of girls were sexually assaulted en route, suggesting that as many as 50,000 girls were violated before America intentionally surrendered them as helpless victims to others. 

Super-sponsors claiming dozens of unrelated children, along with indictments of Guatemalan smugglers using fake identities, reveal the “stuff of nightmares”: children funneled to predators under the permissive gaze of an administration that equated border enforcement with racism.

In Rotherham, fear of “Islamophobia” paralyzed institutions.  In the U.S., fear of appearing “anti-immigrant,” combined with sanctuary policies and open-border incentives, created a cartel pipeline for predators.  In both cases, vulnerable children became collateral damage to a mendacious political narrative.

Because enforcement of immigration law was branded racist by the Biden-Harris administration and much of the Democrat party, carefully tracking minors could only aid enforcement.  So the administration shrugged. 

Policies deliberately limited data-sharing between HHS/ORR and enforcement agencies, hampering welfare checks and enabling dangerous placements.  Political imperatives, demographic leverage, reduced detention optics, and resistance to interior enforcement outweighed child safety protocols written into law.

Although the precise mechanisms differed in the British and American scandals, the outcome converged: Predators operated with impunity while officials prioritized optics over protection.  The parallels are damning.  Ideological blinders and institutional cowardice sacrificed innocents on the altar of narrative.

The Rotherham scandal was not isolated.  Similar horrors unfolded in Telford (up to 1,000 victims), Rochdale, Oxford, and beyond.  Decades later, Britain still grapples with the cancerous legacy: new inquiries, protests, and belated admissions of systemic denial.  The body count of shattered lives speaks for itself.

America’s version of this ideological cancer is still in its early stages of diagnosis and treatment, but the symptoms are unmistakable.  As inspectors general, congressional reports, legitimate journalists, and lawyers dig deeper, the scope will metastasize.  The useful idiots, propagandists, and corrupt officials, who knew or should have known the abuse was rampant, will continue sowing doubt, hoping the scandal fades without touching them.  But like in Britain, the extent of human devastation we see now will one day pale in comparison to what emerges over time.

Chillingly, the true magnitude may never be known.  The most corrupt will deny reality.  Subverted legal systems and protections have permitted evidence destruction and plausible deniability.  Many children lost may never be found.  The horrors of some of those who died in abuse and were subsequently discarded will remain unknown.  Some victims will simply never be identified or rescued.

There can be no greater dehumanization than a government sacrificing a population's lives and safety for power or political narrative.  Minors were reduced to instruments, their suffering collateral in a strategy of lax borders and obstructed accountability.  A government claiming moral authority on human rights simply cannot abandon oversight, enable predators, and shield the system from scrutiny.

The resulting anger is righteous.  How many more victims, American or migrant, must endure horror before elites admit that open-border ideology and selective enforcement create predation pipelines?

Restoring deterrence, dismantling sanctuary policies, enforcing rigorous vetting, and applying colorblind law enforcement are not radical demands.  These are the absolute minimum requirements necessary to protect American and migrant children.  Anything less is systematic, wholesale facilitation of mass-scale child trafficking and sexual abuse. 

These horrors were preventable, the direct result of deliberate policy choices. Every decent person should be horrified, outraged, and demanding answers.

Biden-era officials, their NGO partners, and the media apologists who sanitized these policies must never again be trusted with power.  They should be stripped of credibility as critics, commentators, and public voices.  No more book deals, sinecures, or speaking fees profiting from their complicity.  Every prominent figure who weaponized Jeffrey Epstein against political opponents now owes the public a full accounting for his willful blindness to this far larger predatory system operating in plain sight.

Recall Watergate: A third-rate burglary and cover-up triggered resignations, indictments, and a president driven from office.  Dozens of senior officials were purged from public life because the scandal demanded it.

Why does the documented rape, exploitation, and death of even a single migrant child in America, not to mention the tens of thousands lost to the void, fail to produce the same outrage? 

Some political sins carry a moral weight so grave that civilized society has a duty to remember the betrayal and never again entrust the guilty with authority.  This is one of them.  The reckoning cannot wait.

The writer of this outstanding article explains the fallacies of mass immigration and its horrific consequences.

 

Borders, Babies, and Civilizational Survival

Ordinary citizens in western countries are being lectured to and shamed by leftists because we object to vast numbers of immigrants from second and third-world countries. 

Kevin Finn | June 15, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

Another Sunday and the congregation of my church was subjected to yet another homily from a left-wing priest lecturing us on how being a good Christian means we support open borders, and failing to welcome all strangers is antithetical to what Jesus taught.

This particular priest is not unique.

Ordinary citizens in western countries are being lectured to and shamed by leftists because we object to vast numbers of immigrants from 2nd and 3rd-world countries who have no desire to assimilate, who prey on our women and children, commit massive fraud, and place unsustainable drains on our resources.

The elites tell us we need immigrants because we face declining native birth rates, which are well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. They promote mass immigration as the remedy to sustain populations, and economies. However, evidence from sources across the political spectrum reveals this as a shortsighted strategy that fails to address root causes, strains social cohesion, and often results in unassimilated populations that create new problems while serving as a tool for expanding dependent voter bases.

Immigration does not sustainable solve low fertility. Immigrants' higher initial birth rates often converge to host-country lows within one or two generations. A Population Research Institute analysis noted that global fertility is declining, shrinking the pool of potential high-fertility migrants, and that immigration acts as a temporary band-aid rather than a cure. In Czechia, a post-2022 surge of Ukrainian refugees coincided with a 25% drop in native births, despite prior post-natalist policies boosting fertility to 1.83. Cultural disruption, housing pressures, and political polarization -- older voters turning right, younger ones embracing anti-natalist views -- appear to exacerbate the decline.

Switzerland's upcoming referendum on capping its population at 10 million highlights these tensions. Their population has surged from 7.3 million in 2002 to over 9 million today, driven largely by immigration. This has pressured housing, infrastructure, and national identity. The Swiss People's Party frames it as preserving Swiss culture against "creeping Islamization" and non-assimilating expatriates, while critics warn of economic harm. Foreign nationals comprise 27% of the population -- greatly exceeding the EU average -- yet fertility stands at 1.3. Reports as of Sunday afternoon indicate that the vote has failed.

Beyond demographics, conservatives argue that immigration policies enlarge a dependent voter base. Unskilled or low-assimilating inflows can increase reliance on welfare, shifting electoral dynamics toward parties (guess which one!) favoring expansive government. This creates a feedback loop: more dependents, more votes for expansive government policies, further straining natives who fund the system while facing competition for jobs, housing, and services.

We've seen what happens when large numbers of immigrants choose not to assimilate. Immigrants from culturally distant regions form parallel societies, rejecting host norms. This has fueled horrific crimes. In the UK, grooming gangs -- predominantly men of Pakistani heritage -- systematically raped and exploited thousands of vulnerable young white girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and elsewhere. Authorities often turned a blind eye due to fears of "racism," with inquiries revealing institutional failures spanning years. Reports link political calculations, including under Keir Starmer's time as Director of Public Prosecutions, to delayed or soft-pedaled prosecutions.

Similar patterns appear elsewhere. In Sweden and other Western European cities, no-go zones and gang violence tied to migrant communities have transformed safe cities. Belfast saw riots after a Sudanese immigrant was charged in a knife attack. Houses and businesses were torched, and politicians blamed "thuggery" but ignored public frustration over the public's border concerns and prior stabbings.

In Scotland, a 12-year-old girl was arrested and vilified after defending herself with a knife and axe against a Bulgarian man who sexually harassed her ("Come here, sexy") and assaulted her, pushing her into a handrail. He filmed it, claimed racial abuse, and authorities initially sided with him until CCTV and a court vindicated the girls. His sister assaulted the victim's sibling. This case was amplified by Elon Musk, and exposed misplaced priorities favoring migrants over native children.

Citizens are pushing back. The Scottish girl's vindication, Belfast unrest, and Sweden's shifting politics reflect growing resistance to unchecked inflows and elite denial. Switzerland's vote tests whether prosperity and identity can coexist with rapid demographic change.

Evolutionary psychologist Gad Saad warns of "suicidal empathy" -- excessive, unbounded compassion that prioritizes outsiders over citizens, eroding self-preservation. Rooted in cultural relativism and a view of the West as uniquely sinful, it leads to policies ignoring trade-offs: admitting those incompatible with Western values, downplaying crime to avoid "Islamophobia," or favoring migrants over veterans and taxpayers. Saad argues this hyper-empathy, weaponized by bad actors, risks civilizational collapse, as seen in post October 7 shifts or the absurdities of gender ideologies. The West's miracle of liberty and prosperity requires moderated empathy, not suicide.

There are, surprisingly, occasional wise words from Catholic leaders such as these and these.  Even Pope Leo was able to utter some words of wisdom that affirmed human dignity without open borders, emphasizing the rule of law and prudent enforcement.

Using immigration to fix falling births imports demographic and cultural challenges without resolving them. It risks social fragmentation, elevated crime from non-assimilators, and political manipulation via dependency. Nations must prioritize native family formation through pro-natal policies, cultural confidence, and selective, assimilative immigration -- not endless inflows that dilute identity and strain empathy's limits.

This post is extremely important and should be read by as many people as possible!

 

Supreme Court nears end of term with several high-profile cases still pending

Perhaps no case this term has attracted more public attention than the challenge to Trump’s executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas.

By Just the News Contributor justhenews.com 6-14-26

The Supreme Court has been busy this term, issuing dozens of opinions, but it appears the justices are saving the best for last. 

The court’s most closely watched cases remain undecided as the term draws to a close, with 20 outstanding opinions still to come on some of the most consequential issues of the day: presidential removal authority, campaign finance regulations, immigration policy, election law, and transgender participation in school sports.

Trump v. Slaughter: Presidential Removal Authority

One of the remaining cases, Trump v. Slaughter, concerns whether the president may remove members of certain independent federal agencies without cause.

The dispute arose after President Trump removed Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter argues that federal law permits removal of FTC commissioners only for specified causes, while the administration contends that such restrictions unconstitutionally limit the president’s executive authority.

The stakes extend well beyond the FTC. If the high court sides with the administration, it could effectively gut the independence of numerous independent agencies including the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade and Securities and Exchange commissions.

Trump v. Cook: Federal Reserve Board Member Removal

In a similar case, Trump v. Cook, the Court is considering whether the president lawfully removed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

The Federal Reserve Act provides that members of the Board of Governors may be removed only “for cause.” Trump fired Cook in August 2025, with the administration pointing to allegations – disputed by Cook – that she had misrepresented her residency on a mortgage application years before her appointment. Lower courts blocked the removal, and the Supreme Court took up the case on an expedited basis. 

During oral arguments, the court appeared skeptical of Cook’s position, with several justices questioning whether courts could even review the president’s removal decisions in this context. 

NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Limits

Legal scholars have described NRSC v. FEC as potentially the most significant campaign finance ruling since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. 

The case, brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee along with its House counterpart and originally championed by then-Sen. JD Vance, challenges Federal Election Commission regulations that cap the amount political parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates.

The plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment by limiting political parties’ ability to support their candidates. The Federal Election Commission maintains that the limits help prevent circumvention of contribution restrictions and reduce the risk of corruption.

The case has attracted significant attention because of its potential implications for federal campaign finance law.

Watson v. Republican National Committee: When Votes Count

With the midterm elections approaching in November, Watson v. Republican National Committee carries immediate significance. 

The case challenges a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days afterward. Republican leaders argue this so-called “grace period” violates federal statutes establishing a single national Election Day.

The ruling could set a de facto national standard for mail-in voting, potentially invalidating similar grace-period laws in multiple states. Since 2020, debates over mail ballot deadlines have become a flashpoint in election litigation, and a decision here could reshape the rules of the road for the November elections, with almost no time for states to adjust.

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.: Transgender Athletes 

The court is also poised to decide a pair of landmark Title IX cases involving transgender girls and women in school sports. 

Little v. Hecox involves an Idaho law banning transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams, while West Virginia v. B.P.J. raises similar questions from that state. The cases present the court with a direct question about Title IX: Do state laws categorically excluding transgender females from women’s sports violate the federal statute?

The cases have drawn intense advocacy from both sides, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs. A ruling is expected to have sweeping national implications, potentially determining whether transgender athletes across all 50 states can participate in school sports consistent with their gender identity, or whether states have broad latitude to set their own rules.

Trump v. Barbara: Birthright Citizenship at the Crossroads

Perhaps no case before the court this term has attracted more public attention than Trump v. Barbara, the challenge to Trump’s executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas. The order, signed on Inauguration Day 2025, targeted a right that the 14th Amendment has been widely understood to guarantee since the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The case was argued on April 1, 2026, and the president himself attended. 

Several justices pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on how the executive branch could unilaterally reinterpret a constitutional provision that courts have consistently applied for more than a century. 

The phrase at issue – “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – has long been understood to cover virtually all children born on U.S. soil, and a majority appeared skeptical of the administration’s effort to narrow it. But in an era of legal surprises, few are willing to count the government out entirely.

Mullin v. Miot: The Fate of Hundreds of Thousands

Argued in late April, the consolidated cases Mullin v. Dahlia Doe and Trump v. Miot will determine whether the administration lawfully revoked Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and 6,100 Syrian nationals currently living in the United States. 

Such protection is granted to individuals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated both designations, concluding that conditions had changed sufficiently to justify removal.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices focused on whether federal courts have any power to review TPS termination decisions at all, a position that, if adopted, would effectively bar judicial oversight of future decisions affecting more than a million immigrants currently living under the program.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: The Right to Seek Asylum

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court is weighing a challenge to the government's now-defunct “metering” policy, under which Customs and Border Protection officers physically turned away asylum seekers at ports of entry, requiring them to wait, sometimes indefinitely, on the Mexican side of the border before being permitted to present themselves for inspection. 

The policy was declared unlawful by the Ninth Circuit, but the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.

The question is whether asylum seekers who have reached a port of entry but have not yet physically crossed onto U.S. soil have “arrived in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act – and therefore cannot be turned away without processing. The ruling could shape the legal architecture of border enforcement for years to come.

The Retirement Question Hanging Over Everything

As if the opinions themselves were not enough, the term may conclude with an even larger bombshell: a retirement announcement from one or more sitting justices.

Speculation has swirled for months around Justices Samuel Alito, 76, and Clarence Thomas, who turns 78 later this month – the court's two oldest conservatives. 

Each has served for decades, and with a Republican president and a GOP-controlled Senate in place, some Republicans have publicly urged both men to step down while a sympathetic administration can confirm their replacements. Trump has indicated that he is prepared to fill vacancies if they arise. 

Yet the retirement picture remains murky. Sources described as close to Alito have told reporters he is not planning to step down. And Alito’s forthcoming memoir – due out in October, around the start of the next term – has been read by some observers as a sign he intends to stay. Thomas, for his part, has indicated in various settings that he has no plans to retire.

A retirement announcement before the November elections, which could result in Democrats take control of the Senate from Republicans, would set off one of the most consequential confirmation battles in modern history.

Looking Ahead

The court has a busy month ahead, with sweeping decisions on executive power, election administration, campaign finance, immigration, and civil rights all still to come. The end of the 2025–26 term is sure to leave a deep mark on federal law.