More:

The Conservatives said any asylum seekers breaking UK law should be deported and Reform said the publication showed the government “knows that they are a menace”.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the government had “a very clear principle that if you break UK law, you will be removed from the country”.

He said the number of removals of illegal immigrants from the UK “are significantly up” and that he was working to ensure that foreign national offenders are removed from the prison system.

He added: “It follows that if we’re taking this approach, it’s made explicitly clear what the UK law is and what the societal norms of the UK are and that’s why this approach is being taken.”

A section on gender explains that women in the UK have equal rights to men, and do not need the permission from a husband, father, brother or any other man to do things like work, study, travel, or make decisions. …

And a section headed Respect in Public outlines how it is not acceptable to whistle or make kissing noises at people on the street, nor “make sexual comments to someone, even if you think it is a compliment

On the one hand, it actually is a step up, although a baby step. Did the British never impress these facts on newcomers before? At any rate, they’re doing it now. At the very least, that indicates that the authorities are setting up some sort of behavioral expectations.

But on the other hand, that is unlikely to make much of a dent in cultural customs and beliefs that run deep.

And furthermore: why has the British government been so eager to take in so many people with cultures that clash so violently (literally) with British life? That’s somewhat of a rhetorical question, because we know many answers. One for the left is that the left ultimately gains voters. Another (motivating both left and right) is for cheap labor. For some who support the policy, the reason is virtue-signaling. Still another reason is suicidal empathy. One more is a sense of being unable to do much to prevent it. And again, for the left, there are those who have wanted the peace of England’s previous high-trust society to be destroyed.

The post The British finally decide that maybe newcomers need some instructions on quaint British customs appeared first on The New Neo.

President Trump is signing two Executive Orders to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship after Trump v. Barbara:

The executive orders,Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship and Ending Birth Tourism, limit the scope, targeting future births in four categories:

– Either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
– Either parent is a foreign government employee working on behalf of a foreign government.
– Person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.
– The entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil or any effort by any foreign national to facilitate the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.

I haven’t a clue how this would fare in a Court challenge. Legislation would do better, I think, but is probably impossible to pass at this point. Jonathan Turley gives his opinion here:

I will add that I believe that part of the goal is to simply discourage birth tourism, to maker it an iffier, more difficult, and more costly process. This might make the numbers go down significantly.

The post Trump gives limiting birthright citizenship another try appeared first on The New Neo.

Offers of up to $3,000 per person have helped spur more than 200,000 migrants to “self-deport” from the U.S. — but about half made the move while locked up in detention centers, according to a report Tuesday.

The voluntary mass exodus started slowly, with only about 24,000 people signing up during the six months after the Department of Homeland Security launched the widely advertised program in May 2025, Axios said, citing internal agency data.

But White House officials — including deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller — pressured DHS to ramp up the operation, called Project Homecoming, an unidentified source told Axios.

“They wanted like thousands pushed through on a daily basis, and we were putting through like dozens,” the source said.

Self-deportation actually wasn’t uncommon in the much more distant past – a past that included a lack of government-funded welfare for immigrants. It was sink or swim, except for voluntary charities which included help from religious and/or ethnic communities.

Later, there were requirements that to come here legally through the family-based program, an immigrant’s relatives (or other sponsors in certain cases) who were already here legally were required to document that they have the funds to help support the immigrant if need be. This still occurs for those particular programs for legal immigrants, but if you look at the link you’ll see there are many circumstances where the immigrants are nevertheless eligible for government aid.

And today, apparently 61% of households in the US headed by an illegal immigrant receive means-tested government aid of some type. Here are some figures:

Roughly half of all immigrant-headed households in the U.S. use welfare — and among illegal immigrant homes in particular, it’s even higher, at 61%, according to a new study Wednesday that argues that’s another reason to enforce immigration laws.

By comparison, just 37% of U.S.-born households use welfare, the Center for Immigration Studies calculated, based on 2024 Census Bureau data.

The numbers challenge the notion that illegal immigrants can’t get assistance.

Do you remember back in 2012 when Mitt Romney talked about self-deportation of illegal aliens, and he was criticized for it?:

Governor Romney: “Well the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide that they could do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.”

Will this work? Unlikely. Lessons from Mexican migrants, which comprise more than half of the unauthorized population and, the country closest and presumably the least costly for “self-deportation,” suggest otherwise. Studies show that during the 1970s and early 1980s, roughly one of every two migrants returned home within a year – and seventy-five percent left within two years – meaning most did in fact “self-deport.” The vast majority of Mexicans came not to settle, but to earn enough money to better their and their families’ lives at home. But this pattern – called circular migration by scholars – starting changing in the late 1980s (also when the United States began hardening its southern border). Today, fewer than one in ten immigrants return each year to Mexico. Thirty odd years ago Romney’s policy of self-deportation occurred regularly, today it does not.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, the phenomenon of self-deportation was called “return migration” and the numbers were significant. Here’s some data (the article was written in 2017):

Thirty million migrants moved from Europe to the United States during the Age of Mass Migration (1850–1913). Yet one in three of these arrivals eventually returned to Europe, a rate of return migration that is even higher than today.

[A personal note: one of my relatives who came here in the first years of the 20th century had trouble making it in the US and was unhappy here. He had come from Russia prior to the revolution and was so hopeful about the possibilities of life under Communism that he returned to the USSR some time during the 1920s. A bad bet, it turns out. He was still alive when I was a child, and my (Communist) uncle, who lived near us, used to periodically visit the USSR, bringing back a ton of boring slides that we were forced to politely watch. My uncle’s trips to the USSR included visiting this self-deported cousin or whatever he was. My uncle bought him many things to make his life easier, because he was living a subsistence existence, whereas my uncle had amassed quite a cozy nest egg living under evil capitalism.]

The post The art of the self-deportation deal appeared first on The New Neo.

An unprecedented wave of 60,000 illegal migrants from Africa has flooded the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, prompting Spain to deploy its military – as locals liken the invasion to an “apocalypse.”

Harrowing local media reports reveal residents and business owners in Ceuta – a Spanish territory located on the north African coast – are terrified to open their doors amid the rush of migrants, many of whom arrived wearing nothing but swimwear without a penny or possession to their name.

“Businesses closed. Shops shut because if you open a business, it gets overrun … We’re scared. The streets are packed. There are no measures in place. It’s every man for himself. They’re not giving us any help,” a terrified downtown restaurant owner who didn’t want to give their name told state-owned Spanish media outlet RTVE.

Why Spain? Look at a map – it’s very close.

Why now? The Spanish Supreme Court recently seemed to give the green light:

The shocking surge comes after a ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court earlier this month, which said migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to reach Ceuta or Melilla, another Spanish autonomous city in northern Morocco, cannot be immediately kicked out.

Also, the government has recently been engaged in an amnesty program of sorts:

Meanwhile, the socialist Spanish government — which just months ago launched a program to give legal status to some 500,000 illegal immigrants in the country — said it deployed 200 specialized police officers and 60 troops from the mainland to assist Ceuta’s own forces on Friday.

Two hundred is just window-dressing, it seems to me.

One more thing: Spain has been a target from the Muslim world for a long time – a target in the sense of its having once been a Muslim land, although that ended in 1492 with the Reconquista. But once a Muslim land, always a Muslim land, according to a large faction of Muslims. Can we call this an attempt at the Re-Reconquista?

The government says the newcomers are being expelled, so perhaps this is just a temporary test:

However, by Friday afternoon the Spanish Interior Minister said the country was expelling migrants at a rate of 150 per minute, and that 25,000 had already returned home after the sudden influx triggered a humanitarian crisis.

Many had also returned voluntarily, the government said.

The leadership of Spain has blamed human traffickers, and the government of Morocco is said to be cooperating with the return.

Here’s an interesting comment:

Carmen Gonzalez Bermudez who was in the city to see her parents told the BBC that the past day had been “very overwhelming”.

She said she saw “thousands and thousands and thousands of people in swimming costumes and all wet, just coming from the sea”, adding that “I know most of them are nice people just looking for a better future for themselves. But we cannot give that to them”.

ADDENDUM:

Italy has noticed, and has suspended its Schengen Agreement with Spain and has closed its “sea and air borders” with that country. The EU head says this:

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the EU Commission, said: “The images coming from Ceuta are unacceptable. We cannot allow anyone to come to our Union without abiding by our rules. Dangerous crossings must stop immediately. Smuggling networks must be dismantled. And returns must be swift, as our rules allow.”

Well, what are you actually going to do about it?

The territory of Spain that was invaded is not Spain proper, by the way – it’s described this way:

The city of Ceuta, a peninsular region covering 19.9 sq. km (7.7 sq. mi) on Africa’s northern coast, is one of two Spanish exclaves on the continent, along with Melilla, which is about 220 km (140 mi) southeast.

The two Spanish autonomous cities represent the European Union’s only land borders with Africa. Spain has possessed Ceuta, which is separated from mainland Spain by the Strait of Gibraltar, since 1580.

Ceuta has a population of more than 83,000, a mix of Christians and Muslims, including residents and day workers from Morocco and Spain. Ceuta’s population has generally lived harmoniously.

But Morocco, which largely surrounds the two exclaves, still treats them as occupied lands and challenges Spain’s sovereignty, citing history dating back to the Islamic conquests during the 8th century.

So Morocco actually claims the territory officially. You can find a map and some history in this article. So if Ceuta is part of the African continent, why did many of these “migrants” come by water? Because the land border sports a big fence built in 1993-1995:

The fence consists of parallel 6 metre (20-foot) high fences topped with barbed wire, with regular watchposts and a road running between them to accommodate police patrols or ambulance service in case of need. Underground cables connect spotlights, noise and movement sensors, and video cameras to a central control booth; dozens of guard ships and patrol boats check the coast, while 621 Guardia Civil officers and 548 police officers control the shore.

Also see this commentary from Brendan O’Neill:

Yet even if the Spanish manage to tame this searing crisis of sovereign rule – and that’s a big ‘if’ – the lessons of it should reverberate not only across Spain but all of Europe. For the fall of Ceuta exposes the lethal strain in globalism. It speaks – screams in fact – to the chaotic trashing of sovereignty, democracy and our very way of life that globalism and its gold-collared acolytes have brought about.

The storming of Ceuta shatters the falsehoods of the left. …

The whole world can see there are virtually no women and children in those mobs. The whole world knows Morocco is not ravaged by war or hunger. From now on, every utterance of the phrase ‘asylum seeker’ should invoke noisy, angry scepticism.

The Ceuta crisis also confirms that the moral cowardice of the modern state is like a red rag to hostile actors.

I can’t say I agree with O’Neill about what “the whole world knows.” There’s always suicidal empathy.

The post Moroccans invade Spain appeared first on The New Neo.

Here’s the video interview between Coleman Hughes and Rothman:

Here’s a part that especially caught my attention. It’s about six minutes long. The subject is the heyday of anarchist attacks a hundred or so years ago. Most if not all of us have heard of Sacco and Vanzetti and the disagreements about whether they were innocent or guilty, and that’s such a huge topic I’m not going to tackle it here. Suffice to say that two things are known: they were anarchists, and it was a time of violence in the US by anarchists who were mostly Italian:

My curiosity was piqued by this. Now, Italian anarchists of the early 20th century are not closely analogous to Islamic terrorists or leftist terrorists of the 1960s-1970s or the present day (despite the echoes in the name “Luigi Mangione”), but they share some characteristics such as the desire to destroy the current order through violence. How did the US actually deal with the problem a hundred years ago? Well, there was what’s known as the First Red Scare:

The First Red Scare in the United States, occurring from 1917 to 1920, was a period of intense public fear and anxiety regarding the perceived rise of communist and socialist ideologies. This era was marked by increased labor activism, immigration, and industrialization. The Russian Revolution of 1917, which saw the overthrow of the tsar and the rise of the Bolsheviks, fueled fears of a similar uprising in the U.S. A. Mitchell Palmer, the U.S. Attorney General, initiated a series of raids, known as the Palmer Raids, targeting foreign-born individuals suspected of radical leftist sympathies. These raids, often criticized for their questionable legality and brutality, failed to uncover evidence of a widespread conspiracy, and public concern waned by 1920 when predicted revolutionary actions did not materialize.

Some of the information you can find online ascribes fear of Italian anarchists to xenophobia and bigotry and glosses over the very real and radical destructive goals of the anarchists (see this Boston Public Library site for an example). Why did anarchy take such root among Italians? Here’s a short summary:

From the last third of the 19th century until soon after the turn of the 20th century, Italy (with the exception of Spain) was the site of Europe’s largest anarchist movement. Mikhail Bakunin, the progenitor of modern anarchism, first found widespread support in Italy, and, while there, from 1863 to 1867, he published his seminal writings, which remain the framework for anti-organizational, libertarian anarchism. Italian intellectuals, notably Carlo Pisacane and Errico Malatesta, contributed to the development of anarchist theory. In the United States, anarchism persisted longer and had more effect in the Italian immigrant community than elsewhere. Most significantly, it challenged (for a time successfully) Fascist hegemony in the multitudinous Little Italys where the vast majority of Italian Americans resided.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in a largely Italian community, and by then there wasn’t a trace – to be seen by me, anyway – of either anarchism or Fascism. But earlier, apparently, things were different. More here:

Galleanists [anarchist followers of Luigi Galleani] were primary suspects in a campaign of bombings between 1914 and 1920. Instances included mail bombs to business and government officials and the 1920 Wall Street bombing, which killed 38 people. In effect, however, none of the Galleanisti bombs hit their targets: capitalists, police, or judges. Their casualties were themselves and bystanders. Their bombing methods borrowed from the Italian Black Hand extortion rackets, in which the attacker would write a threat of future violence and place bombs in doorways. These extortionists adapted fireworks, a popular Italian industry, with shrapnel or stolen dynamite from construction jobs. Anarchists, however, lacked the community experience with high explosives and thus overestimated their ability to create working bombs and underestimated their own risk.

New York City Galleanisti formed the Bresci Circle in honor of Gaetano Bresci, the anarchist assassin of Umberto I of Italy. By 1914, almost 600 members met regularly at a rundown house in East Harlem. A plot to bomb the Rockefellers increased police interest in the group.

Several months after the 1914 Ludlow Massacre that had incensed Galleanisti, a group of anarchists carried a bomb to the Tarrytown estate of the Ludlow coal mine owner, John D. Rockefeller, in July 1914. They miscalculated, both in failing to trigger the device and since Rockefeller was then out of town. A member of the Circle was arrested[8] and the bomb, which they carried to an East Harlem tenement near the Circle’s headquarters, exploded, demolishing half of the building and killing three anarchists.

That’s just the tip of a pretty large iceberg; also don’t forget that in 1901 President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, although not an Italian one:

[The assassin] Czolgosz had lost his job during the economic Panic of 1893 and turned to anarchism, a political philosophy adhered to by contemporary assassins of foreign leaders. He regarded McKinley as a symbol of oppression and was convinced that it was his duty as an anarchist to kill him. He was unable to get near the president during an earlier visit, but he shot him twice as McKinley reached to shake his hand in the reception line …

Another event in the series was this:

On June 2, 1919, a militant anarchist named Carlo Valdinoci blew up the front of newly appointed Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer’s home in Washington, D.C.—and himself up in the process when the bomb exploded too early.

A young Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, who lived across the street, were also shaken by the blast.

The bombing was just one in a series of coordinated attacks that day on judges, politicians, law enforcement officials, and others in eight cities nationwide.

About a month earlier, radicals had also mailed bombs to the mayor of Seattle and a U.S. Senator, blowing the hands off the senator’s domestic worker. The next day, a postal worker in New York City intercepted 16 more packages addressed to political and business leaders, including John D. Rockefeller.

One way the US dealt with the problem was mass roundups and deportation:

[Attorney General] Palmer created a small division to gather intelligence on the radical threat and placed a young Justice Department lawyer named J. Edgar Hoover in charge. Hoover collected and organized every scrap of intelligence gathered by the Bureau of Investigation (the FBI’s predecessor) and by other agencies to identify anarchists most likely involved in violent activity. …

…[T]he Department of Justice began arresting, under recently passed laws like the Sedition Act, suspected radicals and foreigners identified by Hoover’s group, including well-known leaders Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. In December, with much public fanfare, a number of radicals were put on a ship dubbed the “Red Ark” or “Soviet Ark” by the press and deported to Russia.

At this point, though, politics, inexperience, and overreaction got the better of Attorney General Palmer and his department. Hoover—with the encouragement of Palmer and the help of the Department of Labor—started planning a massive roundup of radicals.

By early January 1920, the plans were ready. The department organized simultaneous raids in major cities, with local police called on to arrest thousands of suspected anarchists. But the ensuing “Palmer Raids” turned into a nightmare, marked by poor communications, planning, and intelligence about who should be targeted and how many arrest warrants would be needed. The constitutionality of the entire operation was questioned, and Palmer and Hoover were roundly criticized for the plan and for their overzealous domestic security efforts.

You can find a longer discussion here with a lot more details. The most important part, I think, is this:

The people who were arrested during the Palmer Raids were picked up not because of anything they had done but because of what they might do. In fact, many of those arrested and held for deportation did not believe in violence. The Union of Russian Workers had declared its belief in revolution when it was founded in 1907, but by 1919 it had largely become a social club whose members were unaware of its founding principles. The Department of Labor later canceled thousands of deportation orders issued to members of the Communist Labor Party on the grounds that it, too, was not a truly revolutionary party. In the end, the government succeeded in deporting only eight hundred of the more than four thousand people it had arrested.

Another thing that happened was a change in immigration policies. The Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 (after McKinley’s assassination) prohibited anarchists from entering, although it doesn’t seem to have been all that effective. In 1924 far more restrictive immigration quotas were implemented and made it more difficult for newer populations such as Italians to come here.

Thus, the immediate threat died down. But the threat had been very real. And there remain lingering echoes of anarchism in today’s political violence. Are Antifa anarchists, for example? Some most definitely are, although today’s radical leftist terrorists are more of a mixed bag in terms of their philosophy. But although history doesn’t repeat itself, it certainly rhymes.

ADDENDUM: Recently Rubio gave a speech on the subject of left-wing terrorism. Here it is:

The post The history of violent leftist anarchists in the US appeared first on The New Neo.

A small town Kansas mayor born in Mexico. A Filipino senior citizen living in Hawaii. Two Pakistani men residing in New Jersey. An Aussie in Louisiana. And a Chinese student studying at the University of Michigan. They all have one thing in common.

Each has been charged in the last year with illegally voting in U.S. federal elections as foreigners, part of a sudden wave of prosecutions led by the Trump Justice Department for a crime that used to be among the rarest in the federal court system.

The Trump Justice Department has secured about two dozen non-citizens voting arrests, prosecutions or convictions in the last few months alone, with about another 90 more cases under investigation, officials told Just the News. And all 50 states were sent notices this month that election officials can and will be prosecuted too if they allow non-citizens to vote.

Until now, prosecutors haven’t been especially interested in pursuing the possibility. And so it’s been easy to say it just doesn’t happen. But the DOJ has started to focus on the phenomenon, and these cases are the result. How many more are there?:

Trump administration officials like Dhillon believe the total number of foreigners who made it onto voter rolls will grow into the hundreds of thousands when all the reviews of state voter rolls are completed.

Many blue and even some red states are fighting in court to block the DOJ from examining their voter rolls. The dozen or so states that have cooperated in some form have identified 20,000 to 30,000 non-citizens on their rolls, officials said. A much larger bloc of non-citizens is expected to be found in non-cooperating states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California, the officials said.

Being on the rolls isn’t the same thing as actually voting, of course. But the two can certainly be connected, especially in states that send out ballots by mail without voters having requested them.

This is part of the reason Americans feel increased distrust of the validity of US elections. Here’s a poll:

In a national survey from the Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections (CTTE) at the University of California San Diego, produced in collaboration with the university’s Yankelovich Center for Social Science Research, 60% of respondents said they are confident votes will be counted accurately nationwide in the 2026 midterms. Just after the 2024 presidential election, that figure stood at 77%, a 17-point drop.

The survey of 11,406 eligible voters, conducted Dec. 19, 2025 through Jan. 12, 2026, shows trust declining by 17 percentage points among Republicans, 13 points among Democrats and 16 points among independents. The decline spans party lines, though the sources of skepticism vary.

Of course they vary, and they vary in the way you might expect:

Only 27% of Democrats, 21% of independents and 35% of Republicans say they trust that district lines are drawn in a way that fairly reflects what voters want. …

Republicans expressed higher levels of distrust about mail ballots and whether noncitizens will be prevented from casting ballots, while Democrats’ distrust focused on redistricting efforts.

Not good.

The post Non-citizens are voting appeared first on The New Neo.

I first noticed this while listening to a podcast in which people were pointing out that America was built on immigration, that they themselves got their citizenship as the children of immigrants, and so forth, and therefore they’re against Trump’s proposals on birthright citizenship. But of course, that basic process is not in dispute – for legal immigrants. Nor, as far as I know, was the idea to make Trump’s EO on this retroactive and apply to people already born here.

It’s a separate issue whether Trump had the power to do this by executive order. I don’t think he does have that power, as I’ve written before. But the issue I’m writing about in this post is what he actually was trying to do with the order, not whether an executive order would be sufficient to actually accomplish it.

Here’s Trump’s executive order; you can take a look yourself. The order relies on the 14th Amendment requirement that, in order to gain birthright citizenship, a person born here must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US:

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

In other words, the order sought exclude babies born to pregnant illegal aliens, and babies born to tourists. The next paragraph goes on to say that documents conferring citizenship should not be issued to those two classes of persons. It adds that it is not retroactive; it only applies to children born after 30 days of the order (I’ve noticed that some people had also wrongly assumed it would be retroactive).

And then it adds this:

Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

In other words, birthright citizenship would have remained intact for other classes of people.

Now, perhaps you all already knew all this. I had pretty much assumed that everyone already knew it. But then I kept hearing otherwise, some of it from people who are clearly intelligent, some of them also on the right. Was the misunderstanding a failure of the MSM to cover it properly? Or was it just a kneejerk assumption about Trump being an intolerant, marauding person who supposedly wants no immigrants? I don’t know. But I thought I’d clear it up, just in case.

What’s more, I’ve read little recently about a fact I wrote about years ago when discussing this birthright issue, which is that the US is almost alone among first-world nations in conferring it in the first place to the babies of illegal aliens and of tourists. Only Canada has a similar policy (excluding children of diplomats, however, much as we do) along with a host of third-world countries such as Cuba, Chad, and Guyana that ordinarily don’t have to fend off birth tourism anyway. I think a great many people assume that countries such as England and France have birthright citizenship much as we do, but they do not. The general rule for Europe and even for some third-world countries is that the parents must either be born there for some countries, or be legal residents for others.

When I look at recent headlines on the subject, I see a great many like this one from the BBC: “Trump loses Supreme Court battle to end birthright citizenship.” If a person reads only the headline and not the article – which people often do – that person would get the wrong idea. The body of the article itself uses the word “limit” rather than “end,” but doesn’t explain the details, and I think many or most readers would get the impression that Trump wanted to ban much more than was actually the case.

[NOTE: I’m having major WiFi connectivity problems today and had to use my cellphone to publish this. I had originally meant to add a few other articles at the end to illustrate, but have given up at the moment because it’s just too hard to do from a phone. GRRRR!]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s the part I was trying to add earlier, when my Wifi connection dropped out:

Then there’s this headline from something called the American Immigration Council. It reads: “SCOTUS Rules Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Is Unconstitutional.” At least, this article explains the restrictions in paragraph three, but there’s no question in my mind that for the many who don’t read that far, the impression received would be that Trump tried to ban the practice altogether.

On the other hand, this NBC News article uses the word “limit” rather than “end” in the headline. However, it doesn’t explain in the body of the article what those “limits” would be until quite a ways down – that is, paragraph ten. By that point many or even most readers probably would have given up.

The post Trump wasn’t trying to <i>eliminate</i> birthright citizenship appeared first on The New Neo.

DOJ senior official Colin McDonald issued a department-wide memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations and criminal charges against people who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.

“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which he posted publicly on social media.

That’s all very well and good when Republicans are in charge. But if Democrats win, faggetaboutit. Of course, that’s true of a lot of things.

In the past, the fraud has worked in this way:

Back in 2019, Chinese national Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services, which helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth. Li claimed to have served more than 500 customers, charging each between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in wire transfers from China over two years. Li coached clients to lie on visa applications and at U.S. consulate interviews in China, claiming a two-week stay while planning to stay up to three months, and trained them to conceal their pregnancies from customs officials. …

You Win USA marketed the service by promising children “13 years of free education,” “less pollution,” “an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States,” and “priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations.” Citizenship as a premium package, complete with step-by-step coaching on how to fool the U.S. government.

Li pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2019.

In the future, though, they might become more subtle about it.

During the present administration, the flow of illegal aliens into this country has been much reduced. This helps deal with one aspect of the problem – although again, that will change if Democrats get back in charge.

And then there’s Congress. I don’t think the amendment effort can possibly end up getting 3/4 of the states to support it. but it needs to be tried.

But really, if birth tourism is reduced greatly and if illegal immigration is much reduced as well, that would take care of the bulk of the problem. Thing is, it’s only a temporary fix.

The post The birthright citizenship fight isn’t quite over appeared first on The New Neo.

In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold that they are not.

The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination” of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.

The sole constitutional claim before us will likely fail. Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, one set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country’s population. But, ironically, one of respondents’ other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past. For these reasons, the District Courts erred in granting interim relief.

The opinion points out that these “temporary” exceptions often last for many decades.

NOTE: SCOTUS should be issuing a ruling on birthright citizenship soon. If I had to guess, I’d say they will uphold the present interpretation of how it functions. But I simply don’t know. Personally, I think the arguments against the current construction of the law are strong. But there’s room for ambiguity and it would be such a big change to make it more restrictive that I don’t think it will happen.

The post On immigration and the law: SCOTUS decides that “temporary” means temporary and that the Trump orders were not based on race appeared first on The New Neo.

The European Parliament on Wednesday approved more stringent migration measures that grant member states wider-ranging powers to deport failed asylum-seekers.

EU lawmakers approved the changes to EU policy with 418 in favor to 218 against and 30 abstentions.

That’s not a close vote.

More:

Under the new system member states will be allowed to establish so-called “return hubs” in non-EU countries.

A non-EU national found to be staying illegally within a member state will be obliged to leave the EU country “immediately or within a given time,” the European Parliament said.

A migrant or asylum seeker in such a situation could find themselves in “return hubs” in other countries that have an agreement with EU member states.

These agreements “may only be concluded with third countries that uphold human rights, international law and the principle of non-refoulement.”

Under the legislation, the person may be detained, should they fail to cooperate with local authorities or if they’re found to pose a security risk.

Seems like it will only deal with a small percentage of illegal aliens, the ones who get into the most trouble with authorities. And where will they go? Where are these countries that protect human rights and yet want to accept the deportees?

Here’s a hint:

[Cyprus’ Migration Minister] Ioannides said the “general idea” is to set up return hubs “maybe in Africa or Asia” but “not close to European borders.”

I’m still trying to figure out where these hubs might be. And so are they:

Spain’s Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who is opposed to the returns deal, said at last week’s meeting that he was worried return hubs would be built “without safeguards” for people’s rights, “to the point that a family with children could be returned to countries with which they have no ties.”

Luxembourg’s Minister of Home Affairs Léon Gloden said his country would object to sending women and children to return hubs, despite backing the centers being set up.

Maybe the idea is to motivate illegal aliens to self-deport back to their host countries, or not to come to EU countries in the first place, if there’s no guarantee of being allowed to stay.

NOTE: Makes me think a bit of the way Australia was settled (at least in part), as a way of clearing out Britain’s overcrowded prisons.

The post The EU turns slightly to the right on immigration appeared first on The New Neo.