DHS/ICE continue to do their assigned duties in spite of 'Leftist' objections!

 

'Worst of the worst': Latest ICE roundup nabs child molesters, violent offenders

Among those arrested were illegal aliens with prior convictions for weapons and drug offenses, child molestation, and violent crimes like assault.

By Ben Whedon justthenews.com 9-10-26

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had apprehended several illegal aliens with criminal records as part of its latest efforts.

Among those arrested were illegal aliens with prior convictions for weapons and drug offenses, child molestation, and violent crimes like assault. Under the Trump administration, DHS has worked to implement the president's campaign promise of mass deportations, while focusing on the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal aliens.

“Every single day, the brave men and women of ICE are arresting and removing illegal aliens from American communities. Just yesterday, ICE arrested child molesters, murder-for-hire masterminds, violent assailants, and other dangerous illegal aliens,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement. “Under the Trump Administration, DHS is enforcing the law, deporting illegal aliens, and defending the homeland. It’s no wonder crime rates have reached historic lows. We will always put the safety of the American people first.”

Topping the list was Cristobal Benito-Benito of Guatemala, who was previously convicted of first-degree child molestation.

William Torres-Gamboa of Cuba was previously convicted for solicitation to commit murder in the first degree and cocaine possession.

Hassan Aldaraji of Iraq was convicted for assault, dangerous drug possession, and illegal possession of a weapon.

Abraham Blandon of Nicaragua was convicted of drug possession, weapon possession, and burglary.

Ludwid Lemus of Guatemala was convicted of possessing a firearm, aggravated assault, and illegal reentry to the country.

 

 

A short but necessarily an important post about our Nation's Census!

 

Trump admin proposes leaving illegal migrants, those in US temporarily from future census

The proposed changes would also eliminate the section of the questionnaire that seeks information on race or ethnicity, which has been included since the first census in 1790.

By Misty Severi justthenews.com 9-9-26

The United States Census Bureau proposed new rule changes Wednesday that would exclude illegal migrants and migrants in the U.S. on a temporary lawful basis from future censuses. 

The proposed rule changes seek to only count U.S. citizens and permanent residents in censuses moving forward, which could significantly alter how much political representation and federal funding each state receives, according to NBC News. 

The proposed changes would also eliminate the section of the questionnaire that seeks information on race or ethnicity, which has been included since the first census in 1790. The proposal is open to public comment for 30 days.

The proposal comes after President Donald Trump directed the Commerce Department last year to conduct a new census mid-decade that does not include illegal migrants. 

Censuses are conducted every 10 years and the next official census will take place in 2030.

 

Another extremely important post, if only Americans would take heed and realize our plight, if nothing good happens.

 

America is running out of Americans

A scathing review of our culture: children were once understood as part of adulthood rather than an interruption of it, but no longer.

George P. Brooks | September 8, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

America has developed an extraordinary talent for discussing symptoms while politely avoiding diseases. We debate Social Security solvency, labor shortages, school enrollment, housing, immigration, economic growth, loneliness, and the deterioration of communities as though these phenomena occupy separate universes. Beneath many of them sits an uncomfortable demographic reality: Americans are having fewer children, having them later, or deciding not to have them at all. Conservatives frequently respond with the predictable admonition to marry and reproduce, while progressives often treat declining fertility as either economically inevitable or environmentally beneficial. Both responses strike me as inadequate because the interesting question is not simply why Americans are having fewer children. The question is what happened to a civilization in which creating the next generation increasingly feels irrational?

Children were once understood as part of adulthood rather than an interruption of it. Marriage, family, work, faith, community, and responsibility formed a reasonably coherent architecture through which people understood a meaningful life. That architecture has fractured. Modern America increasingly presents adulthood as an indefinite project of personal optimization: acquire credentials, build a career, travel, accumulate experiences, establish financial security, discover yourself, heal yourself, protect your peace, and perhaps eventually consider another human being sufficiently compatible to share the remaining decades. Children enter this worldview almost as an inconvenient footnote because children are the antithesis of radical autonomy. They require sacrifice, permanence, patience, money, sleep, compromise, and the horrifying realization that the universe no longer revolves around you.

I say that without romanticizing parenthood. Raising children is difficult, expensive, exhausting, and occasionally terrifying. Conservatives lose credibility when we reduce declining fertility to selfish millennials refusing to grow up. Housing costs are real. Childcare is expensive. Healthcare can be financially punishing. Young adults often begin their working lives carrying substantial debt while confronting a housing market that makes previous generations’ experiences seem almost mythological. Telling a 29-year-old couple to “just have children” while they are calculating whether they can afford another bedroom is not a family policy. It is a slogan.

Yet economics cannot explain everything. Human beings throughout history produced children under conditions considerably harsher than ours. Something cultural has changed as well, and conservatives should be willing to say it. We have spent decades dismantling institutions that once encouraged permanence while constructing a culture that worships optionality. Marriage becomes one lifestyle choice among many. Sex becomes recreation detached from reproduction. Divorce becomes ordinary. Pornography industrializes fantasy. Dating applications convert human beings into endlessly scrollable commodities, creating the illusion that someone slightly better is always one swipe away. Men and women increasingly discuss one another not as potential partners but as opposing interest groups negotiating terms of surrender.

Then we wonder why nobody wants to build a family.

The deterioration of relations between men and women may be one of the least seriously examined components of America’s demographic problem. Much of contemporary discourse teaches women to view dependence upon men as dangerous and men to view commitment to women as financially or emotionally hazardous. Online cultures amplify every betrayal, divorce catastrophe, abusive relationship, custody battle, infidelity, and miserable marriage until young people understandably conclude that matrimony resembles an elaborate legal ambush. The sexes retreat into mutually reinforcing camps, each possessing algorithms dedicated to explaining why the other cannot be trusted.

Civilizations cannot reproduce themselves through mutual contempt.

This is where my conservatism becomes less partisan and more philosophical. A healthy society must teach people that freedom is not merely the absence of obligation. There is another freedom that emerges through obligation: the freedom created by knowing who you are responsible for, where you belong, and what deserves your sacrifice. Modern culture excels at liberation from things and is considerably less articulate about devotion to things.

Christianity offers a radically different anthropology. Human beings are not isolated sovereign consumers whose highest purpose is maximizing personal satisfaction. We exist in relationship—to God, family, community, generations past, and generations yet unborn. Scripture repeatedly treats children not as lifestyle accessories but as blessings and inheritance. That does not mean every person must marry or every couple will have children, but it does mean a civilization should understand generativity as something more profound than an economic variable.

Conservatives should therefore resist the temptation to make demographic decline another excuse for government social engineering. Washington cannot manufacture loving marriages through tax credits, and no federal agency can restore trust between men and women. Government can, however, stop making family formation unnecessarily difficult. Housing policy should encourage construction and ownership rather than permanent scarcity. Tax policy should recognize the enormous social contribution made by parents raising the next generation. Education should stop treating marriage and parenthood as quaint historical arrangements. Economic policy should remember that an economy exists to serve human flourishing rather than requiring human beings to serve economic abstractions.

Immigration complicates this discussion because America has historically supplemented its population through newcomers. Immigration can strengthen a nation when newcomers enter an identifiable national culture and assimilate into it, but immigration cannot permanently substitute for a civilization’s unwillingness to reproduce itself. A country that requires perpetual population importation because its own citizens have lost confidence in creating families has a deeper problem than labor supply.

The demographic question ultimately concerns confidence. People have children when they believe tomorrow is worth investing in. Parenthood is perhaps the most radical expression of optimism available to ordinary human beings because it says, without words, that the future deserves someone we love more than ourselves.

That is why declining fertility should concern conservatives beyond economics. Something has happened to our conception of adulthood, sacrifice, permanence, and hope. We have become wealthier than most civilizations in human history while increasingly convincing ourselves that the fundamental act through which civilization continues is prohibitively burdensome.

America does not merely need more babies for Social Security calculations or labor-force projections. It needs a culture in which men and women can again imagine building something larger than themselves together. We need homes rather than mere housing, marriages rather than arrangements, communities rather than networks, and children understood not as obstacles to the good life but as participants in it.

A civilization does not disappear only when somebody conquers it. Sometimes it simply becomes too exhausted, distracted, frightened, or self-absorbed to replace itself.

And no civilization gets to vote itself exempt from arithmetic.

The three Branches of Government are so wrapped up in confusion, it's amazing, if and when they may do something right.

 

Dozens of sanctuary bills introduced, few advance in Congress

California Rep. Tom McClintock said the House would soon take up one of his bills on the subject.

By Morgan Sweeney | The Center Square justthenews.com 9-7-26

Congressional Republicans have introduced dozens of bills since January 2025 challenging sanctuary policies. Most have been referred to committees and seen no further action, despite Republican control of Congress and GOP-led committees holding at least nine hearings on the issue over the same period.

While most Republican sanctuary policy legislation has yet to advance, California Rep. Tom McClintock said the House would soon take up one of his bills on the subject.

“We can stop this madness with the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act that passed out of this committee in March, and will be heard in the coming weeks by the House,” McClintock said at a hearing on sanctuary policies Tuesday.

The bill has several provisions. It would preempt state and local laws that restrict law enforcement cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and it would redirect federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary jurisdictions to jurisdictions that cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. McClintock also said the bill would protect officers who cooperate with federal immigration authorities from legal retaliation and offer legal recourse to victims of crimes committed by migrants.

“Perhaps most important for families like that of Carissa Aspnes and Dalilah Coleman, it would allow victims to sue the jurisdictions for the damages caused by criminals that these officials deliberately released back into their communities,” he said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., however, said there was a reason the legislation won’t have seen the House floor for about half a year.

“[Republicans] passed a bill to force underfunded state and local jurisdictions to use more of their funds and resources to do the bloated federal government’s job of immigration enforcement,” Raskin said of McClintock’s bill. “That means cities and localities would have fewer officers, less money, and fewer resources to protect their communities from violent crime, guns, drugs, and drunk driving.”

“What’s worse,” Raskin continued, “our colleagues have proposed defunding police departments across America in any jurisdiction that decides that state and local governments and not ICE should get to decide how state and local police departments are governed and run.”

Raskin said that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and other Republicans realized the bill and others like it are “terrible policy” and that’s why Johnson has kept it from being presented to the full chamber.

“Their policies are so divisive, so toxic, so purely symbolic and off-point that even Speaker Johnson won't put them on the floor,” Raskin said.

The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act is one of a few pieces of sanctuary legislation that have made it out of committee during President Donald Trump’s second term. At least two others – one concerning sanctuary cities and small business and the other, the End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 from the late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham – have passed out of committees. The former actually passed the House largely along party lines but was immediately sent to a Senate committee for review, where it has stayed since June 2025. Graham’s bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar in February, putting it among the measures the full Senate could take up but not guaranteeing it time on the Senate floor. It has seen no further action since.

Besides Raskin’s argument, there is also Supreme Court precedent that some say can complicate efforts to craft federal legislation targeting sanctuary policies.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that any powers it does not expressly grant to the federal government or prohibit to the states remain with the states. The Supreme Court later developed what has been called the anti-commandeering doctrine based on that amendment, in a 1997 court case.

“The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states’ officers . . . to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” wrote the late Justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States.

In other words, states cannot be mandated to act as an agent of the federal government or be forced to carry out federal programs.

The Cato Institute’s Director of Immigration Studies David Bier thinks that passing a federal law that compels state and local law enforcement to aid federal authorities in immigration enforcement would set a dangerous precedent.

“Once you say the federal government can mandate and coerce the states to do what the federal government wants – the end of that principle is, whoever's in power gets to decide what all 50 states do,” Bier told The Center Square. “And then you're, you're really ending, you know, the 50 laboratories of democracy and the whole idea of federalism. Ultimately, it erodes liberty and will lead to a much more powerful government.”

Another way Republicans have tried to come at the issue of sanctuary policies, sometimes rather than restricting the state and local laws themselves, is through funding, which McClintock’s bill also does. In 2025 and 2026, Republicans have introduced bills curtailing certain federal funds to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies like the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act, the No Community Development Block Grants for Sanctuary Cities Act, the No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act or the No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act, among others.

But Bier said this strategy also faces some potential problems.

“Could they condition funds that are related to law enforcement on helping federal government in their law enforcement efforts? Maybe? There’s not really any clear guidance on it,” he said.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that Congress can use its Spending Clause power to encourage states to do something it might not be able to require them to do directly. In 1987, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that withheld some federal highway funding from states that didn’t adopt a minimum drinking age of 21.

However, the Supreme Court has refuted other attempts at controlling state policy through federal funding because it determined those attempts had crossed the line from encouraging adoption of federal policy to coercing it.

In 2012, for example, the Supreme Court rejected a part of the Affordable Care Act that required states to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the Obamacare rollout or risk losing all of their federal Medicaid funding, finding that the threatened loss of existing Medicaid funds was so substantial that it amounted to unconstitutional coercion.

Whatever constitutional challenges Republican proposals may face, Democrats do not appear to have introduced their own legislation either restricting sanctuary policies directly or restricting funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, though some have occasionally supported Republican measures that have come before them for a vote.