This should of been done decades ago! At least it is now being considered!

 

Taxing remittances?

By Silvio Canto, Jr. www.americanthinker.com

We've posted about remittances to Mexico in the past. It's a big number and the top source of cash for Mexico after oil and tourism revenues. It's US$ 63 billion, a lot of money, to say the least. It's also a lot of money leaving the U.S., specially from towns and communities that could use the funds to support local services.

So Mexico is not happy that the U.S. is considering a tax on remittances. I'm assuming that it will be a fee on the transfers. Let's see what they are thinking in Mexico via El Pais:

Remittances, one of Mexico’s main sources of foreign currency, are now in the crosshairs of U.S. tax policy. A U.S. House of Representatives committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to impose a 5% tax on remittances. Although Democrats rejected the bill, Republicans unanimously supported the initiative from their caucus. If implemented, more than 40 million people would be affected, including permanent residents and holders of non-immigrant visas; only U.S. citizens would be exempt. For Mexico specifically, this would represent a blow of at least $3.25 billion annually.

Alongside President Donald Trump’s anti-immigration policies, this new proposal to increase taxation on remittances has emerged. In addition to the bill, the U.S. president has previously stated he is finalizing a presidential memorandum to “end remittances” sent by illegal immigrants residing in the United States. The House aims to pass the proposal around May 26. The Senate, also with a conservative majority, must approve the bill. Lawmakers hope Trump will sign it into law by July 4. If ratified by both chambers, the new tax would take effect in 2026.

My guess is that it will be on the so-called "big beautiful bill" and it should be. In Mexico, they are saying that this is double taxation on Mexicans. Up here, many are calling it capital flight. It is indeed both and something else. Many of these countries have become addicted to "remittances" and the funds are a lifeline for many Mexicans supported from abroad.

It also keeps the Mexican government from having to make tough decisions in the energy and agricultural sector. And it encourages the same government to rely on illegal immigration.

So absolutely tax remittances. It's about time.

 

Democrats get things done by voting as a block, Republicans are a herd of cats - no wonder they cannot get anything done!

 

Will the Supreme Court Succumb to Democratic Party Pressure?

By Ed Brodow www.americanthinker.com

Voters in 2024 gave Trump a mandate to execute his agenda. At the top of that agenda is the deportation of millions of people who entered the country illegally but were enabled by what amounted to treason by the Biden administration. Many of these illegal aliens present significant threats to national security and public safety. Democrats are using the court system to block Trump from doing a job that needs to be done.

Democrats wanting to throw a monkey wrench into Trump’s agenda have been able to “forum shop” by seeking out sympathetic district court judges most likely to block the president’s actions. By issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive orders, these rogue judges have effectively shut down the executive branch of the federal government. “Since Trump took office,” said Texas rep. August Pfluger, “activist judges in district courts have aggressively blocked his executive actions. The fact that an unelected lower court judge can micromanage the commander-in-chief should trouble every single American.”

Does President Trump have the authority to deport people who entered the country illegally? Are illegals entitled to due process when they are deported, and if so, what does that mean? Do district judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions stopping presidential executive orders?

Common sense dictates that the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the third question is no. The answer to the second question is more complicated. If due process means giving illegals a court appearance before a judge, the answer should be no. It would take hundreds of years to get millions of illegals into court. The rules of due process must be flexible if millions of illegals can be deported quickly.

“People who are enemies of the United States don’t have the same level of due process,” said border czar Tom Homan. Hans A. von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation agreed with Homan. “It’s important to recognize that illegal immigrants don’t have the same due process rights as citizens,” they wrote. “For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has held that the only due process to which illegal immigrants are entitled is what Congress gives them through federal immigration law. [Justice Samuel] Alito concurred: ‘The decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.’”

“That means that illegal immigrants don’t have to be given access to the courts,” von Spakovsky and Stimson conclude. “Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” said former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country, but the courts don't seem to want me to do that,” said President Trump. “My team is being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which seemingly doesn't want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other country, for that matter. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the country. Such a thing is not possible to do.”

Impossible or not, Democrats are all for it. “[The Democrats] don’t want border security,” said Vice President JD Vance. “They don’t want us to deport the people who’ve come into our country illegally. They want to accomplish through fake legal process what they failed to accomplish politically: The ratification of Biden’s illegal migrant invasion.”

Vance hit the nail on the head. Falling back on due process, Democrats want to perpetuate Biden’s illegal policy. Due process does not require giving a trial to 20 million people who broke into the country in violation of the law. Contrary to the opinion expressed by a small cadre of rogue Democrat-appointed judges, Trump is not thumbing his nose at the Constitution by deporting illegals. He is doing his job.

It comes down to a question of a vague concept, due process, on the one hand and the security of the nation on the other. When national security has been endangered, the normal rules of due process have been waived. National security is at stake where the illegals are concerned.

The Supreme Court has a responsibility to protect the national interest. Sadly, the Court as it is presently constituted cannot be relied upon to do that. A Court that once was respected for its wisdom seems to have lost its way. “For decades, the Supreme Court had been seen as one of the few institutions respected by Republicans and Democrats alike,” says the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “The court had been primarily regarded as a legal institution, not a political one, strengthened by its ‘norms, processes, symbols, and independence,’ and was therefore afforded greater public trust and legitimacy than other institutions.” The public’s perception of the Court has been degraded. One indication of the reduction in trust is that more people support term limits for justices.

At least two justices, Sotomayor and Jackson, are willing to allow their political ideology to conflict with what is best for America. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has embraced the pathetic strategy known as “Get Trump.” Sotomayor told the American Bar Association that lawyers across America should “fight this fight," obviously meaning against President Donald Trump and his administration. Justice Sotomayor, by her own admission, is an anti-Trump attack dog. We should not tolerate this kind of behavior on the Court. “Apparently,” said Mike Miller at RedState, “Sotomayor missed the ‘justice is blind’ thingy in law school.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not far behind Sotomayor. She has condemned the Trump administration’s attempts at deporting illegals. “What problem is the government facing from being told it has to stop doing this,” Jackson asked in support of district court injunctions. She is pretending that the country does not face any danger from 20 million or more illegals.

Instead of doing her job by condemning the judicial overreach of district court judges, Jackson has sidestepped the issue by accusing the Trump administration of trying to intimidate those judges. Such alleged intimidation “undermines democracy,“ she insists. “I urge you to keep going, keep doing what is right for our country,” she said in support of the rogue judges. Her opinion misses the point of “what is right for our country.” Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, has criticized activist judges like Jackson who are putting the country at risk while erasing the legitimate powers of the presidency.

If district courts are allowed to continue their assault on Trump’s executive orders, the president will not be able to fulfill the mandate given to him by the American people. Justices Alito and Thomas understand the need for the Court to step in. The remaining justices seem to blow with the wind. We need five justices to ensure that the Court does the right thing by supporting the legal powers of the president. Will five justices step up to the plate or will the Supreme Court succumb to pressure by the Democratic Party to sabotage Trump’s agenda?

 

 

Our Federal Government is in disarray, including Congress and SCOTUS. The only Branch with 'common sense' is the Presidency.

 

The Supreme Court is already packed

By Matthew G. Andersson www.americanthinker.com

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that President Trump’s responsibility to American citizens and national security, must be directly frustrated. 

Acting under the Alien Enemies Act, President Trump accurately characterized Venezuelan gang members as not only aliens and enemies, but as criminals posing danger to the country.  The Court apparently believes otherwise, and a majority ruled to pause deportation subject to a purported right of due process that they invented out of constitutional thin air.

As usual, two justices alone understand the law, and dissented: Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. 

But what is fascinating is that they appear the only functional legal experts on the nine-person court. 

The rest seem to prioritize politics. 

Perhaps that is unfair, but if you look at the track record of key legal decisions over fundamental constitutional interpretation, Alito and Thomas stand out as the only reliable, mature thinkers who can reason with the Constitution in front of them.

In the past, other administrations sought to “pack” the court with more appointees who could be counted on to toe the line as a unified bloc for partisan objectives. 

It was a way of converting the Supreme Court into an effective legislature, which it never can be, of course, but also as a way to illegally frustrate a functional government by blocking or slowing down actual democratic processes of representation and consent.

But why add more judges to the Court if you can simply “hive off” and count on, a simple majority that consistently acts the way you want?

President Trump is doing his job as president, rightly interpreting the law, and upholding the Constitution. 

The Chief Justice, and a cooperating wing, are apparently willing to frustrate executive responsibility, and prioritize illegal alien criminals over U.S. citizens, freely taking numerous “legal shortcuts.” 

The Venezuelans and other invaders are not U.S. citizens, they are not “Persons” in the Constitution, and they are not granted any due process, except immediate deportation which is far more generous treatment than they would get in most other countries: in some, which the progressive left admires, their acts could rise to capital punishment.  

This brings up a crucial point in comparative constitutional law: the concept of comity. 

You don’t hear it discussed much, but it’s central to the underlying nature of the entire illegal immigrant invasion program that clearly involved organized human extraction and the “herding” of millions of unknown parties illegally into our country.  The concept of “comity” asks how other countries could allow this to happen: how did potentially dozens of other sovereign countries, each with their own constitutions, happen to treat our Constitution with complete disregard, deliberately undermining it, and international law? 

The doctrine of international comity refers to standards of public international law, and reciprocity.  

Deporting illegal gang members not only honors that doctrine, but asks their countries of origin to do the same by facilitating their return. 

The recent majority Supreme Court decision not only got our own Constitution wrong, but got everyone else’s wrong as well.  It doesn’t reflect a full consideration of comparative and international law, which is relevant for the case before them.  Given the limited way we train our lawyers and judges, that is not unexpected. But it’s a liability: our courts can work in ways that are against both domestic rules of law, and international order, by destabilizing both, through legal incompetence. 

But this is where it gets interesting, because it reinforces the legal authority of President Trump’s position on illegal aliens:  

The Comity Clause references Privileges and Immunities in Article Four of the Constitution: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Note it says “Citizens.” Article Four also includes the interstate Extradition Clause.

Since illegals have neither U.S. citizenship nor U.S. constitutional personhood, they do not qualify for U.S. interstate rendition or due process.  The only relevant legal action is international extradition to the one state that controls for their status: the foreign country of origin from where they are fugitives.

In the alternative, illegals could be jailed, and under the Thirteenth Amendment, thereby converted to slavery status as punishment. 

That would be the only path to theoretically invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, for release from obligation. But since illegals do not qualify for U.S. criminal due process, the U.S. Patriot Act provides government authority to detain a non-citizen indefinitely without criminal charge.  If the Supreme Court followed the law, it would stand down and recognize that it has no relevant jurisdiction. The Executive Office does.

Illegals have a choice: be subject to our Constitution if they insist, be jailed under expedited special proceeding, and by the Thirteenth Amendment, put in servitude as punishment; or be put under indefinite detention by the Patriot Act under national security; or, be extradited as fugitives from foreign states; or, be graciously deported for illegal entry, under an international comity standard. 

In economics, these are called tradeoffs.

In the Constitution, it’s called the law of the land. For judges who can’t follow it, they may face impeachment.  As the current “packed wing” of the SCOTUS seems determined to protect and harbor foreign criminals, they could then be subject to the Patriot Act which charges the Justice Department with preventing terror acts, including those potentially facilitating it.  

Illegal criminal aliens can be characterized under domestic terror standards, and must be deported. Supreme Court justices that protect them may face impeachment, loose immunity, and risk liability. 

 

There definitely is a nexus between correlation and causation; it's called 'common sense'.

 

Whether at home or abroad, the correlation between illegal immigrants and crime

By Andrea Widburg www.americanthinker.com

I know that correlation and causation are not the same thing. That is, just because you can map similar patterns doesn’t mean the underlying factors driving those patterns are related. Indeed, there’s an entire amusing website dedicated to spurious correlations.

However, when enough correlations pile up, causation starts to scream out, and that’s the case with the connection between illegal aliens and violent crime. This can be seen most recently in Denver, Colorado, where Trump deported Tren de Aragua gang members, and the Canary Islands off the coast of Spain, where illegal aliens are flooding the small territory.

Aurora, Colorado, which is part of the Denver metro area, hit the headlines shortly before the November 2024 election when it emerged that illegal aliens who belonged to the vicious Tren de Aragua gang were terrorizing the community. Democrats, of course, denied that there was a problem, only to be foiled by facts.

When Trump came into office, one of the first things that he did was to have his administration conduct an ICE raid in the Denver-Aurora region, rounding up 100 Venezuelan illegal aliens, all of whom were alleged to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua. These men have since found a new home in El Salvador’s prison system.

Venezuela, incidentally, the country from which these men came, has the world’s highest crime index.

Now that the first quarter of 2025 has wrapped up, the statistics are out for crime in the Denver metro area, and they’re pretty staggering:

Homicides are down nearly 60% in Denver so far this year, according to the newly released report by the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

It’s a significant drop from last year and one of the biggest declines in violent crime rates in the country.

“Violent crime is just about reducing in every city, but we were the city in which it had declined the most,” said Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas.

The police chief takes credit for the drop in crime, without mentioning ICE. And of course, maybe he’s right. Maybe the correlation between removing 100 alleged gang members here illegally from the world’s most crime-ridden country has nothing to do with the drop in crime. You decide.

And while you’re thinking about that, let’s take a peek at the Canary Islands, a region northwest of Africa, but nevertheless an autonomous community of Spain. In 2024, 45,843 illegal aliens, mostly from Mali, Senegal, and Morocco, arrived at the Canary Islands, surpassing 2023’s number of 39,910 illegal aliens. (They call them “migrants” in the article from which I got the figures, but none came via approved immigration channels.) Most go on to Spain, but many remain in the Canaries, at least until they’re processed to enter Spain.

In Mali, 95% of the residents are Muslim. In Senegal, 96.6% of the residents are Muslim. In Morocco, 99% of the residents are Muslim.

Muslim practitioners from Africa and the Middle East, when relocated to Europe, have shown a high propensity to commit crime, especially rape and other violent crimes, although it’s hard to track the data because European countries hide it. Still, these links—here, here, and here—support the claim that Muslim immigrants from Third World countries drive up crime in once-peaceful European communities.

With that in mind, ask yourself about correlation and causation as you read this news report:

Violent crime is surging across the Canary Islands, with intentional homicides, attempted murders, and sexual assaults all rising significantly in the first quarter of 2025, even as overall crime has fallen.

According to the latest crime statistics published by Spain’s Ministry of the Interior and cited by La Rázon, the islands recorded a 3.8 percent decrease in total offenses compared to the same period last year — but this masks troubling increases in the most serious categories.

Homicides on the Spanish archipelago rose by a staggering 400 percent, jumping from two cases in early 2024 to ten so far this year. Attempted homicides also nearly doubled, rising by 87.5 percent to 15 registered offenses. Sexual assaults involving penetration increased by 11.1 percent, reaching 60 cases in the first three months of 2025.

Regarding those rape numbers, in Catalonia, Spain, 91% of all those in prison for rape are foreigners.

I keep thinking of something Donald Trump said in 2015 when he announced his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When he said this, Trump sent the affluent Democrat establishment into paroxysms of rage, but affirmed reality for normal Americans who had been gaslit for so long.

At a certain point, there is a nexus between correlation and causation, and we all know it. Trump, however, is the only Western politician with the courage to name it and act upon it.