Sanctuary Cities have suffered the horrific consequences of their actions. DHS/ICE intend to stop this insanity!

 

Tom Homan Steps In After Officers In Sanctuary City Targeted For Helping ICE

By  Amanda Prestigiacomo Mar 29, 2025 DailyWire.com

"Help is coming!"

Trump border czar Tom Homan said this week that he will fully support the local police officers who are being targeted for helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE personnel in a New York sanctuary city.

Officers from the Rochester Police Department (RPD) are being targeted by Rochester’s Democrat Mayor Malik Evans and Police Chief David Smith for responding to a call for backup from ICE agents on Monday, and allegedly handcuffing individuals when on the scene. The department has even opened an internal investigation into the matter.

“The officers on the scene verbally directed the occupants to get out of the vehicle, and this is against our policy,” Mayor Evans said at a press conference this week, 13 WHAM News reported.

“Our policy is crystal clear. City police officers do not help or participate in federal immigration activities,” Evans said, referring to sanctuary city policy. “Every RPD officer — I’ve instructed the chief — every officer receives more training on general orders to make sure all members are fully aware and fully understand this policy.”

“From watching the body-worn camera footage, what is concerning to me is despite the fact that we were called, we went lights and sirens,” Chief Smith said. “I see in the video a total lack of urgency on the part of multiple Border Patrol officers at the scene.”

“We are not to be handcuffing subjects,” he said. “We are not to be doing pat frisks on subjects, and we are absolutely not going to be detaining them or putting them into our cars.”

Homan has repeatedly offered his support for these officers who helped ICE, saying that he’s planning to come to Rochester and that “help is coming.”

“I stand with the officers of the Rochester, New York Police Department that answered the emergency assistance call from the U.S Border Patrol,” the border czar said in a statement on X. “The men and women of the Border Patrol have never refused the request for assistance from any law enforcement agency when they are available. That is the way it should be. Law enforcement officers should not be abandoned in the time of need because of politics.”

“Sanctuary policies endanger our police and the public,” he added. “President Trump and AG Pam Bondi are committed to taking them on and so am I. Help is coming!”

According to the Rochester Police Locust Club, Homan said during a conference in Nashville, Tennessee, that he’s “coming to Rochester.”

 

Deportation of illegal aliens has its rewards!

 

Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out

By Monica Showalter www.americanthinker.com

There are ordinary illegal aliens, very undesirable illegal aliens, and then there is Leonel Moreno.

The former Chavista sergeant in Venezuela's military intelligence unit known for torturing dissidents, who sneeringly flashed his taxpayer cash and urged other migrants to start squatting on American properties in videos, has gotten himself repatriated back to his motherland.

This is the moment Leonel Moreno, the illegal migrant TikToker who was waving around cash handouts and encouraging fellow illegal border crossers to squat in American homes, landed back in Venezuela this week on a Trump admin deportation flight.

A Maduro regime official said… pic.twitter.com/s0Rf5bpvBv

— Jennie Taer 🎗️ (@JennieSTaer) March 28, 2025

Remember this?

NEW: The illegal immigrant influencer who was coaching other illegals on how to squat in American homes, has been deported to Venezuela.

The ultimate FAFO.

Leonel Moreno was seen giving a "thumbs up" while being escorted off the plane.

He illegally crossed the border under… pic.twitter.com/m3AN0X9UaL

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 28, 2025

BREAKING: Illegal migrant influencer Leonel Moreno has been deported pic.twitter.com/UxlLbamvHF

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 28, 2025

Which is only right. No civilized society can survive intact with his values -- ingratitude, mockery, and effectively, stealing -- all to demonstrate hatred of the United States. While these values are Chavista values, they were also a faithful execution of Chavista intentions for America, to inflict criminals and criminal rule on the U.S., dismantle rule of law, and break the Treasury of the U.S. government.

In other words, he was a walking, talking, illustration of the Alien Enemies Act, which President Trump has invoked to mass-ship illegals back to their homelands.

It's probably pretty telling that in one of the tweets, it was noted that the freak was forced to ride in a place by himself on the airplane home, based on the other migrants not being able to stand him as well as believing that his antics caused their repatriation. If that's the case, then he probably was doing what he did on Chavista orders, which once again, is grounds for Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act.

Whatever the situation was, it's heartening to see this lowlife returned to his natural homeland and made to live there. If he returns, one can hope he finds himself on a one-way flight to El Salvador's anti-terrorism prison.

In the meantime, one can take satisfaction in the fact that the Trump administration knows what it's doing and is picking all the right ones for the first flights back.

 

Citizenship in the greatest country on the planet, is an extremely important subject. It should not be taken lightly!

 

There is no birthright citizenship for illegal aliens

By Richard Blakley www.americanthinker.com

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” was one of President Trump’s first executive orders.  The order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” but the Fourteenth Amendment “has always excluded” persons born in the U.S. but not “‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”  President Trump’s order quotes Congressional legislation, 8 U.S. Code § 1401, that specifies that the 14th Amendment is speaking to “‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States.”

Trump’s order has been blocked by four federal judges, leading NPR’s fake news headline to read, “Trump wants to end birthright citizenship.” CBS writes “What is birthright citizenship, and can Trump end the constitutional right in the U.S.?”  CNN writes, “What the 14th Amendment says about birthright citizenship”.  All of these ignore what Congress established, and the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution itself.  

The first seven words of the U.S. Constitution state, “We the People of the United States” and the last nine words of the first paragraph says, “…establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” meaning, the U.S. Constitution is for “we the people” who are citizens of the United States of America.  That means the articles, sections, and amendments of the Constitution apply to “we the people” who are United States Citizens.  You can’t just delve into the Constitution and pick out different things and apply them, ignoring the very first paragraph of the document, for the first paragraph sets the premise to which all the articles and amendments apply.

Let’s read the 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

When the Amendment says, “all persons born,” it is speaking under the premise of the first paragraph of the document, meaning that this is “all persons born” of “we the people of the United States of America.”  So, this is saying that all children born of U.S. citizens are also U.S. citizens.

It is noteworthy to examine the fifth word in this Amendment.  The word is “naturalized” and is defined to mean “a foreign person who legally acquired citizenship.”  This again is emphasizing the truth that this Amendment is speaking to people who are legally in the U.S. and are citizens of the U.S.

Tom Homan, Trump’s Border Czar, states that the way birthright citizenship is currently applied means illegal aliens have babies in the United States, making these babies “anchor babies,” and it is a “magnet for more illegal immigration.”

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that there were 225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants in 2023 alone.  This accounts for 7 percent of births in the U.S.

Homan stated, “Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I can read.  I don’t think it’s clear that an illegal alien that has a child in this country is automatically a U.S. citizen.”

In fact, these children are not U.S. citizens.  The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed an amicus brief in these court cases which are against Trump’s order.  The brief states, “the 14th Amendment is clear in that birthright citizenship was never intended for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.”  Writing to the Supreme Court, IRLI lawyers stated, “This Court has held that only children born in the United States to parents who, at the time, were permitted to reside in the United States are citizens at birth by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

One of the cases to which IRLI lawyers are referring is the United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  This case involves Chinese parents who were legally residing in San Francisco, who after having a child, returned to China.  Upon trying to come back to the U.S., their child, Wong Kim Ark, was denied readmittance.  The argument was made before the Supreme Court that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the U.S. under the 14th Amendment because he was born in the U.S.  The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, “because — and only because — his parents were legally residing in the United States when he was born here,” he was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.

This Supreme Court ruling clearly shows that to be a citizen of the United States at birth under the 14th Amendment, one must be born of a parent who, at the time, had permission to reside in the United States.  This ruling excludes children of both illegal aliens and tourists from constitutional birthright citizenship, since neither class of aliens has permission to reside here.

Unfortunately, “the eminently reasonable holding of Wong Kim Ark has been ignored for 127 years,” according to Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI.  Continuing, Wilcox stated,

Meanwhile, millions, including children of so-called ‘birth tourists,’ have been assumed to be citizens even though the Supreme Court has held they are not.  In America, neither foreigners with no connection to this country nor those here against the will of the nation should get to decide who shall be American citizens.  President Trump’s order stops that going forward, and we hope our brief allows the court to recognize that this challenge to it must fail.

 

This post is very important to read and study. Our Nation's Judiciary is in serious trouble when it comes to immigration!

 

Hijacked Jurisdiction: How District Courts Are Blocking Immigration Enforcement

By Charlton Allen www.americanthinker.com

 Immigration law was never meant to run through federal district courts—and that’s no accident. Congress explicitly stripped district courts of jurisdiction over immigration cases because, quite frankly, federal judges have no business making ad hoc immigration policy from the bench. Yet, time and again, activist attorneys have tried to drag immigration disputes into district court, knowing full well it’s a legal avenue Congress closed for a reason.

As Mahmoud Khalil’s case winds its way through the courts, it’s time to confront why Congress shut district courts out of immigration law—and why their recent defiance marks a troubling breach of that boundary.

Congress Shut the Door—Activists Keep Picking the Lock

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress established that immigration cases are to be handled through the administrative process—first before an immigration judge, then before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and finally in the federal circuit courts. District courts? Nowhere in that hierarchy.

Why? Because allowing district judges—who may have no expertise in immigration law—to rule on deportation cases creates a fractured, inconsistent, and politicized mess. Congress recognized this and enacted sweeping reforms, most notably the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which explicitly removed district court jurisdiction over deportation orders. The entire purpose of these reforms was to stop what we are seeing today: activist attorneys venue-shopping for a friendly district judge who will override federal immigration enforcement.

And yet, here we are.

Habeas Corpus: A Procedural Battering Ram Against Immigration Law

One of the primary tools activist lawyers use to circumvent jurisdictional limits is the writ of habeas corpus. In theory, habeas is a safeguard against unlawful detention by the state. In practice, in the immigration context, it’s been weaponized to stall—and even thwart—lawful deportations by dragging cases into district court, where sympathetic judges often rule far beyond their statutory authority.

Traditionally, habeas corpus was reserved for extreme cases: when someone is held without charges, detained beyond the expiration of a lawful sentence, or imprisoned by a court that lacked jurisdiction in the first place. It’s a shield against tyrannical imprisonment—not a sandbox for relitigating lawful deportation orders. Yet, in today’s immigration context, habeas actions are being stretched far beyond that historic purpose. Simply disagreeing with the executive branch’s enforcement priorities—or facing removal after due process—is enough to trigger a habeas claim and grind the system to a halt.

This is precisely what happened in Mahmoud Khalil's case. His attorneys filed for habeas relief not because of unlawful detention but because it gave them an opening to get a district judge to intervene in a case outside that court’s jurisdiction. It’s a legal shell game: keep moving the pieces until they land before the right judge.

And it’s far from an isolated case. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently detained Badar Khan Suri, an Indian citizen and doctoral student at Georgetown University, for allegedly spreading Hamas propaganda online. Despite the national security implications, Suri’s attorneys ran the same habeas playbook—filing in district court to halt removal proceedings.

And it worked. Judge Patricia Giles issued an order barring ICE from deporting Suri, stating he “shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court issues a contrary order.”

More telling still was how Georgetown University chose to respond. A university spokesman told the BBC that Suri had been granted a visa “to continue his doctoral research on peacebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan” and that the school was “not aware of him engaging in any illegal activity.”

It was the Sgt. Schultz defense—“I know nothing!”—from one of America’s top universities, willfully blind as a foreign national allegedly spread terrorist propaganda on their watch.

The Suri case illustrates how thoroughly district courts have been co-opted into the activist legal network’s strategy. They are no longer passive arbiters of law—they are now active participants in obstructing immigration enforcement through procedural end-runs around Congress’s jurisdictional framework.

And Congress anticipated this maneuver. Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Congress explicitly barred district courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions in immigration cases. The statute states:

A petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals... shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.

And further:

Judicial review of all questions of law and fact... including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions... shall be available only in judicial review of a final order... and shall be governed only by [8 U.S.C. § 1252].

Activist attorneys often argue that constitutional claims—such as alleged due process violations—should carve out an exception, allowing them to bypass the REAL ID Act and head straight to district court. But that’s a misread of the law. The statute is explicit: judicial review of “all questions of law or fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional... provisions” must go through the federal courts of appeals—not district courts.

The Supreme Court affirmed this in DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), holding that the REAL ID Act constitutionally channels all review of removal orders—including constitutional claims—into the appellate courts, not district courts. Constitutional claims are not a free pass to override immigration law—they’re part of the same streamlined judicial process Congress put in place.

These provisions were designed to prevent jurisdictional gamesmanship and ensure that deportation cases are handled consistently at the appellate level—not through scattered rulings by district judges with no immigration mandate.

The Danger of Letting District Judges Hijack Immigration Policy

This is a high-stakes power struggle over who controls immigration policy: Congress and the Executive Branch, or unelected district judges willing to override both.

There’s a reason immigration law isn’t entrusted to the whims of politically inclined district judges. If every deportation case could be hauled into district court, enforcement would grind to a halt. Congress deliberately vested immigration authority in Article II administrative officers, with a judicial review process that bypasses Article III district courts entirely.

Short-circuiting that framework is far more insidious than simple judicial overreach—it undermines democratic principles and dismantles the carefully structured system Congress created. The result? A patchwork of rulings from individual judges injecting personal ideology into national policy—well outside their constitutional role. And in many cases, those judges were appointed by political opponents of the very president charged with enforcing immigration law.

We’ve already seen the chaos this creates. Judges issue last-minute stays on deportations, override executive branch determinations, and, in some cases, outright block entire categories of enforcement actions. The Khalil and Suri cases are just the latest examples of activist lawfare aimed at undermining immigration law, not enforcing it.

Time for the Supreme Court to Body-Check the Lower Courts

The abuse of jurisdiction in immigration cases is a direct attack on Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration—and a broader assault on the president’s ability to execute the law. Congress deliberately removed district courts from this process for a reason, and their creeping re-entry through habeas petitions threatens to undo decades of legal precedent and constitutional balance.

The Supreme Court must intervene decisively. It’s time for an extreme body check on rogue actions by certain district court judges who have taken it upon themselves to rewrite immigration policy from the bench. Congress built a streamlined process for immigration review through the appellate courts—not a revolving door for ideological litigation in district court.

If the Supreme Court fails to act and rein in the lower courts, the president will lose the ability to enforce the law, and Congress will effectively surrender its legislative authority. Immigration policy will no longer be governed by statute or national interest but—using a term fashionable in today’s lexicon—by oligarchs in black robes.

The judiciary must stay in its lane, or it will drive the rule of law off a cliff.

And with all due respect to the Chief Justice, the gravest threat to the judiciary’s legitimacy isn’t external pressure—it’s coming from inside the chambers of certain federal district courts.