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.

This first clip is two minutes long:

This second clip is about three and a half minutes long

That’s from 1969, and a lot has happened since then, as you might imagine. Here’s a short summary:

Since 1945, immigration to the United Kingdom, controlled by British immigration law and to an extent by British nationality law, has been significant, in particular from the former territories of the British Empire and the member states of the EU and EFTA. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, migration from countries outside the European Economic Area has dominated immigration to the UK. The British Nationality Act 1948 granted residency rights to all colonial subjects, approximately 800 million, enabling mass post-war immigration. The Commonwealth Immigrants Acts (1962, 1968) and Immigration Act 1971 rescinded these rights by introducing work vouchers and ancestral requirements that favoured those with parent or grandparent to have been born in the UK. The British Nationality Act 1981 abolished the 1948 citizenship status.

Since the United Kingdom acceded to the European Communities in the 1970s and the creation of the European Union in the early 1990s, people have migrated from member states of the European Union, exercising one of the European Union’s Four Freedoms. Migration to and from Central and Eastern Europe increased since 2004, following the accession of eight Central and Eastern European states to the European Union. Following the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 at 11 pm GMT, this freedom of movement ceased. Citizens of EEA+CH member states no longer had an automatic right to move to or reside permanently in the UK without a visa. A smaller number have come as illegal immigrants, many of which have claimed asylum. …

The UK Government can also grant settlement to foreign nationals, which confers on them indefinite leave to remain in the UK, without granting them British citizenship. Grants of settlement are made on the basis of various factors, including employment, family formation and reunification, and asylum …

Long-term net migration is estimated to have reached a record high of 944,000 in the year ending March 2023, with immigration at 1,469,000 and emigration at 525,000. According to the Office for National Statistics’ provisional estimate, released November 2025, long-term net migration in the year ending June 2025 was +204,000 … Total immigration was 898,000: non-EEA+CH nationals accounted for 75% of total immigration (670,000), British nationals comprised 16% (143,000), and EEA+CH nationals constituted 9% (85,000). The top three nationalities from non-EU+ countries immigrating on work-related visas were Indian, Pakistani, and Nigerian.

It’s complicated, to say the least.

The post Enoch Powell again: on how third-world immigration to Britain got going appeared first on The New Neo.

A week or so ago I had come across an interview with Enoch Powell, he of the famous “rivers of blood” speech given in 1968. I’d heard of Powell quite a while before that, and had read the famous speech for which he became a pariah (although a hero to some) by warning about the growing pace of immigration to Britain from third-world countries that were part of the British Commonwealth. The term “rivers of blood” came from this quote from the speech:

Here [referring to a proposed anti-discrimination law] is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.

Because the speech was made in 1968, the specter he was raising was of the widespread race riots and unrest in the US at the time.

Here’s more from the 1968 speech that stirred so much controversy [emphasis mine]:

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen. …

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. …

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

That was followed by a quote about Sikhs not assimilating but rather wanting to be granted “special rights”; that reminds me, on reading it now, of the killing of Henry Nowak by Vickrum Digwa, the knife-carrying Sikh.

Powell’s speech certainly describes with some accuracy trends which have only increased. He seems to have foreseen not only the growth of third-world immigration to Britain, but describes the phenomenon of the reaction of native British people feeling like third-class citizens, the desire of the immigrant groups for power, and the fear of reprisals and censorship native Britishers felt for speaking out against the immigrant influx. These are not recent trends; they were already present over fifty years ago.

A couple of weeks ago I’d come across some interviews with Enoch Powell from the 1960s and 1970s in which he further discussed the reasoning in Britain of those encouraging immigration at the time. But when I tried to find one interview in particular just now I couldn’t locate it, although I’ll continue to look. Instead, I found the following fascinating segment from a 1971 Dick Cavett Show in which Powell and Jonathan Miller debate the two sides of the issue. It is absolutely fascinating how Powell states the nativist side and Miller states the globalist side, the same battle that goes on today. Note also how eloquent they both are, although I think Powell is the more impressive in that regard:

That clip makes me sad. It not only shows how long these problems have been with us and how long the sides have been at loggerheads, but it also shows how public discourse has degenerated over the years.

[NOTE: I’ll post the other Powell video – the one I was originally searching for – if I find it.]

The post Enoch Powell: on immigration to Britain appeared first on The New Neo.

Between 2010 and today, in only 16 years, the number of foreign-born residents in Europe rocketed from 40million to more than 64million. In other words, Europe’s ruling class added 24million foreign-born residents in only 16 years, with nearly three-quarters coming from radically different cultures and nations.

It’s that last bit that’s of great import: “from radically different cultures and nations.” Not just “radically different,” either, but a significant number of the newcomers are also uninterested in assimilating to their new cultural surroundings and in some instances they hate them and actively wish to change them.

The US does – or used to do – somewhat better at assimilation, but Europe historically has been much less interested in that process. Perhaps that’s because European nations are more based on a shared physical (genetic) and historical heritage and less based on shared principles (or at least overtly stated shared principles rather than subtly understood ones), whereas the US has always been composed mostly of people “from away” who have come because they are interested in liberty and opportunity.

The advent of the welfare state, both in Europe and in the US, has diluted that motive.

More from the essay:

Between 2015 and 2024, Germany’s immigrant population exploded from 11million to more than 17million. In Spain, it surged from 5.9million to close to 10million.

As in the UK, immigration is now the only reason Europe’s population is growing. Why? Because Europe’s people are no longer reproducing themselves naturally. Europe has now recorded more deaths than births every single year since 2012, with Latvia, Bulgaria and Lithuania suffering the sharpest falls. …

These trends will only accelerate unless Europe finds a way of encouraging its native population to have more children, which looks unlikely. The average fertility rate across Europe has slumped to 1.34 children per woman, sharply down from 1.46 in 2004 and well below the ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1 at which a population is considered stable. Europe’s fertility rate today is now broadly the same as the rate in the UK, where it’s dropped to 1.39, and where 40 per cent of all children now have one or two foreign-born parents.

This is a worldwide phenomenon in developed countries, and I don’t believe there’s a country so far that has successfully reversed it to any degree once it gets going.

More:

Between 2010 and 2024, in just 14 years, the share of foreign-born people in Germany rocketed from 12.9 per cent to 21 per cent. In Austria, it is 22 per cent. In Ireland, it is 23 per cent. In Sweden, it is 21 per cent. In the UK, thanks to the ‘Boriswave’, it is 20 per cent. In Spain, it’s 19 per cent. These are all record highs and point to a continent that’s being transformed in terms of both its demography and culture.

In Vienna, for instance, 42 per cent of all pupils at state schools are Muslim, while in Berlin, Hamburg, and other parts of Germany more than half of all school pupils are migrants or the children of migrants (like parts of the UK).

What was that Siege of Vienna thing about, so long ago?

It’s no wonder that politicians in such places cater to the newcomers, and elections reflect the opinions of the newcomers. For example, Mamdani’s election in New York is said to have been at least in part the result of the demographics of a city in which, according to Google AI (citing this report):

While the foreign-born population accounts for nearly 38% of New York City’s overall residents (including non-citizens), foreign-born naturalized citizens make up about 25% to 30% of the city’s eligible electorate.

More from this article:

… Europe’s ruling class has clearly decided that mass immigration is no longer just a temporary policy: it is now permanent. In effect, Europe, like other Western nations, is using large-scale immigration to compensate for the demographic collapse of its native population.

And millions of ordinary Europeans can now sense and see what this means. Entire cities set to be transformed within just one generation. A growing gulf between metropolitan elites in the rapidly diversifying cities and ordinary Europeans who live outside them. A growing sense among millions of voters that they were never properly consulted about any of these changes. And a creeping awareness that migration is not just adding to Europe’s population but is replacing it, too.

The awareness isn’t so creeping anymore. And the disdain of the “elite” rulers in Europe for the native population – especially in Britain, or maybe Britain is just the place I hear about more often – is obvious and blatant.

I think the article leaves out something I think is also operating: the virtue-signaling motive on the part of those in charge in Europe. It’s certainly not the only motive, but it’s part of it. The idea that the masses who object to their countries being transformed are racist bigots whose objections are invalid and who must be policed for those objections, and silenced harshly if necessary, is quite rampant among the government officials in Europe. The gulf is wide and the condescension is palpable.

We are a bit behind Europe in these trends, but they are present here as well. And it is quite certain the trends will accelerate if the Democrats get back into power.

The post Europe’s changing demographics appeared first on The New Neo.

The man who was viciously stabbed on a Belfast street by a man from Sudan has lost an eye. He’s fortunate he didn’t lose two – at least, that hasn’t happened yet:

The victim of the stabbing remains in serious condition and the court has heard he lost his left eye and has severe damage to his right eye in the attack as well as deep cuts to his head and face, and long lacerations on his back.

The attack was only stopped by some brave onlookers, including this man:

Among the heroes was Maitiu Mág Tighearnán, known as Matt, who stumbled upon the scene after returning home from a night out.

Grabbing a wooden hurley stick – used in the Irish sport of hurling – the young dad charged towards the knifeman.

Police later said the actions of courageous members of the public and responding officers had “undoubtedly” saved the victim’s life.

I originally thought, from the name, that Maitiu might be from the Pacific Islands or some other foreign place. But then I realized that no, the spelling of the name is a Gaelic thing. Here’s some information:

Speaking to the Daily Mail, Mr Mág Tighearnán said he had just returned from hurling practice with his son, when he noticed a car in the area reverse as “if to get away from something”.

He then exited his vehicle with his friend, named as Andre, when the pair noticed the attacker stabbing the man.

Mr Mág Tighearnán said “instinct took over” as he confronted the man.

“Andre was a few seconds behind and he came running in and tried to subdue the attacker with an ankle-hold so he could free the victim,” he added.

“I hit this guy again, hard, but it didn’t seem to phase him. He did stumble back, though and dropped the knife. I think another man who’d been watching came in and kicked the knife away.”

He also told the newspaper the victim appeared to “scream” but couldn’t due to stab wounds to his neck.

“I’m glad we intervened when we did. It was pure chance that we’d gone that route to the petrol station,” he continued.

“People have called us heroes but to be honest I’d like to think most people would’ve got stuck in and helped if they could. I just hope the victim pulls through and manages to recover as best he can.”

Heroes nearly always claim they’re nothing special. But they’re very special.

As for the perpetrator, he had nothing to say for himself when he appeared in court (via videolink):

Hadi Alodid has appeared before the city’s magistrates’ court on Wednesday morning.

The 30-year-old, with an address at Duncairn Avenue in Belfast, is charged with the attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvy, threatening to kill an NHS radiographer on the same day and with the possession of a knife.

He appeared in court via videolink. He refused legal representation and made no reply to charges which were put to him through an Arabic interpreter.

He was refused bail. The threats against the NHS worker have not been further explained as far as I can tell. My guess is that this happened first, and was the beginning of the perp’s frenzy that culminated in the stabbing. Why was Alodid interacting with an NHS radiographer? Was he being worked up for some problem?

I’ve read a few other things from sources I don’t think are necessarily trustworthy, although I don’t know. For example, some are saying that Ogilvie had helped Alodid move into a flat just a few days earlier. Others say that Ogilvie is developmentally disabled. Each of these things may or may not be true.

The event sparked riots, and of course the riots were condemned by people like Starmer. It really does seem that he’s more upset about the riots than about the attack, although he did condemn the attack. But Starmer will not sympathize with the rage of people who feel their country has been invaded by a large number of newcomers who are culturally incompatible and many of whom are not assimilating. Nor will he sympathize with the rage they feel towards people like Starmer himself who have encouraged the huge number of third-world newcomers.

Starmer said:

“The scenes in Belfast last night were shocking and completely unacceptable.

“There is no justification for the violence and disorder that we saw threatening our communities, nor for those who encouraged it, online or elsewhere.

“It is clear that people were targeted last night because of their background and I will not tolerate it. Those responsible will feel the full force of the law.”

Oh, that’ll calm them down.

NOTE: On the rescuer’s name, Google AI has this to say:

Yes, the name Maitiu (often spelled Maitiú) is distinctively Irish. It is the traditional Gaelic/Irish form of the English name Matthew, which traces its ultimate origins to Hebrew.The second part of the name, Mág, is a traditional Gaelic prefix (a variant of Mac) meaning “son of.” It is typically combined with another Gaelic word, such as Tighearnán (meaning “lord” or “master”), to form a full Irish surname (e.g., Mág Tighearnán, Anglicized as McKiernan)

So we might call him Matthew McKiernan.

The post The Belfast stabber and his victim appeared first on The New Neo.

And so we have this:

The DOJ is expected to announce on Friday that it is filing denaturalizing actions against 12 individuals, originally from Iraq, Colombia, Morocco, Somalia, Gambia, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Kenya, India, China and Nigeria.

Ali Yousif Ahmed, a native of Iraq, is one of the individuals the DOJ says they are taking action against. Ahmed came to the U.S. in 2009, claiming his family was attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Ten years later, Iraq asked the U.S. to extradite Ahmed to Iraq, claiming he was facing criminal charges for the premeditated murder of two Iraqi police officers in 2006.

“Upon further investigation, United States learned that, in 2015, Ahmed illegally procured his naturalization, which warrants his denaturalization, because he lied under oath about his criminal and family history when he sought admission to the United States and naturalized as a U.S. citizen,” a document on the denaturalization process and shared with the Caller read.

More at the link.

The Trump administration has been stepping up investigations for this sort of thing. Sounds like a good idea to me.
:

The post Denaturalization appeared first on The New Neo.

The J.G.G. v. Trump case has already made its way up to the Supreme Court once, and while the case is still working its way through the courts on the merits, there’s been a contemporaneous contempt proceeding, in which Judge Boasberg has been assessing whether he’d hold certain members of the Trump administration in criminal contempt over its actions following his order to effectively turn the planes (already in transit to El Salvador) around.

In connection with that, the administration sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, essentially asking that Boasberg’s contempt inquisition be shut down. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the writ and halted the district court’s ongoing contempt investigation into the administration’s March deportation flights, blocking further testimony and fact-finding aimed at determining whether officials defied a temporary restraining order.

The majority ruled that the Boasberg court abused its discretion, by continuing the proceedings despite SCOTUS having ruled that the original suit was brought under the wrong legal reasoning and in the wrong court. Continuing on with contempt proceedings meant that Boasberg was abusing his court’s discretion and also making an attempt to impair the executive branch in its constitutional duties.

When I read that the decision was 2-1, I immediately wondered about the political breakdown of the judges. Sure enough, two were Trump appointees and the dissent was written by an Obama appointee. No surprise. Next there might be a request for a hearing en banc (the larger panel) and that could go quite differently.

The post DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Boasberg appeared first on The New Neo.

Those words from Chief Justice John Roberts during this week’s oral arguments signaled that the conservative justices are unlikely to reject birthright citizenship. Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara. However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship.

As some of us stressed before the oral argument, the odds were against the administration prevailing in the case, given more than a century of countervailing precedent. There are good-faith arguments against reading the 14th Amendment as supporting citizenship for any child born in this country. It is doubtful that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could have envisioned millions of births to illegal aliens. They surely did not imagine foreigners coming to this country for the purpose of giving birth — or even, without ever entering the U.S., contracting multiple U.S. residents to carry babies to term for them as surrogates.

The historical record is highly conflicted. Some drafters expressly denied that they intended for birthright citizenship to be covered by the 14th Amendment.

The final word actually rests with the public. We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship.

We are becoming a virtual mockery as we watch millions game the birthright citizenship system.

It seems quite obvious to me, and as far back as 2014 I’ve said an amendment on this would solve the problem – if it could be passed. I see that in June of 2025, Republican House of Representatives member Andy Barr introduced such an amendment:

If passed, Barr’s amendment would clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s clause that persons must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States to be citizens.

Barr’s amendment would clarify that “a person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is — (1) a national of the United States; (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the armed forces.”

Nothing seems to have happened on that. No surprise there; it’s very difficult to pass an amendment (or an amendment to an amendment, which Barr’s proposal seems to involve?):

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

Good luck with that; I don’t see it happening. There aren’t many things on which two-thirds of Congress can agree, and this is not one of them, IMHO – although it should be.

The post Jonathan Turley seems to agree with me on birthright citizenship and a constitutional amendment appeared first on The New Neo.

Here is the Question Presented on which the court agreed to take the case:

“The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order’s effective date.

“The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.”

President Trump is attending, although the left has been outraged about that and claims it threatens separation of powers (and apparently no president has ever done so before). However, there has been a chair there for presidents if one happens to want to attend, so it seems perfectly okay.

The Legal Insurrection article I linked in the first sentence says that from the drift of the proceedings there’s no way to tell how the justices will ultimately rule, but it seems the vote will probably be very close with Barrett casting the deciding vote. Jonathan Turley seems to think it most likely that the government will lose. I find that I agree, mostly because I think they’re reluctant to make that large a change when the intent of the statute’s framers is unclear because they never envisioned the present-day situation (for example, that of pregnant tourists coming here for the sole purpose of giving birth here and of conferring citizenship on their baby and then immediately leaving with the baby).

I think it’s obvious that such a situation would not have been the intent of the statute’s framers, although they never explicitly addressed it. But I think it might take a constitutional amendment to change the law. I doubt such an amendment would pass – too many blue states? – and in any event it would take a long time.

[NOTE: I’ve written on the birthright citizenship question many times. I refer you in particular to this post, which adds links to several other posts of mine on the subject, plus a quote with some predictions.]

The post Today SCOTUS heard arguments on birthright citizenship appeared first on The New Neo.

Will authorities in Chicago finally turn him over to the feds? Not yet – plus this:

The illegal migrant accused of executing a Chicago college student in cold blood last week failed to show up for a Monday hearing because he is being hospitalized for a rare contagious disease.

Jose Medina-Medina, a 25-year-old Venezuelan national, was not at the hearing because he requires treatment for tuberculosis, the Chicago Tribune reported.

He’s quite the poster child for “illegal aliens are our strength.”

I also wondered why the article said TB is “rare.” It’s certainly not common in the US but I wouldn’t call it rare. And, as one might expect, see this from October 2024:

Unfortunately, after decades of decline, TB is beginning to resurface in the United States. In fact, cases of TB have grown significantly in recent years. The number of TB cases in the U.S. has increased 34 percent between 2020 and 2023. The number of TB cases is now higher than pre-pandemic levels (2019).

– Nationally, 76 percent of TB cases in 2023 occurred in foreign-born patients.
– Counties, states and metropolitan areas with high foreign-born populations have higher TB rates than those with lower foreign-born populations.
– Some countries of origin for both legal and illegal aliens have TB rates as high as 60 times the U.S. rate.
– The government’s health screening for TB in potential immigrants is deficient; some categories of aliens do not undergo health screening at all.
– Latent TB is not grounds for inadmissibility, even though the progression of latent TB accounts for over 80 percent of active TB cases in the U.S.
– Some U.S. border counties have TB rates exceeding rates in high-risk countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
– The cost of treating each case of TB is over $20,000, and can reach over $500,000 if the case is extensively drug-resistant.

How is the New York Times covering the story?Seems to be a version of “Republicans pounce”:

Loyola University Chicago was shaken last week when someone shot and killed one of its students, Sheridan Gorman, as she walked with friends near Lake Michigan.

For days, the police said little about what happened, only that “an unknown male offender” had approached the group at about 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, displayed a gun and fired in their direction. Ms. Gorman, 18, who was recalled by friends as generous and fun, was killed.

As Ms. Gorman’s family and friends grieved, her death was thrust into the nation’s contentious immigration debate on Sunday when the Trump administration said that a man arrested in connection with the killing was from Venezuela and in the United States illegally.

The subtitle of the article is: “Sheridan Gorman, 18, was killed last week near Loyola University Chicago. The Trump administration has sought to highlight crimes committed by undocumented people in its deportation campaign.”

And what on earth is this?:

… Chicago Alderwoman Maria Hadden suggested Gorman and her friends may have unintentionally startled the armed suspect.

“The kids were out doing normal things people do in the neighborhood,” Hadden told Fox 32. “They may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, running into a person who had a gun.”

“They might have unintentionally startled this person at the end of the pier,” she added. “We don’t believe there is cause for broader community concern.”

No, nothing to worry about.

The post Another illegal alien is arrested for murder appeared first on The New Neo.