Democrat leftists refuse to use the word “crisis” to describe the situation that currently exists at America’s southern border, and they go to great lengths to avoid telling the truth about it. This was evidenced with comic, cringe-worthy clarity during a White House press briefing on March 18, 2021, when President Joe Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, inadvertently went off-script and used the phrase “crisis on the border” to describe the massive, uncontrolled influx of illegal migrants who, in response to Biden’s border policies, were swarming into the United States from Mexico and the Central American nations further south. In light of the Biden Administration’s many previous assurances that the border situation was not in any way a “crisis,” Psaki was asked, moments later, whether she had in fact meant to say “crisis [on] the border.” She quickly replied: “Challenges at the border.” When Psaki was then asked whether her use of the word “crisis” may have reflected a change in how the Administration viewed the migrant influx, she answered tersely: “Nope.”
It was a noteworthy moment, because Psaki obviously had been caught accidentally telling a forbidden truth. Indeed, that very same month, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 173,337 illegal aliens—a huge increase over the already-enormous February total of 100,441. April and May would bring additional record hauls of border apprehensions: 178,854 and 180,034, respectively. The latter was the largest number of apprehensions the nation had seen in any month on record since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002. And these figures did not even include another 30,000 people or so who, each and every month, were evading capture and sneaking into the United States undetected. “I would argue that it’s the biggest surge that we’ve ever seen in the history of the Border Patrol,” said National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd in April 2021.
But aside from rare slips-of-the-tongue like Jen Psaki’s, “crisis” has been a prohibited word in the Democratic Party’s Biden-era lexicon vis-à-vis immigration. By contrast, just a few short years before, when Donald Trump was president, Democrats had been quite willing—indeed, eager—to sound the alarm about the “crisis” at the border. It was not a crisis of overflowing crowds of migrants swarming into the country, they claimed at the time, but rather, a crisis of what the Democrats described as the “concentration camps” wherein the Trump Administration was holding the children of illegal migrants while they awaited their immigration or asylum court hearings.
What the Democrats dutifully chose not to address in the Trump era was the fact that aside from all the rhetoric, the actual crisis of that moment had been brought about by the failed “progressive” policies of President Trump’s predecessors—most notably during the eight years of Obama-Biden. Those policies had resulted in a tidal wave of migrants that Trump, for reasons of national security, was striving mightily to deal with.
Time after time during his first two years in office, President Trump attempted to address the border crisis, only to have the Democrats put up roadblocks to virtually every reform he sought to make. As a result, by the middle of 2019, America’s southern border remained just about as unsecured as it had been throughout the Obama-Biden years. In a May 30, 2019 phone briefing with members of the press, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney gave a sense of the magnitude of the problem:
Over the past 21 days, an average of over 4,500 people [per day] have crossed our border illegally or arrived at ports-of-entry without documents. In May of 2017, that number was less than 700 a day. The month of May  is on pace to be the highest month in crossings in over 12 years…. At any given moment, up to 100,000 migrants are transiting Mexico on their way to the U.S. border.
The harsh reality is that a significant number of those migrants were bringing nothing of any value to the United States. At least 41,696 of the illegal border-crossers who were apprehended between October of 2015 and May of 2021, for instance, had been previously arrested, either in their respective homelands or in the U.S., for offenses like assault, battery, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, larceny, driving under the influence, homicide, sexual assault, drug or weapons trafficking, and illegal entry into the United States. Moreover, U.S. Border Patrol agents in 2018 seized nearly 480,000 pounds of illicit drugs—most notably marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl—in the open desert regions of the U.S.-Mexico border. That figure far exceeded the additional 370,000 pounds of drugs that were seized at official ports-of-entry by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency’s field offices in El Paso, Laredo, Tucson, and San Diego.
The dimensions of the immigration crisis which the Democrats helped create, although they steadfastly denied its existence, were daunting. Tens of thousands of Central Americans simply walked into the U.S. each and every month, as though American immigration laws did not even exist. Many of them then attempted to claim asylum, the granting of which required them to provide evidence that if they were to return to their country of origin, they would likely face persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or social-group membership. Because American asylum courts were paralyzed by this human volume, most of these illegals were quickly released into the U.S. interior. They were told that they should return to have their asylum cases formally adjudicated on some date in the distant future, but neither they nor the American immigration officials believed that this would ever happen. Ninety percent of the asylum seekers never showed up for those hearings.
Over the years, Americans had become so accustomed to this problem and so desensitized by all the banal explanations of its causes—reigns of terror by gangs in the migrants’ home countries, widespread political corruption and economic chaos in those same nations, climate change and “extreme weather events,” etc.—that they tended to accept the tsunami of illegal migration as part of the inevitable and inexorable movement of populations away from pain and toward promise.
But this was a fiction. In fact, the problem was the product of a concerted effort by which Democratic legislators and their ideological allies in the “immigrant rights” movement sought to overwhelm and undermine America’s border-security and immigration system by importing millions of people who could be expected to eventually become reliable Democrat voters for decades to come. And after a brief interlude during which President Trump was able to take decisive, affirmative steps to protect and regulate our nation’s borders, the Biden Administration has now taken up where the Obama Administration left off in January 2017. The aim of Biden and the Democrats, in a nutshell, is to sow and nurture the seeds of a crisis that can be used as a pretext for enacting policies designed to fundamentally transform America’s population and, by logical extension, its political landscape.
This devious political tactic actually has a long pedigree as well as a name—“The Cloward-Piven Strategy”—that is derived from the surnames of its authors, the husband-and-wife team of former Columbia University sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Both were longtime Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) leaders who in the mid-1960s produced influential sociology treatises on how to effect radical change by “crashing the system.”
Cloward and Piven were ideological allies of the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who likewise urged activists to orchestrate various crises designed to push society into economic turmoil and panic, which in turn would lead the masses to accept bigger and more explicitly socialistic government interventions. “Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action—by using power,” wrote Alinsky.
Starting in the Sixties, The Cloward-Piven Strategy was employed by radicals over the next few decades to “crash” several areas of American social life—most notably welfare “rights,” the electoral system, and home mortgages—in a way that provided a blueprint for the efforts of “progressives” to crash the immigration system today.
Crashing the Welfare System
To test out their strategy of orchestrated crisis—a strategy which today can be seen impacting the immigration debate—Cloward and Piven first focused on the U.S. welfare system, urging its beneficiaries to “overload” the system in a way that would bankrupt it. This, they reasoned, would produce a crisis that would necessitate the system’s replacement with something structurally different—i.e., “legislation for a guaranteed annual income” for all people, whether or not they were employed.
Cloward and Piven laid out the details of their plan in an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” which appeared in the May 2, 1966 issue of the far-left magazine The Nation. The authors claimed that political leaders—in collaboration with their rich and powerful supporters—were trying to appease poor people with welfare benefits that were, on the one hand, far too meager to ever lift them into prosperity, but on the other hand, just substantial enough to prevent the recipients from rebelling against their capitalist exploiters and thereby jeopardizing their continued receipt of the handouts to which they had grown accustomed.
In their article, Cloward and Piven proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls” by means of a highly coordinated “educational campaign” consisting of “demonstrations” led by “cadres of aggressive organizers.” These activists threatened to take “legal action” if “satisfaction”—in the form of an enormous expansion of the nation’s welfare rolls—was “not given.” The authors were not at all troubled by the fact that their proposals, if enacted, had the potential to plunge city after city into bankruptcy. In fact, that was exactly what Cloward and Piven wanted. When they noted, for instance, that New York City was already “facing desperate revenue shortages”—thanks in part to the fact that “welfare expenditures [were] already second only to those for public education”—Cloward and Piven nonetheless exhorted the poor to demand entitlements that would “multiply these expenditures tenfold or more.”
To lead this movement to systematically overload America’s welfare system, Cloward and Piven selected a militant black organizer named George Alvin Wiley, who in 1967 founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), an umbrella group for more than 500 chapters that would spread across the United States over the next two years. Throughout the late Sixties, Wiley’s NWRO foot soldiers burst into welfare offices nationwide, where they loudly—and sometimes violently—issued their uncompromising demands for federal cash to which they claimed to be legally “entitled.” Generating fear through “a climate of militancy” was all part of the plan. As Richard Cloward once put it, poor people would never be able to advance economically until “the rest of society is afraid of them.”
In accord with Cloward and Piven’s prescription, the NWRO pushed for a “guaranteed living income” which it defined, in 1968, as $5,500 per year for every American family with four children. The following year, the NWRO raised its demand to $6,500 per family. Through its aggressive activist tactics, the NWRO and its supporters extracted many of billions of dollars in welfare payments from state and local governments across the United States. A case in point was New York City, whose welfare rolls grew from approximately 150,000 to 1.5 million people between 1960 and 1970. By the early Seventies, there were half as many NYC residents on the welfare rolls as were working in the city’s private economy. And in 1975 the city was forced to declare bankruptcy, to the delight of Cloward and Piven.
But the calamity brought about by the Cloward-Piven Strategy extended far beyond the confines of New York City. Between 1965 and 1974, the number of households on the public dole nationwide increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million—even though the American economy was generally thriving at that time. As co-authors David Horowitz and Richard Poe pointed out in their bestselling 2006 book The Shadow Party, “the tens of billions of dollars in welfare entitlements that Wiley and his followers managed to squeeze from state and local governments came very close to sinking the American economy, just as Cloward and Piven had predicted.”
Crashing the Electoral System
Following the Welfare Rights Movement of the 1960s and ’70s, Cloward and Piven turned their gunsights on the nation’s electoral system and launched a new “Voting Rights Movement” in 1982. This movement derided popular elections as charades whose actual, hidden purpose was to persuade the average person to engage in meaningless “voter activity” that would give him a false sense of participation in the American political process—much like the welfare system had allegedly been designed, according to Cloward and Piven, to give poor people a false sense of protection from economic calamity.
As Cloward and Piven saw things, welfare checks and ballots were nothing more than bones and scraps to be fed to the poor and powerless, so as to distract them from the ugly reality that they were destined to be impoverished and politically impotent forever. The real path by which the poor could gain liberation and political influence, Cloward and Piven believed, was revolution.
In their 1977 book, Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, Cloward and Piven asserted that “as long as lower-class groups abided by the norms governing the electoral–representative system, they would have little influence.… [I]t is usually when unrest among the lower classes breaks out of the confines of electoral procedures that the poor may have some influence.” Such unrest, they explained, could take any of various different forms—e.g., “strikes,” “riots,” “crime,” “incendiarism,” “massive school truancy,” “worker absenteeism,” “rent defaults,” and other expressions of “mass defiance” or “institutional disruption.”
Like their predecessors in the Welfare Rights Movement, the new voting-rights crusaders whom Cloward and Piven inspired viewed the Democratic Party as an entity that would be receptive to their aims, and thus as the party with which they should ally themselves.
In a December 1982 article titled “A Movement Strategy to Transform the Democratic Party,” which initially appeared in the radical publication Ideas for Action and was later reprinted in the left-wing journal Social Policy, Cloward and Piven called for activists to flood America’s voter-registration rolls and polling places with countless millions of new voters, particularly from the underclass, all belligerently demanding their right to participate in the electoral process. The authors understood that any effort to suddenly and swiftly add massive numbers of new names to the voter rolls would inevitably result in the appearance of many names that were either invalid or difficult to verify.
And that is precisely what Cloward and Piven wanted, because they knew that such a situation would inevitably spark Republican efforts to purge invalid names from the voter rolls, to require the presentation of Voter ID documents at polling places, to make registration procedures more cumbersome so as to minimize the possibility of fraud, and so forth. And they knew, moreover, that they would then be able to condemn such measures as “voter-suppression” schemes designed to “disenfranchise” poor people and minorities. Those condemnations, in turn, could be used to ignite “a political firestorm over democratic rights”—a firestorm led by voting-rights activists storming America’s election boards and polling stations like George Wiley’s welfare activists had stormed social-services offices several years earlier. Wrote Cloward and Piven: “By staging rallies, demonstrations, and sit-ins … over every new restriction on [voter] registration procedures, a protest movement can dramatize the conflict…. Through conflict, the registration movement will convert registering and voting into meaningful acts of collective protest.”
The most infamous exponent of Cloward and Piven’s flood-the-voter-rolls strategy was the now-defunct community organization ACORN, which in the early to mid-2000s was implicated in numerous schemes involving the falsification and destruction of voter-registration forms, the forging of signatures, the registration of dead or non-existent individuals, and the registration of convicted felons in states where they were legally ineligible to vote. In ACORN’s fraud-ridden 2008 voter-registration drives, some 400,000 bogus registrations had to be thrown out. On the eve of election day, ACORN was under investigation for voter-registration fraud in at least 13 states.
Additional key players in the voter-registration movement were Project Vote, an ACORN front group established in 1982 by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett, and Human SERVE, also founded in 1982 by Richard Cloward, Frances Fox Piven, and a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations—ACORN, Project Vote, and Human SERVE—lobbied aggressively on behalf of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, most commonly known as the “Motor-Voter” law, which President Bill Clinton signed in ’93. At the White House signing ceremony for this bill, both Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were standing behind the president in a place of high honor and distinction. Piven, for her part, was afforded an opportunity to personally address those in attendance.
David Horowitz and Richard Poe summarized the practical effects of the Motor-Voter law in The Shadow Party, where they wrote: “The Motor-Voter eliminated many controls on voter fraud, making it easy for voters to register but difficult [for election authorities] to determine the validity of new registrations. Under the new law, states were required to provide opportunities for voter registration to any person who showed up at a government office to renew a driver’s license or to apply for welfare or unemployment benefits.” The law explicitly stated that it covered not only beneficiaries of state public assistance programs, but also those who received aid from federal initiatives like: (a) “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food-Stamp program); (b) the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); (c) the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF, formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC); (d) the Medicaid program; and (e) the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).” The heavy emphasis on people who were dependent on government assistance had enormous political implications, because such individuals tended heavily to support Democrats in political elections.
In his 2004 book, Stealing Elections, author John Fund pointed out the following key provisions of the Motor-Voter law: “Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship. States had to permit mail-in voter registration, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar or election official. Finally, states were limited in clearing their rolls of ‘deadwood’—people who had died or moved, or been convicted of crimes.”
The Motor-Voter bill did indeed cause America’s voter rolls to become swamped with invalid registrations signed in the names of deceased, ineligible, or non-existent people—what John Fund called “an explosion of phantom voters”—thus opening the door to unprecedented levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections during the 1990s, and reached an apex in the Florida recount crisis in the 2000 presidential election. Emblematic of the problem was the fact that on the eve of that election, state officials in Indiana discovered that fully 20 percent of the names on their registered-voter rolls were either duplicates or otherwise invalid.
A cloud of doubt and confusion hanging over elections was exactly what Cloward and Piven and their allies wanted. One such ally was the leftist billionaire financier George Soros, who declared, regarding the 2000 election: “President Bush came to office without a clear mandate. He was elected president by a single vote on the Supreme Court.” As Horowitz and Poe observed in The Shadow Party: “Once again, the ‘flood-the-rolls’ strategy had done its work. Cloward, Piven, and their disciples ha[d] introduced a level of fear, tension, and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.”
The trend toward chaos and the promotion of public distrust in political elections continued to grow in the years that followed. In 2012, for example, the Pew Center for the States estimated that approximately 24 million of the roughly 150 million voter registrations in the U.S. were invalid. That figure included more than 1.8 million dead people who were listed as eligible voters, plus about 2.75 million who were registered in more than one state, plus another 12 million whose voter records had incorrect addresses.
Crashing the Mortgage-Lending Industry
While Cloward and Piven envisioned their “strategy” as being launched by street radicals, the housing-market crisis of 2008, which was likewise caused by a system overload—in this case the overload of the mortgage industry with bad loans to underqualified borrowers—featured radical Democrats inside government now playing the role that “activists” had played in the crises of the ’60s and ’70s.
The roots of the 2008 crisis can be traced back to 1977, when progressive Democrats in Congress—seeking to help low-income nonwhites raise their lagging rates of homeownership—passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with near unanimity. Signed into law by Democrat President Jimmy Carter, this federal statute required banks to make special efforts to lend money to minority borrowers—particularly mortgagors—of meager to modest means.
The CRA was founded upon a planted axiom with far-reaching implications—that government intervention is necessary to counteract the fundamentally racist and inequitable nature of American society generally, and of the free market specifically. The profound implications of that premise began to hit critical mass in the early 1990s, when studies showing disparate mortgage-loan approval rates for blacks and whites made sensational headlines in the media. In 1992, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston released the results of
a seminal study, commonly known as the Boston Fed Study, which found that when whites and blacks with equivalent incomes applied for mortgages, the black applicants were denied at significantly higher rates. In reaction to the study, Attorney General Janet Reno warned in 1994 that “no bank” would be “immune” to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish discrimination in lending practices.
Though the conclusions of the Boston Fed Study were thoroughly discredited by various authoritative sources—including the Federal Reserve itself—in the months and years that followed, leftists in Congress and in the Clinton Administration were determined to transform the CRA from an outreach effort into a strict quota system. Under this arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran a high risk of failing to earn a “satisfactory” CRA rating from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Such a failure, in turn, could derail the bank’s efforts to open a new branch, relocate a home office, make an acquisition, or merge with another financial institution. From a practical standpoint, then, banks had no recourse other than to drastically lower their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials.
In 1993, the Clinton Administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), backed by “progressives” in Congress, began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers who had turned down a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants, regardless of their reasons for doing so. HUD also pressured the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers.
The soon-to-be-infamous radical group ACORN, meanwhile, acting in coordination with its Democratic Party allies in Congress, aggressively pushed this same Clinton/Democrat agenda. In a 1991 protest against efforts to scale back the CRA, for instance, ACORN activists forcibly occupied the House Banking Committee room. In 1995, ACORN was the driving force behind a regulatory revision that greatly expanded the CRA. And ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to aggressively promote subprime loans for low-income minority borrowers. These loans were characterized by inflated interest rates in order to compensate lenders for the high credit risk they were incurring.
Over time, the landscape of the mortgage-lending industry was completely transformed. Subprime loans, as well as other types of nontraditional loans (such as zero-down payment loans), became ever-more prevalent. The situation was exacerbated further by the fact that many banks securitized the risky loans—i.e., bundled them together and sold them to third-party investors. From 2000 to 2005, private securitization of home and commercial mortgages grew tenfold; many of these securitized loans were subprime mortgages. The result was a full-blown financial crisis characterized by high unemployment rates and countless home foreclosures—particularly among minority owners who had been lured into buying homes they could not afford. “It was ultimately the skyrocketing rates of mortgage delinquencies and defaults,” writes Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell, “that were like heavy rain in the mountains that caused the flooding downstream…. Government was not passively inefficient. It was actively zealous in promoting risky mortgage lending practices.”
Targeting the U.S. Immigration System
When The Cloward-Piven Strategy was originally applied to welfare rights in the 1960s and ’70s, its principal architects were a pair of radical academic outsiders and their socialist comrades in community organizations like ACORN—all of them seeking to remake a portion of American society in a Marxist image. When the Strategy was subsequently applied to the Voting Rights Movement in the 1980s and ’90s, these same academic outsiders and their ACORN-affiliated allies again led the way, though this time their efforts were supplemented in a major way by Democrats in Congress. By contrast, in the home mortgage crisis of the 1990s the leading actors were figures inside government, while activist radicals provided support from without.
The same thing is happening today, as the Biden presidency shifts into high gear and The Cloward-Piven Strategy is being employed yet again. This time, the Strategy’s architects are immensely powerful Democrats in the Executive and Legislative branches of government. To achieve radical social change and entrench their own political power for generations to come, these Democrats—with support from left-wing activist judges and radical immigrant-rights groups—are prepared to plunge America’s border-security bureaucracy into a crisis that would provide them with a pretext for advocating, as a “solution” to that crisis, the passage of an amnesty or “path-to-citizenship” bill. The enactment of such legislation would, in turn, create a massive bloc of new Democrat voters virtually overnight.
When America’s southern border was overrun by people crossing into the United States in huge numbers during the Obama-Biden years (2009-17), those migrants, for the most part, did not present themselves to American authorities at any of the dozens of official ports-of-entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, where they could easily have accessed food, water, and medical care if necessary. Instead, they chose to breach the border at locations somewhere between those ports-of-entry—in the midst of an inhospitable, arid desert—where, as soon as they had planted their feet firmly on American soil, they actively sought out U.S. border authorities, in hopes of getting taken into custody.
Why? Because the migrants knew that if they were to apply for asylum at a port-of-entry, their chances of being approved, if they hailed from Mexico or Central America, would have been poor. Indeed, approximately 90 percent of asylum cases were found, by American courts, to be without merit. And why was that? Because their cases were based, for the most part, not upon the historically legitimate reason for seeking asylum—i.e., political protection from totalitarianism or oppression—but rather, upon the hope of finding work and “a better life” in the United States.
Those wanting to crash our immigration system realized that the U.S. media would be eager to make the “human stories” of such illegal migrants compelling and sympathetic, particularly if young children were involved. They also understood that America’s immigration courts were already overextended and would not possibly be able to hear an additional huge backload of cases. Moreover, they knew that if aspiring asylees showing up with children—who may or may not have been theirs—could somehow manage to sneak illegally into U.S. territory before making their asylum requests, they were unlikely to be sent back to Mexico right away. Rather, they stood a good chance of being released into the U.S. interior, along with a notice instructing them to report for a formal asylum hearing at some date in the very distant future. As one Border Patrol agent told Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo in April 2019: “They basically walk until they see an agent and then they turn themselves in…. They want to get processed, given the papers, then they go north and they have legal papers to be wherever they’re going to be at.”
The first six calendar months of Donald Trump’s presidency—February through July of 2017—saw the number of southern border apprehensions dwindle by about 50 percent from the 2016 Obama-Biden levels, to a range of between 12,000 and 19,000 per month. This decrease was largely a result of Trump’s clearly articulated positions regarding border security and immigration-law enforcement. But by midway through 2017, it became increasingly clear that congressional Democrats and activist judges nationwide were passionately committed to: (a) condemning and obstructing Trump’s attempts to implement the border-security measures he favored, and (b) manufacturing a crisis on the southern border that would throw American politics into chaos.
Following are 5 notable examples of the Democrats’ obstructionist strategy:
(1) On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that called for the denial of federal grants to “sanctuary cities,” where police and other public-sector employees were barred from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Democrats loudly condemned this order. Rep. Norma Torres, for instance, described Trump’s action as a “cynical,” “dangerous,” and “ill-conceived” measure whose principal purpose was to “appease the far right at the expense of our [American] values, security, and economic well-being.” Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham lamented that Trump’s policy would “turn neighbor against neighbor” and “undermine the efforts of police departments.” And Rep. Juan Vargas said that such “shameful” and “divisive” measures would “betray our nation’s values.”
In March 2017, no fewer than 33 congressional Democrats signed a letter demanding that President Trump “rescind” his “unconstitutional” executive order. That same year, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the Republican-sponsored “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” which sought to codify Trump’s executive order via the legislative process. And in an effort to affirmatively counter the intentions of that bill, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois introduced the “Safeguarding Sanctuary Cities Act of 2017,” which stipulated that federal financial assistance could not be denied to any state or local government for reason of its noncompliance with federal immigration authorities. Quigley’s bill drew 52 Democrats as co-sponsors.
(2) In another January 2017 executive order, President Trump called for the construction of a wall to prevent illegal northward migration across America’s southern border. But congressional Democrats vocally condemned the plan. Rep. Darren Soto, for one, stated that “this wall … will only further escalate the racial divisions and tensions created at the outset of Trump’s campaign.” Rep. Salud Carbajal depicted the proposed wall as “a multi-billion-dollar symbol of xenophobia and hate.” And Rep. Vicente Gonzalez said that “building a wall along our southern border will … be a shameful act in front of the international community that is watching us.”
(3) In an effort “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America,” President Trump issued a January 25, 2017 executive order temporarily suspending most travel and refugee admissions to the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria. These were precisely the same seven countries that had been named in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement & Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which passed easily through Congress and was signed into law by former President Obama in December 2015. Trump’s order also created an “extreme vetting” process for visitors from those nations.
But just three days later, federal judge Ann Donnelly—who had been appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by President Obama—issued an emergency stay to prevent the removal of any individuals arriving in the United States from the seven aforementioned countries. On February 3, federal judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) suspending the enforcement of Trump’s executive order nationwide. And six days after that, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Robart’s TRO. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, were united in their scorn. A teary-eyed Senator Charles Schumer called Trump’s executive order “mean-spirited and un-American,” while Senator Bernie Sanders described it as “un-American and unconstitutional.”
(4) In February 2017, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency executed a series of raids in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio, and New York City, targeting convicted criminals, gang members, and people who had re-entered the United States after being legally deported. Major Democratic political figures swiftly denounced the operations. Senator Schumer, for one, was “troubled by the lack of transparency and potential due process violations surrounding ICE’s most recent enforcement actions.” Similarly, Rep. Luis Gutierrez complained that “the goal of such policies is to inject fear into immigrant communities, frighten families and children, and drive immigrants farther underground.”
(5) On September 5, 2017, Republican Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Trump Administration would be rescinding the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which former President Barack Obama had enacted by means of a 2012 executive action designed to prevent the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who had first come to the U.S. as minors. Sessions characterized the DACA program as “an unconstitutional exercise of the executive branch.”
But no sooner had Sessions made his announcement, than federal judges in San Francisco and New York issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Trump Administration to continue renewing DACA permits. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, rushed to condemn Trump’s plan. Rep. Norma Torres characterized it as “a betrayal of American values and a needless attack on thousands of hardworking young people who want nothing more than an opportunity to contribute to this country.” Rep. Albio Sires described “the President’s cruel and reprehensible decision to end DACA” as yet “another manifestation of [his] anti-immigrant rhetoric that has emboldened hatred, racism, and bigotry.” Rep. Salud Carbajal called the action “unconscionable and incompatible with our American values.” And Rep. Adriano de Jesus Espaillat charged that Trump had “declared all-out war on immigrant youth.”
As the obstructionism of congressional Democrats and activist courts grew ever-more obvious, migrants began to cross the U.S. border illegally in much larger numbers. Between August 2017 and February 2018, the number of such illegals who were apprehended in U.S. territory ranged between 20,000 and 30,000 per month, a significant rise from the 12,000-to-19,000 range that had been customary during Trump’s previous six months in office. When the figure reached nearly 40,000 apprehensions in both March and April of 2018, the Trump Administration attempted to take action. Specifically, Attorney General Sessions announced on April 6th that the government would thenceforth pursue a “zero-tolerance” policy whereby every adult caught illegally crossing America’s southern border—or even attempting to do so—would be subject to criminal prosecution.
In response to this announcement, the Democratic Party launched a vicious propaganda campaign against President Trump and members of his Administration, accusing them of mistreating poor, defenseless migrants and their young children in the most abominable ways. Particularly widespread were charges that the Administration was pursuing a policy of forced “family separation” whereby youngsters were routinely being “torn” or “ripped” from the arms of their parents along the U.S.-Mexico border. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for one, denounced “this Administration’s policies that literally rip babies from the arms of their mothers and fathers” as emblems of “one of the darkest moments in our history.” Senator Bernie Sanders said, “You don’t rip little children away from the arms of their mother.” And Senator Elizabeth Warren proclaimed: “President Trump seems to think the only way to have immigration rules is [to] rip parents from their families … and to put children in cages.”
In June 2018, some 111 House Democrats signed a letter urging the top two members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security to bar the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from funding the enforcement of Trump’s “inhumane” and “misguided” policy of “family separation” at the border.
Supplementing these efforts were media outlets nationwide, which disseminated a massive array of stories about, and images of, weeping mothers and children being forcibly separated from one another at America’s southern border. One of the more iconic pictures was a Time magazine cover that showed a small girl crying in terror as she seemed to be looking up at the unsympathetic face of Donald Trump, whose image had been positioned before her by the publishers of Time. The caption read, “Welcome to America.”
Emotional appeals like these were highly successful at putting Republicans on the defensive. Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins told CBS’s Face the Nation that separating children from their parents was “traumatizing” to the youngsters and “contrary to our values in this country.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said that “legislation is necessary” because “we don’t want kids to be separated from their parents.” And former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stated that President Trump “should end this heartless policy.”
The History of “Family Separation”
The highly inflammatory charge that migrant children were being cruelly separated from their parents at the border was the centerpiece of the Democrats’ radical strategy to “crash” America’s immigration system and torpedo in particular President Trump’s efforts to enforce a sound immigration policy. Moreover, the cynical use of these children was illustrated by the fact, as testified to by immigration officers, that many of those youngsters were in effect “rented out” to illegal migrants who used them as props in their efforts to obtain asylum. In July 2019, for example, The Washington Examiner reported that “in a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children.”
The emotionally charged issue of illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents actually dates back to 1985—a time when the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) agency had jurisdiction over all immigration matters in the United States. That year, a number of activist organizations—the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, and the National Center for Youth Law—joined the Phoenix-based law firm of Streich Lang in filing a class-action lawsuit called Flores v. Meese, which challenged an INS policy that prevented unaccompanied illegal-alien children from being released to any U.S.-based adults other than their parents or legal guardians. The case centered around a 15-year-old girl named Jenny Lisette Flores, whose mother was an illegal Salvadoran immigrant. As the Center for Immigration Studies explains: “[Jenny] was being detained by INS. Jenny’s mother didn’t want to pick her up, as she feared bringing herself before INS would result in her deportation. INS would not release Flores to her cousins—they said that only legal guardians, for the sake of the child’s safety, could pick her up.”
In 1988, Judge Robert Kelleher of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of making it easier to release minors to the care of adults who were not the youngsters’ parents or guardians. But in 1990, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Kelleher’s decision and upheld the original INS policy. Then, in 1991, all eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals met en banc and issued a 7-4 decision reversing the three-judge panel’s decision and reaffirming Judge Kelleher’s 1988 position.
In 1992 this same case went to the Supreme Court, where it was known as Reno v. Flores. In 1993 the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of reversing the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision and restoring the original INS policy from pre-1988. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority: “Where the Government does not intend to punish the child, and where the conditions of Governmental custody are decent and humane, such custody surely does not violate the Constitution.”
Notwithstanding this emphatic decision by the nation’s highest court, immigration activist groups continued to file lawsuits and to apply political pressure aimed at restoring Judge Kelleher’s 1988 standard. Eventually, in 1997, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner—fulfilling the wishes of the Clinton Administration—signed a settlement of the Flores case whereby the government agreed that it would thenceforth strive to place unaccompanied alien children in the “least restrictive” setting by releasing them, “without unnecessary delay,” to—in order of preference—their parents, legal guardians, other adult relatives, or other individuals designated by the parents or guardians.
In 2003, Congress disbanded the INS and transferred the agency’s responsibilities to several entities within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The task of placing alien minors with their parents or other caretakers, however, was assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). But immigrant-rights activists persisted in complaining that the DHS, HHS, and ORR were not adequately complying with the terms of the 1997 Flores settlement.
Finally, in 2015, California federal district court judge Dolly Gee, an appointee of President Obama, ruled that because detention centers in Texas had failed to meet the standards laid out in Flores, the Obama Administration would now be required to release—within 20 days—all children apprehended while crossing the border illegally, whether or not they were accompanied by an adult. “In other words,” the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) subsequently explained, “now all minors in detention, whether or not they were with their parents, couldn’t be detained for more than three weeks. This ruling laid the groundwork for the [policy] in which children are released while their parents can still be detained awaiting hearings—hence, the ‘separation’ of families. The alternative is simply releasing the entire family after three weeks or less.” It should be noted that Obama’s legal team had the option of fighting Gee’s decision by filing appeals with higher courts, but instead it signed an agreement to put the judge’s decision into action.
The alternatives identified by CIS were precisely the same narrow alternatives that were open to the Trump Administration in April 2018, when it implemented its new “zero tolerance” policy vis-a-vis illegal entry.
In May and June of 2018, the number of apprehensions of illegal border-crossers continued to range roughly between 35,000 and 40,000 people per month. The Democratic and media condemnations of President Trump continued apace as well.
Finally, on June 20, 2018, Trump, under mounting political pressure not only from Democrats but also from members of his own party, signed an executive order ending the practice of separating children from their parents at the border, while keeping the zero-tolerance policy intact. In other words, it would now be deemed permissible to indefinitely detain adult migrants together with their children. “I didn’t like the sight or the feeling of families being separated,” said Trump. The president’s order also required the Defense Department to provide and, “if necessary,” construct facilities in which to house and care for the families.
The left was not at all mollified by Trump’s gesture, however. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for one, complained that because the president’s new policy continued to require that migrant families be held in detention centers, it was treating them “like criminals.” Karen Tumlin, director of legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, said: “The president doesn’t get any Brownie points for moving from a policy of locking up kids and families separately to a policy of locking them up together. Let’s be clear: Trump is making a crisis of his own creation worse.” And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi charged that President Trump’s executive order merely “seeks to replace one form of child abuse with another” by “pav[ing] the way for the long-term incarceration of families in prison-like conditions.”
Overwhelming the Immigration System
Notwithstanding President Trump’s stated intentions, in practice it became wholly impossible for the federal government to keep migrant families together in detention centers for any extended period of time—simply because their numbers were far greater than what the detention centers could hold. Thus, as The New York Times would report soon thereafter: “The government has been letting thousands of detained migrants go free each week because it lacks enough beds to hold them in family detention facilities.”
The Times further noted that the migrants, for their part, were quick to learn the loopholes which they could exploit in order to get the most favorable disposition for themselves and their families:
The majority [of migrants] know to request asylum at the border, either at an official port of entry or when they surrender to border agents shortly after sneaking into the country from Mexico. They know that they are unlikely to remain detained if they travel with a child and that they have a better shot at fending off deportation when they come with a child…. Customs and Border Protection officials believe that the various legal rulings preventing families from being detained have helped solidify the message to smugglers, who roam villages offering to guide people to the United States, that adults who come with a child are protected from deportation.
The Washington Post concurred that illegal Central American migrants were streaming into the United States “typically in groups of one parent and one child,” because they understood that “such pairings all but ensure the family will be processed quickly and released from U.S. custody in a matter of days.” “[T]he practical effect,” said a New York Times piece, “is that most families are released into the country to await their hearings in immigration court. [But the] courts are so backlogged that it could take months or years for cases to be decided. Some people never show up for court at all.”
That summer as well, Democrats opened up yet another avenue in their attacks against President Trump and the border-security bureaucracy, now alleging that the heavy-handedness of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in dealing with vulnerable migrants was sufficient cause for that agency’s abolition. As Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York told CNN’s Chris Cuomo: “I don’t think ICE today is working as intended. I believe that it has become a deportation force, and I think you should separate the criminal justice from the immigration issues.” Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote in a Facebook post, “The President’s deeply immoral actions have made it obvious that we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our values.” Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin claimed that “ICE is tearing apart families and ripping the moral fabric of our nation.” And Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said: “People should be treated with compassion and respect. ICE is simply not doing that. Trump and his Administration have made the agency so toxic that it’s time to abolish ICE, and start over.”
In mid-October of 2018, a separate effort to overwhelm America’s border-control apparatus was launched from Central America when a large caravan—composed of several thousand people from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—began migrating northward for the declared purpose of defiantly walking across America’s southern border and taking up residence in the United States. The effort was spearheaded by Pueblo Sin Fronteras (PSF)—meaning “People Without Borders”—a nonprofit organization whose overriding objective is to “abolish borders” and facilitate the free, unregulated movement of Central American migrants into the United States.
In an October 21, 2018 press release, PSF accused President Trump and the U.S. of using “repressive tactics” to inflict “fear and racism” on the people of Central America. Moreover, the organization demanded that Mexico declare itself a “sanctuary country” with wide-open borders.
Between October 2018 and January 2019, there was a noticeable upsurge in apprehensions of illegals just north of America’s southern border, with an average of 50,398 per month. This figure included, on average, 5,020 unaccompanied children as well as 20,387 single adults and 24,991 members of “family units.”
The fact that the “family units” figure was substantially higher than the others, served as evidence of what the Center for Immigration Studies described as “the rapidly growing number of border infiltrators using children as a ticket to release into the interior.” It was also evidence of a widening scam, featuring thousands of documented cases of adult migrants falsely claiming to be the parents of the children traveling with them. Clearly, the people of Latin America understood that the loopholes in America’s immigration and asylum system could be easily exploited. As Gallup reported in early 2019: “A full 5 million [Latin Americans] who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.”
On January 8, 2019, President Trump attempted to make his case for border security directly to the American people. In an Oval Office address in which he warned of “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border,” the president stated, among other things:
But congressional Democrats dismissed Trump’s message as nothing more than an exercise in bigotry, fear-mongering, and, ironically—given the role that The Cloward-Piven Strategy now played in their own political maneuvering—“staging a crisis.” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, for example, said: “This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his Administration.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likewise accused President Trump of “manufacturing a crisis” by means of “cruel and counterproductive policies” that scapegoated “the women and children at the border” as “a security threat.” And Senator Bernie Sanders said in a video statement: “Mr. President, we don’t need to create artificial crises. We have enough real ones.”
That same month—February 2019—the total number of illegal aliens apprehended near America’s southern border shot up to 66,883. This figure included 6,817 unaccompanied children, 23,536 single adults, and 36,530 “family unit” members. The latter figure (for “family unit” members) was 51% higher than the corresponding January figure had been.
The steep upward trend in border-area apprehensions continued in March 2019, when the total reached 92,833, of whom 57 percent were members of “family units.” Border Protection commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan warned that “the system is well beyond capacity and remains at the breaking point.”
April of 2019 brought more of the same: 99,273 apprehensions that included 8,880 unaccompanied children, 31,680 single adults, and an astounding 58,713 “family unit” members. As the Families & Children Care Panel of Customs & Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, noted in its Final Emergency Interim Report that same month: “By far, the major ‘pull factor’ is the current practice of releasing with a NTA [Notice To Appear in court at a later date] most illegal migrants who bring a child with them.”
In May 2019, the number of border-area apprehensions reached 132,856, among whom were 11,475 unaccompanied minors, 36,900 single adults, and a previously unimaginable 84,486 people in “family units.” Noting that “the numbers for May prove the crisis is only getting worse,” U.S. Border Patrol Chief of Law Enforcement Operations Brian Hastings pointed out that as many as 60 percent of all Border Patrol agents were being pulled from their customary law-enforcement duties and shifted into roles where they were providing illegal migrants with housing, food, and transportation.
And how did Democrats respond to this growing catastrophe within America’s immigration system? By doing everything in their power to exacerbate it. Not only did almost all the announced candidates in the first of the Democratic Party’s presidential primary debates in June 2019 indicate that they wanted to “decriminalize” illegal border crossings, but they also agreed that American taxpayers should now be required to pay for the healthcare coverage of every illegal alien residing in the United States.
Immigration policy became open political warfare as President Trump kept trying to find some way to circumvent the Democrats’ uncompromising devotion to open borders and to policies that placed an unsustainable burden on the immigration system.
Then, in May 2019, there was a major breakthrough. Trump implemented the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a government action stipulating that foreign individuals traveling northward through Mexico and seeking asylum in the U.S. without proper documentation, could be forced to remain in Mexico while waiting for their asylum hearings to eventually make their way onto the court calendar. In short, American border agencies would no longer have to release migrants into the U.S. prior to their asylum hearings.
In May 2019 as well, President Trump announced that he would impose stiff tariffs against Mexico if the latter took no measures to stem the flow of illegal migrants to the United States. In response to Trump’s threat, that summer the Mexican government deployed its own National Guard for the express purpose of thwarting unregulated northward migration to the U.S.
On July 15, 2019, President Trump announced his plan to implement a policy that would bar most migrants from applying for asylum after illegally crossing America’s southern border, unless they had first been unsuccessful in seeking asylum in a “safe” country which they traversed on their way to the United States. Thus, would-be asylees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, or Nicaragua would be ineligible for asylum in the U.S. unless they had first applied in Mexico and been rejected.
While Attorney General William Barr, who had taken office in February 2019, maintained the legality of the Trump Administration’s newly announced policy, advocates of open borders immediately rose up in protest. “The Trump Administration is trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly.” Congressional Democrats, of course, were no less militant. “[T]he Trump Administration announced they will seek to undermine our nation’s asylum laws,” wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “This cruel and anti-immigrant Administration is overreaching and stacking the deck against asylum seekers by limiting their rights to due process under our laws. This is simply not who we are as a country.”
Notwithstanding these criticisms, the Trump Administration signed “safe-country” asylum agreements with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras between July and September of 2019. These agreements—in conjunction with the aforementioned Migrant Protection Protocols and threatened tariffs against Mexico—were a crucial part of the remarkable process by which President Trump single-handedly figured out how to circumvent the relentless obstructionism of the Democrats. What Congress had failed for decades to get done, Trump himself achieved on the diplomatic front in just a few months, with no help whatsoever from Congress. It was one of the most extraordinary political accomplishments in modern American history.
Biden Presses Forward with the Orchestrated Crisis Agenda
Ever since the Biden Administration ascended to power in January 2021, Democrats have continued to embrace the same overarching objective they pursued during the Trump years: the advancement of policies designed to overwhelm America’s immigration system with a massive tidal wave of newcomers who, upon eventually acquiring the right to vote in political elections, will be far more likely to support Democrats rather than Republicans. Toward that end, Biden and his party have purposefully and aggressively sought to promote chaos along America’s southern border—chaos supplemented by the effects of legislation and executive actions crafted to permanently tilt the political advantage toward the Democratic Party.
Amnesty in a Variety of Forms
When Joe Biden ran for president in 2020, he made it clear throughout his campaign that he was in favor of granting citizenship to virtually every illegal alien residing in the United States—roughly 11 million people, by Biden’s estimate. When discussing this issue, he gave particular emphasis to those illegals affected by former President Obama‘s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—i.e., people who had come to the U.S. unlawfully as minors and were still under the age of 31 as of June 2012. DACA allowed hundreds of thousands of such individuals to gain temporary legal status, work permits, access to publicly funded social services, and protection from deportation.
Biden also stressed the importance of granting citizenship to so-called “Dreamers,” or people who would be eligible to benefit from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act)—legislation intended to protect almost anyone who entered the U.S. illegally when they were under the age of 16. Whereas the DREAM Act aims to use the legislative process to help all people fitting that description gain permanent legal status as well as placement upon a path-to-citizenship, DACA beneficiaries are required to renew their applications for protection from deportation every two years.
During an October 2020 presidential debate with Donald Trump, Biden said: “Within 100 days [of taking over the presidency], I’m going to send to the United States Congress a [proposed bill for] pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people. And all of those so-called Dreamers, those DACA kids, they’re going to be immediately certified to be able to stay in this country and put on a path to citizenship. We owe them, we owe them.”
True to his word, Biden, on January 20, 2021—his first day in office as U.S. President—sent to Congress a comprehensive immigration bill—the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021—proposing to create a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States. That same day, Biden also issued a memorandum “to preserve and fortify DACA.”
All of these actions make obvious political sense for Biden and the Democrats, who view the illegal population in the United States as a potentially enormous source of new Democratic voters. Nearly three-quarters of all illegal aliens who now reside in the U.S. hail from Mexico, Central America, and South America—and 62 percent of current potential U.S. voters from those same countries identify with, or lean toward, the Democratic Party, vs. just 34 percent who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. A Pew Research survey, meanwhile, suggests that Latino illegal aliens who, by definition, are not yet eligible to vote in the United States at the present time, are nearly 8 times more likely to identify ideologically with the Democratic Party rather than with the Republican Party. If those people eventually acquire citizenship and the right to vote, the implications for the future of American politics are self-evident.
Such a turn of events would represent a major triumph for The Cloward-Piven Strategy, whereby the American electoral system would be suddenly inundated with millions of new voters who, along with their descendants in generations to come, would forever change the nature of the U.S. voting population.
Ending Construction of the Border Wall
In its official 2020 Platform, the Democratic Party, committed to facilitating an influx of illegal newcomers to America by every means practicable, condemned the construction of “an unnecessary, wasteful, and ineffective wall on the southern border.” Presidential candidate Joe Biden likewise stated in March 2020: “We don’t need a wall.” “There will not be another foot of wall constructed on my Administration,” he told NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro during an August 2020 interview.
Biden followed through on his promise when, on his first day as president, he issued a formal proclamation which stated that “building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border [between the U.S. and Mexico] is not a serious policy solution,” but rather, “is a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.” “It shall be the policy of my Administration,” he added, “that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.”
Nearly 5 months later, on June 11, 2021, the Biden White House called on Congress to cancel more than $2 billion in spending that originally had been earmarked for former President Trump’s border wall.
Changing America’s Asylum Policy
Biden and the Democrats aim to restore the “catch-and-release” system of the pre-Trump era, whereby millions of asylum seekers who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally, were released into the American interior—never again to be seen by U.S. immigration authorities, in most cases. As the 2020 Democratic Party Platform said: “Democrats will end Trump Administration policies that deny protected entry to asylum seekers…. And we will end prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and policies that force them to apply from ‘safe third countries,’ which are far from safe.”
On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order designed to “enhance lawful pathways for migration to this country” and to “restore and strengthen our own asylum system, which has been badly damaged by policies enacted over the last 4 years that contravened our values and caused needless human suffering.”
On February 3, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that the Biden Administration had already begun restoring “catch-and-release” as official U.S. policy:
Hundreds of Haitian migrants who are crossing the Rio Grande border in the normally staid Del Rio sector of Texas are enjoying the first return to “catch-and-release” policies since President Donald Trump’s administration all but eliminated them. U.S. Border Patrol and ICE are allowing hundreds of Haitians and other migrant nationalities who cross in the Del Rio region to avoid detention or quick return to Mexico; instead they are given Notices to Appear in immigration court at some point in the future and allowed to board Greyhound buses for other parts of the United States, according to federal sources and the head of a migrant-assistance agency helping the migrants….
[O]ne Border Patrol agent in the area told CIS that the migrants are now too numerous for local systems to process, just like the catch-and-release circumstances that powered the 2019 crisis: “We are releasing hundreds from many different countries of origin because we simply don’t have enough room to hold them all,” the Border Patrol agent told the Center for Immigration Studies. “They are being released under what is called an O.R., which means ‘Own Recognizance’ – basically, a promise to arrive for their immigration hearing at some future date. We can’t hold them because they are crossing all day long in groups of 20 to 40, men, women, children.”
On February 6, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the Biden Administration had canceled the Trump-era agreements by which the former president had negotiated with Central American governments to place clear and reasonable limits on access to the U.S. asylum system.
On February 12, the Biden Administration stated that asylum seekers who, under President Trump’s 2019 “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), had been forced to remain in Mexico while waiting for their cases to be resolved in the United States, would now be readily admitted into the U.S. without further delay.
In March 2021, President Biden said that “I make no apology” for ending MPP, a policy he claimed was forcing migrants to the “edge of the Rio Grande in a muddy circumstance with not enough to eat.”
By March 2021 as well, Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley were routinely releasing asylum-seeking migrants into the American interior without even bothering to go through the process of giving them a “Notice To Appear” (NTA) for an asylum court hearing at some future date. Instead, the migrants were hurriedly registered into a digital system and told that they themselves would be responsible to schedule their own asylum hearings sometime thereafter. As a Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) source told Fox News, the migrant crisis had “become so dire that BP [Border Patrol] has no choice but to release people nearly immediately after apprehension because there is no space to hold people even to do necessary NTA paperwork.” Said another CBP official with knowledge of the Biden plan: “This is insane, it is another pull factor that will overwhelm us. We are creating another entirely different class of aliens we will have to deal with years from now. We will never find most of these aliens once they are released.”
In accord with President Biden’s wishes, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas terminated the Migrant Protection Protocols with a June 1, 2021 memorandum — even though approximately 90 percent of asylum cases were generally found, by American courts, to be without merit.
What America was witnessing, quite simply, was The Cloward-Piven Strategy—designed to further inundate the nation with countless millions of newcomers by means of a chaotic, unregulated asylum process—clearly on display for all to see.
Increasing Immigration from Muslim Countries
Virtually every American has heard about Donald Trump’s infamous “Muslim ban” of 2017. When Joe Biden ran for president in 2020, he characterized Trump’s “ban” as a “morally wrong” manifestation of “anti-Muslim bias” that constituted “a betrayal of all our foundations of American history and American freedom, religious freedom.”
The term “Muslim ban,” as employed by Biden and fellow Democrats, refers to the fact that President Trump, professing a desire “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America,” issued a 2017 executive order calling for a temporary suspension of almost all travel and refugee admissions to the U.S. from seven nations that were hotbeds of Islamic terrorism and/or civil war: Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria. The order also mandated the implementation of an “extreme vetting” process for any and all immigrants and visitors to the U.S.
And how did President Trump select the seven aforementioned Muslim-majority countries as targets for his executive action? Actually, as noted earlier in this text, he chose precisely the same seven countries that had been named in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement & Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which had passed easily through Congress before being signed into law by President Obama in December 2015.
The Democratic Party Platform of 2020 vowed to “immediately terminate the Trump Administration’s discriminatory travel and immigration bans that disproportionately impact Muslim, Arab, and African people, and invite those whose visas have been denied under these xenophobic and un-American policies to re-apply to come to the United States.” Meanwhile, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden said: “Make no mistake, this anti-Muslim bias is not only morally wrong, it’s like putting up a great big recruiting banner for terrorists…. A ban is a betrayal of all our foundations of American history and American freedom, religious freedom, the first freedom.” “On day one [as U.S. President],” he added, “I’ll end Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban.”
Biden kept this promise as well. In a January 20, 2021 presidential proclamation, he revoked Trump’s aforementioned executive order. His motives for doing this are obvious: Muslims vote heavily Democrat, as reflected by a 2017 Pew Research Center study showing that 66% of Muslims identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party, vs. just 13% who identify with or lean towards the Republican Party.
Welcoming Immigrants Dependent on Public Welfare Programs
Democrats condemned the Trump Administration’s 2019 pledge to make it more difficult for people who were a “public charge”—i.e., dependent on government benefits—to apply for U.S. citizenship. As the Center for Immigration Studies explains: “The [Trump] rule was supposed to go into effect on October 15, 2019, but was delayed until February 21, 2020, after the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out lower-court injunctions that had blocked implementation. Then a judge in the Northern District of Illinois issued an order on November 2, 2020, vacating the rule nationwide. The next day, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay, which, pending appeal, allowed for the continued application of Trump’s public charge rule.
This was unacceptable to Biden and the Democrats. The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force of 2020—created for the purpose of bridging the divide between the policy positions of the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders—vowed to “immediately halt enforcement of and rescind the Trump [A]dministration’s new public charge regulations, which have racial underpinnings and undermine critical access to public benefits and resources.”
On March 9, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the Biden Administration would no longer enforce Trump’s 2019 public charge rule—on grounds that it “was not in keeping with our nation’s values.”
Biden Rolls Back COVID Protections at the Border
In early February 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), America’s principal public-health agency, was busy “expanding the requirement for a negative COVID-19 test to all air passengers entering the United States,” while also demanding that masks be worn at all times even by travelers who tested negative for COVID. President Biden, meanwhile, was repeatedly reminding Americans that it was their “patriotic duty” to wear masks and practice “social distancing” in an effort to slow the spread of the pandemic.
But also at that very same time, the Biden Administration was actively releasing into American neighborhoods thousands of illegal foreign nationals—including many from countries with high rates of COVID infection—without ever testing them for evidence that they may have been carrying the deadly coronavirus. “We do not test the illegal aliens we release,” said National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd. “So, we’re releasing people without knowing, which obviously puts the public at risk.” In a similar vein, Sheriff Leon Wilmot of Yuma County, Arizona characterized the Biden policy as “a particularly dangerous approach,” adding: “[T]here is currently no protocol for testing any of these people for the COVID-19 virus. Nor is there any support being offered by the federal government to house, feed, medically treat or transport these immigrants.”
In a presidential proclamation issued on February 24, Joe Biden announced that he was suspending three Trump-era proclamations that, for reasons of public health, had restricted immigration to the U.S. during the COVID pandemic of 2020. Three weeks after Biden’s announcement, congressional Democrats remained silent when the National Sheriffs Association reported that as many as half of all people illegally crossing the southern U.S. border were possibly infected with COVID-19.
Another key Biden decision involved “Title 42,” a provision of the 1944 Public Health and Safety Act authorizing the Border Patrol to quickly expel any migrant because of “health and safety” concerns. The Trump Administration had begun utilizing Title 42 in March of 2020 as a means of preventing foreigners from bringing additional cases of COVID-19 into the U.S. All told, the policy kept approximately 650,000 potential border-crossers out of the United States during the pandemic. But in May 2021, the Biden Administration decided to grant a broad exemption from Title 42 restrictions. As the Washington Free Beacon reported:
“A May memo … authored by senior staff at [Customs and Border Protection], emphasizes the ability of ‘customs officers [to] determine [who] should be allowed into the United States.’ [CBP] officials say the Biden [A]dministration is looking to liberally interpret that provision, which was initially meant for migrants with extenuating circumstances related to humanitarian concerns or political repression. Broadening the humanitarian exemption would constitute a de facto reversal of the Trump [A]dministration’s guidance on limiting migration into the country.”
This policy change was enacted by Biden despite the fact that the CDC still rated Mexico as a “Level 4” country vis-a-vis its COVID-19 infection numbers, the highest danger level on the CDC’s scale. Indeed, the CDC at that time was warning that Americans “should avoid all travel to Mexico.” But such facts are irrelevant to a political party whose primary concern is to increase its own power by any means necessary. If the acquisition of such power can be facilitated by the act of permitting countless numbers of potentially ill newcomers to enter the U.S. and run the risk of further spreading a highly contagious and deadly disease, so be it. In the Democratic Party’s calculus, that is a price well worth paying.
While the Biden Administration applied Title 42 restrictions to single adults and many migrant families, it did not apply it to migrant children arriving alone at the southern border. This was a departure from the policy of the Trump administration.
On June 23, 2021, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas reported that one border official had recently informed him that the Biden Administration was planning to completely phase out the use of Title 42 by mid-July.
On July 26, 2021 — when President Biden’s public approval ratings were sinking as a result of the chaos on the border amid a recent surge in the highly transmissible “delta variant” of the coronavirus — the Administration announced that it would temporarily keep Title 42 in place to some extent. “It will remain in place as long as that is the guidance from our health and medical experts,” said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
On August 2, 2021, the Biden administration — again reacting to widening public fears about the coronavirus variant that was surging across the U.S. — said it would keep Title 42 in effect for the foreseeable future.
The Prevalence of COVID-19 Among Illegal Migrants
According to an August 2021 report by NBC News: “Migrants are not tested for COVID in Border Patrol custody unless they show symptoms, but all are tested when they leave Border Patrol custody…. Immigrants who are allowed to stay in the U.S. to claim asylum are given tests when they are transferred to ICE, Health and Human Services, or non-governmental organizations. Deportees who are scheduled to be put on planes out of the U.S. are tested for COVID and other infectious diseases by ICE…. If a migrant who is about to be deported by ICE tests positive for COVID, the migrant is quarantined and deportation is delayed.”
In March 2021, nearly 10% of girls at a temporary shelter for migrant teenagers in San Diego tested positive for COVID-19. Meanwhile, 14% of migrant children at a facility in Carrizo Springs, Texas, likewise tested positive.
In May 2021, Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that more than 3,000 coronavirus cases had been identified among migrant children in Texas since 2020.
During the first two weeks of July 2021, the number of detainees who tested positive for the disease in the Rio Grande Valley — one of the major destinations for migrants crossing the southern U.S. border illegally — increased by 900% above the levels of confirmed positive cases that had been identified during the previous 14 months.
During a two-to-three-week period in late July and early August, more than 18% of migrant families and 20% of unaccompanied minors who had recently crossed the U.S. border, tested positive for COVID upon leaving the custody of the Border Patrol.
On August 4, 2021, The Texas border city of McAllen reported that since mid-February, Customs & Border Protection (CBP) had released into that town more than 7,000 illegal migrants who were confirmed COVID-19 positive. That figure included over 1,500 during the preceding seven days alone. According to Fox News: “Immigrants released by CBP are dropped off with Catholic Charities and tested for COVID by a third party. If they test positive, they are asked to quarantine and [are] offered a room at a quarantine site.”
On August 7, 2021, NBC News reported that on some planes that were loaded with migrants scheduled for deportation, more than 25% of the passengers tested positive before departure, causing ICE to remove those individuals from the flights for quarantine in the United States.
On September 10, 2021, Fox News reported that “more than 18% of migrant families who recently crossed the border tested positive for COVID before being released by Border Patrol,” while “another 20% of unaccompanied minors tested positive for the virus.”
Increasing the Admission of Refugees into the U.S.
Democrats seek to sabotage America’s ability to absorb foreign-born newcomers not only by creating conditions that will promote the entry of illegal migrants and asylees, but also by using the refugee system to import massive numbers of people who are likely to eventually align themselves with the Democratic Party’s political agendas. Toward that end, the Party’s official 2020 Platform pledged to “significantly raise the annual global refugee admissions target, and [to] work with Congress to create a minimum annual number for refugee admissions.”
In fulfillment of that pledge, President Biden on February 4, 2021 signed an executive order revoking a Trump executive order that had called for the enhanced vetting of aspiring refugees and other newcomers to America. In May 2021, Biden issued a presidential memorandum raising the cap on refugee admissions to the U.S. from 12,000 in 2020, to 62,500 in 2021, and to 125,000 in 2022—i.e., a tenfold increase within the space of just two years. The 2022 projection also far exceeded the 2016 and 2017 refugee totals under the Obama Administration—85,000 and 54,000, respectively.
Conservative author Michelle Malkin spelled out some key considerations vis-a-vis the refugees who would be coming to America as a result of the new Biden policy:
“According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the average estimated refugee’s lifetime fiscal cost, expressed as a net present value, is $60,000, with those entering as adults (ages 25 to 64) costing $133,000 each. Only one-third of those adult refugees have completed more than a sixth-grade education before landing in the U.S. They are granted immediate access to government welfare programs including Medicaid, housing, food stamps and cash assistance…. [M]any of [them …] relocate to ethnic enclaves to join friends and family where they take low-wage, low-skilled jobs in manufacturing, meatpacking, retail, and the trades — exactly the kind of jobs the Beltway politicians promise they are creating for Americans first.”
Center for Immigration Studies research director Steven Camarota, meanwhile, calculated that for “what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years, or 61 refugees can be helped for one year.”
But refugees who are safely and successfully resettled in the Middle East do nothing to enhance the political fortunes of the Democrats. Thus, the Democrats are not interested in such a solution. Their only concern is that an overwhelming majority of refugees from the aforementioned regions of the world should one day become reliable Democrat voters in the United States, which a large percentage of their predecessors from those same places have thus far proven themselves to be.
On August 30, 2021, Breitbart.com reported:
“President Joe Biden’s federal agencies, with the help of refugee contractors, plan to resettle Afghans across a multitude of swing states…. [T]housands of Afghans are being flown to Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, where they are then dispersed throughout the United States. Many thousands are heading to swing states. Just this past week, 11 flights of Afghans were taken to Wisconsin while hundreds of others are being resettled in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. More are going to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In addition, Afghans are being resettled throughout West Texas, areas of Arizona, the suburbs of Virginia, as well as Akron, Ohio, and Jacksonville, Florida, while refugee contractors in North Carolina hope to resettle Afghans in the state. While the Biden administration has been unclear about the total number of Afghans it is seeking to resettle across the U.S., refugee contractors are expecting tens of thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands when the operation is completed.
“Afghans with Special Immigrant Visa (SIVs), a minority of the Afghans arriving, have green cards and can apply for naturalized American citizenship after living in the U.S. for five years. Afghans arriving on refugee status can apply for a green card after living in the U.S. for a year. After obtaining their green card, they can then apply for naturalized American citizenship after five years of living in the U.S. For the tens of thousands of Afghans that the Biden administration is giving humanitarian parole to come to the U.S., they must adjust status to secure green cards after two years. Later, they too could eventually get naturalized American citizenship.”
Using the U.S. Military to Help Resettle Illegals into Various U.S. States without the Consent of Those States
On July 14, 2021, Fox News host Tucker Carlson issued a blockbuster report in which he stated:
“This show has confirmed that the Biden administration has enlisted the U.S. military to move illegal immigrants secretly around our country. That is happening at Laughlin Air Force base in Texas. We know it’s happening there because a man called Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Burrows sent his subordinates an e-mail spelling it out very clearly, quote: ‘Over the next few days, weeks, or months,’ the note began, ‘… you may see passenger aircraft on our ramp transporting undocumented non-citizens. Please review the attached Public Affairs guidance on the issue.’ Burrows’ e-mail then instructed uniformed military personnel to hide what was happening on the base from the country they are sworn to serve. Quote: ‘Do not take photographs and refrain from posting anything on social media.’ […]
“Now, we got his e-mail from a whistleblower and at first, we doubted it could be real. During the last administration, you’ll remember, The Pentagon firmly refused to protect America’s southern border. ‘That’s not our job,’ they said. ‘It’s too political. Send us to Syria.’ And yet, according to this document, here was the very same U.S. military leadership at The Pentagon helping the Biden administration with maximum enforced stealth, with secrecy to subvert this country’s core immigration laws. It was hard to believe that could be happening, but it is happening. The Pentagon has confirmed it to us.
“Spokesman Chris Mitchell described the flights from Laughlin as noncitizen movement, part of what he called the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s mission. He told us then to direct any further questions to I.C.E., so we did. We called I.C.E. multiple times. I.C.E. did not deny they were using Laughlin Air Force base to relocate large numbers of foreign nationals into the interior of our country and do it secretly.”
Carlson’s report then showed a video segment of Center for Immigration Studies senior national fellow Todd Bensman providing details about the places to which the illegals were being transported. Said Bensman: “What’s happening most of the time is that they are boarding buses and heading into America’s heartland. A conveyor belt of commercial and charter buses just like this one in Del Rio, Texas are carrying tens of thousands, sight unseen, from Texas, Arizona, and California borderlands northward, and they are dropping their Haitian, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Central American family units in Florida and New Jersey, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and to large cities in Texas such as Dallas and Houston.”
Carlson then noted the obvious: that the Biden Administration was secretly using the U.S. military to assist in the task of “changing the electoral map” of the United States and enacting “demographic transformation in our country, without our consent, and in violation of our laws.”
The segment concluded with former Trump White House advisor Stephen Miller telling Carlson: “[W]hat I want to get across to your audience to really advance this story is to understand that what is happening now is unprecedented, and the whole conversation about border security up to this point in time has been wrong. This is not about an administration that is unable to protect the border. This is about an administration that in a very purposeful, planned, deliberate, painstaking fashion has turned our Border Patrol and I.C.E. agencies into resettlement agencies. That is the word that everyone needs to know and repeat. This is a planned resettlement. The largest of its kind, I would suggest perhaps in the history of the world in terms of the number of illegal border crossers being resettled into the interior of our country in violation of plain law.”
Biden Administration Sues Texas & Governor Greg Abbott Over Executive Order Restricting The Transportation Of Migrants
On July 30, 2021, the Biden administration’s DOJ filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, as a challenge to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order that — in an effort to prevent any further spread of the coronavirus pandemic — restricted the ground transportation (via buses and trains) of illegal migrants, most of whom were unvaccinated, to various locations across the state. The Biden lawsuit argued that: “The executive order violates the Supremacy Clause and causes injury to the United States and to individuals whom the United States is charged to protect, jeopardizing the health and safety of noncitizens in federal custody, risking the safety of federal law enforcement personnel and their families, and exacerbating the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.” Further, the suit claimed that the governor’s order obstructed Congress from performing its duty to craft and enforce immigration laws. The lawsuit also warned: “If CBP (Customs and Border Protection) is unable to transfer noncitizens out of CBP facilities, CBP detention numbers and the average time individuals are in custody will rise, conditions will deteriorate, and there will be a greater risk of COVID-19 transmission to noncitizens and staff.”
Greatly Increasing Legal Immigration
Joe Biden has no concern about whether or not the multitudinous newcomers to the U.S. will be able to effectively assimilate into American society and an American value system, before additional waves of newcomers are likewise hurriedly imported and naturalized. Indeed, in a 2019 speech to the Asian and Latino Coalition PAC, Biden promised to triple the roughly 1.2 million immigrants who were being admitted to the U.S. every year, saying, without evidence: “We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people.”
In May 2021, The New York Times obtained a 46-page draft blueprint of the Biden Administration’s plan to make it easier for many categories of people—including foreign workers, trafficking victims, refugees, asylum seekers, farmworkers, and American Indians born in Canada—to immigrate legally to the United States.
On July 2, 2021, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services announced that the Biden Administration, in fulfillment of a February 2 executive order by which President Biden had established a Naturalization Working Group (NWG), was formally launching a new federal initiative to help millions of immigrants living in the United States to become citizens. Specifically, the NWG would recruit people at various stages of the immigration process—from newcomers to lawful permanent residents—and target them with what Biden called “welcoming strategies that promote integration, inclusion, and citizenship.” The objective, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas put it, was to “promot[e] naturalization to all who are eligible.”
At its essence, this Biden plan represents yet another expression of The Cloward-Piven Strategy by which the Democratic Party aims to transform America by inundating the nation with a maximum number of additional future Democrats.
Ending Nearly All Deportations
To augment the effects of the importation of millions of new potential Democrat voters, the left seeks also to prevent the expulsion of potential Democrats who are already living in the United States. In a Democratic primary debate in March 2020, for instance, candidate Joe Biden vowed that during his presidential Administration’s first 100 days, “no one, no one will be deported at all.” “From that point on,” he added, “the only deportations that will take place are [for] commissions of felonies in the United States of America.”
On another occasion during his 2020 campaign, Biden said that immigration agents should “only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed [in the United States], and I don’t count drunk driving as a felony”—even though the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency reported 49,106 criminal convictions for driving-under-the-influence in fiscal year 2019 alone.
And when a reporter asked candidate Biden if “undocumented immigrants, arrested by local police, [should] be turned over to immigration officials,” he replied: “No. Look, we are a nation of immigrants. Our future rests upon the Latino community being fully integrated…. Xenophobia is a disease.”
On his first day as president in January 2021, Biden proudly demonstrated his resolve in opposing deportations by issuing an executive order that revoked a 2017 order by which former President Trump had prioritized the removal of illegal aliens who had “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense,” or who had “abused any program related to receipt of public benefits” (e.g., welfare and food stamps).
In accordance with President Biden’s clearly articulated intention to suspend virtually all deportations of illegal aliens, an internal ICE memo dated January 21, 2021 explicitly instructed ICE agents to immediately “stop all removals.” The memo also informed those agents that in “all cases”—even where the detainees had no one in the U.S. who could serve as their sponsor—the agents should assume that there would be “no significant likelihood of removal in [the] foreseeable future” and thus should “[r]elease them all, immediately.”
Regarding a Texas federal judge’s January 26, 2021 ruling against the Biden Administration’s 100-day moratorium on deportations, former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan complained on February 10th that the Administration was defiantly “circumventing the judge’s order” by instructing ICE officers to stop arresting illegals, and by releasing those illegals into local communities. “What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world?” Homan asked. “If you come to the country illegally, if you can get past the border patrol, don’t commit an aggravated felony, and you’re home free. You get to stay because ICE is not looking for you. It’s no longer illegal to be here illegally.” Describing the Biden policy as “the most anti-law enforcement, pro-criminal policy that I could ever imagine in my worst nightmare,” Homan asserted that the new president “is sending a message to the rest of the world” and, as a result, “the border is surging.” “Be clear what’s happening here,” Homan added. “President Biden has declared the entire country a sanctuary jurisdiction, which means more tragedy is going to come. Mark my words. People will die. People will be raped. People will be victimized by criminals that shouldn’t even be here.”
In February 2021, the Biden Administration cancelled Operation Talon, a Trump-era initiative designed to deport convicted sex offenders residing illegally in the United States. Biden’s action was a very big deal, in light of the fact that between October 2014 and May 2018, ICE had arrested at least 19,572 illegal aliens who had previously been convicted of sex-related offenses.
On March 4, 2021, ICE told Congress that it would soon open an “ICE Case Review” process allowing illegal aliens to challenge their arrest, detainment, or scheduled deportation if they believed that their cases did not meet the Biden Administration’s new standard, which only authorized such penalties for convicted aggravated felons, terrorists, gang members, or national security threats.
In early May of 2021, the Biden Administration reversed a proposed rule change by former President Trump that, if enacted, would have prevented the federal government from continuing to issue work permits to illegal aliens who had received final deportation orders from federal immigration judges. In its announcement, the Biden team claimed that Trump’s proposal “would impose exorbitant costs and burdens on U.S. employers related to labor turnover.”
The very obvious bottom line is this: President Biden doesn’t care how many violent criminals or sex offenders are able to enter and remain in the United States as a result of his immigration and deportation policies. Nor does he care how many innocent lives such criminals may ruin once they are here. In the tyrannical tradition of Cloward-Piven, Biden and his fellow Democrats are consumed with but a single overriding obsession: that a maximum number of loyal future Democrats will find their way into the country and eventually gain citizenship and the right to vote.
Ending Immigration Raids
To further augment its effort to maximize the number of illegal aliens who are permitted to stay in the U.S. and eventually become Democrat voters, the Democratic Party pledged, in its official 2020 Platform, to “end workplace and community raids” designed to snare illegal aliens, particularly at “sensitive locations like our schools, houses of worship, health care facilities, benefits offices, and DMVs.” Joe Biden repeatedly and unambiguously echoed this position during his presidential campaign. And during his time in office thus far, Biden, true to his word, has not authorized even a single major workplace raid anywhere in the United States.
Ending the Expulsion of Children Who Come to America Illegally — So Long As They Are Not Cuban
On March 19, 2021, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told CBS This Morning about a forthcoming Biden Administration program that would allow parents lawfully residing in the U.S. to request refugee status for their children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Mayorkas noted that despite the enactment of this program—which was originally an Obama initiative that President Trump subsequently discontinued—some minors might attempt to enter the United States illegally. “We well understand that out of desperation, some children might not wait,” said Mayorkas. “Some loving parents might send their child to traverse Mexico alone to reach the southern border—our southern border. I hope they don’t undertake that perilous journey. But if they do, we will not expel that young child. We will care for that young child and unite that child with a responsible parent. That is who we are as a nation and we can do it.”
In other words, Mayorkas was pledging that minors would be permitted to illegally breach America’s southern border with impunity, even as he admitted that the U.S. government was “on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.” Indeed, occupancy at migrant “surge facilities” along the border had reached as much as 729 percent capacity, a situation that required children in detention to take turns sleeping on floors and to limit themselves to only one shower per week. And as The Washington Post reported, the Biden Administration “was holding record numbers of unaccompanied migrant teens and children in detention cells for far longer than legally allowed.”
Notably, Mayorkas’ message to Central Americans was a stark contrast to what he would say just two months later during a July 13, 2021 press conference at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, when he announced that the Biden Administration was taking a hard line against Cubans who might attempt to come to the United States seeking asylum. “The time is never right to attempt migration by sea, he said. “To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking. Allow me to be clear: If you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States.” Why the drastic change of tone by Mayorkas? Because Cubans in the U.S. have a history of supporting Republicans politically, whereas people from Mexico and Central America have traditionally been heavy supporters of Democrats.
Support for Sanctuary Cities
As noted earlier in this text, Democrats in 2017 condemned a Trump executive order that called for the denial of federal grants to the nearly 500 sanctuary cities that refused to alert federal authorities to the presence of illegal aliens in those locales. The Democrats portrayed Trump’s order as a “shameful” and “divisive” measure that would “betray our nation’s values.” During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden likewise made clear his belief that sanctuary cities should be fully eligible for federal funding. Consistent with that position, Biden overturned the Trump executive order shortly after taking his oath of office in January 2021.
On March 4, 2021, the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) asked the Supreme Court to dismiss three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) regarding the Trump Administration’s effort to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. The following day, the Court agreed to dismiss the petitions.
Six weeks later, on April 14, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the DoJ to begin implementing the change. Two weeks after that, Reuters reported: “The U.S. Justice Department has repealed a policy put in place during Donald Trump’s presidency that cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.”
The Massive Surge of Illegal Border Crossers
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden was quite honest with the American people regarding his firm resolve to open the floodgates to newcomers at America’s southern border. In a September 2019 Democratic presidential debate, for instance, he clearly stated: “What I would do as president is several more things, because things have changed. I would, in fact, make sure that there is, we immediately surge to the border—all those people are seeking asylum, they deserve to be heard. That’s who we are. We’re a nation who says, if you want to flee, and you’re freeing oppression, you should come.”
And Biden most certainly got what he was calling for. In January 2021, the CBP took into custody 78,442 migrants who had crossed America’s southern border illegally. That figure then climbed to 100,441 in February, and 173,337 in March—aside from an additional 30,000 people per month who evaded capture and snuck into the United States undetected. As the Center for Immigration Studies reported in March 2021: “[M]igrants in Central America and Mexico were motivated by the prospect that a Democrat would win the U.S. presidency and open the border. [The border] surge began to materialize after the November election, with some even rushing the border chanting “Biden, Biden, Biden,” and has gathered strength each month since.”
Of the many thousands of illegal migrants who were apprehended by Border Patrol personnel, an enormous number were simply released into the American interior, particularly if they were part of a group claiming to be a “family unit.” As The Epoch Times reported on March 29, 2021: “Now the vast majority (upwards of 85 percent) of family units who are apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing the border illegally are quickly released into the United States…. The families being released are either given a notice to appear containing a court date to begin their immigration proceedings, or given nothing and released [on] their own recognizance.”
That same month, TheBlaze.com reported that “unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants are surging into the country in anticipation of more lenient treatment under President Biden.” The Washington Post, meanwhile, described the situation as a “crisis” where “the new [A]dministration was holding record numbers of unaccompanied migrant teens and children” in steel-and-concrete cells for “far longer than legally allowed, while federal health officials scrambled to place them with relatives or sponsors who had been vetted. Notably, the number of young people being held in these migrant facilities was more than four times greater than the largest corresponding number from the Trump era.
On March 23, 2021, The Epoch Times provided details regarding the abominable conditions in which the migrants were being detained:
“The family-unit holding cells smell like urine and vomit. Fights break out in the unaccompanied-minor cells. Scabies, lice, the flu, and COVID-19 run rampant. Up to 80 individuals are squeezed into each 24- by 30-foot cell, and there aren’t enough mattresses for everyone. Sheets of plastic divide the rooms…. One or two agents are left to control 300 to 500 people during a shift. No agent wants to report physical or sexual assaults between the aliens because they’ll get blamed for ‘letting it happen.’ […] The number of unaccompanied minors—children under 18 who arrive without a parent—is buckling the system.”
One Border Patrol agent, who went by the pseudonym “Carlos” in order to protect his privacy, further fleshed out the picture of life in a Biden Administration surge facility along the border:
Explaining that it was common knowledge among the migrants that anyone bringing a child with them would be quickly released and transported, at taxpayer expense, to various locations across the United States, Carlos said: “They’ll put them in a hotel for a couple of days until their flight is ready to fly them to where they are going. That’s tax dollars.”
Carlos further emphasized that the migrant surge was a direct result of President Biden’s rollback of the Trump Administration’s border policies: “One hundred and ten percent. They were already ready before Biden was even in office. They knew that the doors were going to be open. And now we’ve got a point where we cannot stop it.”
Because of this, lamented Carlos, morale among Border Patrol agents had reached an all-time low: “The attrition rate right now is ridiculous. We don’t want to work for the Border Patrol anymore. It’s not the Border Patrol…. [E]verything was working just fine [under Trump]. Now we’ve got this trash.”
It should be noted that many of the migrants who are flooding illegally into the United States have suffered enormous indignity and pain while making their northward trek. According to Doctors Without Borders, two-thirds of them report, when surveyed, that they experienced some sort of violence during the journey, including abduction, theft, extortion, torture, and rape. Nearly one-third of female migrants say they were sexually abused along the way, usually by means of rape.
The people benefiting most from the flood of illegal migrants to America are the Mexico-based criminal drug cartels, which have raked in countless millions of dollars in exchange for their assistance in smuggling people into the United States. As Arizona Sheriff Mark Dannels, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, explained in March 2021: “[The migrants are] paying $6,000 to come into our country, [they’re] taken to communities throughout the U.S. and then exploited by the cartels with drugs, gangs and sex trafficking. This is what the mainstream media’s not putting out there right now. The cartels are smiling thanks to this [A]dministration, and the revision on … orders from [the] previous president, Trump.”
In April of 2021, the number of border apprehensions of illegal migrants reached a new high of 178,854, which was promptly exceeded by the 180,034 apprehensions made in May. The latter figure represented a staggering 674 percent increase over May of 2020, when 23,237 illegal aliens had been apprehended. Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, stated that “this surge is unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.” The New York Post reported in June 2021: “The 2021 figures are up 25 percent to 35 percent from pre-pandemic 2019. Indeed, the total for this year is on pace to be higher than we have seen in 20 years.”
In June 2021, border officials arrested a new record-high of approximately 188,829 illegal migrants. This figure was particularly remarkable in light of the fact that border arrests in the past had typically decreased during the brutally hot summers. For example, previous detention totals for the month of June were 33,049 in 2020, 104,311 in 2019, and 43,189 in 2018. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the June 2021 figure consisted of an enormous number of people with a high likelihood of being released on their own recognizance: (a) 15,253 unaccompanied children, an 8% increase over the May total of 14,137, and (b) 55,805 family units, a 25% spike above the May total of 44,746. In other words, the migrants well understood that children — either alone or in groups claiming to be “families” — stood a good chance of gaining admission to the U.S.
In July 2021, border apprehensions set yet another record, at 213,534. Meanwhile, the number of unaccompanied minors also reached an all-time one-month high of more than 19,000. Approximately 117,000 of the 212,672 were quickly released into the U.S. interior, despite: (a) an absence of evidence to indicate that they met the criteria necessary to win approval for their asylum claims, and (b) federal law requiring that they be detained until their asylum claims were decided by a judge.
In September 2021, a total of 192,001 migrants were encountered at the border by American immigration authorities. As Fox News noted, this meant that there had been “more than 1.7 million encounters at the border in FY 2021, marking the highest number for a fiscal year on record.”
Very Few Released Migrants Report to ICE Offices As Required
On July 28, 2021, it was reported that just 6,700 of the roughly 55,000 illegal migrants who, during the preceding three months, had been released into the U.S. without a court date and directed to report to ICE within the next 60 days, had actually contacted ICE in compliance with those terms. At the time of their release, the migrants were given a list of addresses and contacts for ICE offices nationwide and were instructed to report to one of them after reaching their desired destination.
Federal Judge Orders Biden Administration to Resume “Remain in Mexico” Policy
On August 13, 2021, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — ruling on a lawsuit that had been brought jointly by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the state of Missouri — ordered the Biden administration to resume the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy vis-a-vis asylum seekers. In accord with President Biden’s wishes, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had terminated the Trump policy — formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) — with a June 1, 2021 memorandum.
Wrote Judge Kacsmaryk in his decision: “At the very least, the Secretary was required to show a reasoned decision for discounting the benefits of MPP. Instead, the June 1 Memorandum does not address the problems created by false claims of asylum or how MPP addressed those problems. Likewise, it does not address the fact that DHS previously found that ‘approximately 9 out of 10 asylum claims from Northern Triangle countries are ultimately found non-meritorious by federal immigration judges,’ and that MPP discouraged such aliens from traveling and attempting to cross the border in the first place.”
Kacsmaryk stayed his order for seven days in order to allow the federal government to seek relief at an appeals court.
On October 15, 2021, Biden Administration officials announced that in mid-November the MPP would be temporarily reinstated in compliance with Judge Kacsmaryk’s order. A Reuters report explained that even as the President was ostensibly re-instituting the program, he was working behind-the-scenes to terminate it once again. Said Reuters:
“President Joe Biden’s administration is taking steps to restart by mid-November a program begun under his predecessor Donald Trump that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for U.S. court hearings after a federal court deemed the termination of the program unjustified, U.S. officials said Thursday [October 14].
“The administration, however, is planning to make another attempt to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly called the “Remain in Mexico” policy, even as it takes steps to comply with the August ruling by Texas-based U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the officials said.
“The possible reinstatement of MPP – even on a short-term basis – would add to a confusing mix of U.S. policies in place at the Mexican border, where crossings into the United States have reached 20-year highs in recent months. The administration said it can only move forward if Mexico agrees. Officials from both countries said they are discussing the matter.
“Mexico’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Thursday that it has expressed a ‘number of concerns’ over MPP to U.S. officials, particularly around due process, legal certainty, access to legal aid and the safety of migrants. A senior Mexican official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said ‘there is no decision at this point’ about the program’s restart.”
A Hotair.com analysis offered the following perspective on the motivations underlying Biden’s announcement:
“So in other words, the Biden administration is being forced to comply with the court order, but they want to leave themselves one big out. They want Mexico to balk at it in order to get around the court order, which is why the target date for the re-implementation has been pushed off to ‘mid-November.’ By signaling to Mexico that the plan relies on their agreement — and Mexico never did like the policy, only agreeing to it after Trump’s economic pressure left them little choice — they’re giving Mexico a veto that Biden and his team can use to explain non-compliance to the federal court.”
False Claims That Border Patrol Agents Are Whipping Illegal Haitian Migrants
During the week of September 19, 2021 – by which time more than 14,000 Haitians had recently gathered under the Del Rio International Bridge on the banks of the Rio Grande in hopes of gaining approval for asylum in the U.S. — the media were abuzz with accusations claiming that Border Patrol agents were using whips to prevent those Haitians from illegally entering the United States. Specifically, the controversy was sparked by photographs of agents mounted on horseback attempting to corral incoming migrants. Some photos showed the agents twirling their reins to coax the horses in certain directions. Many critics misidentified the reins as whips that were being used to harm and degrade the migrants.
Paul Ratje, the photographer responsible for the images in question, said that neither he nor any of his colleagues had seen Border Patrol agents whipping anyone. “Some of the Haitian men started running, trying to go around the horses, and that’s when the whole thing happened,” Ratje explained. “I never saw them whip anyone. The agent was swinging the reins that to some can be misconstrued when you’re looking at the pictures.”
Rowdy Ballard — who, prior to retiring, had spent 17 years on horseback for the Border Patrol and had served 6 years as the horse coordinator for Del Rio, Texas — told Fox News: “We all have the same message: we don’t carry whips.” Explaining that the Border Patrol does not train its agents to whip illegal migrants, and that those agents hardly ever place their hands on people “unless they’re not compliant,” Ballard said on America’s Newsroom: “It was a tense situation. The horses were a little reluctant to do the job that the agents were asking… twirling the reins was just another tool they used to get the horses to do what they’re asking.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the “whipping” claims were entirely false, the Biden Administration quickly announced that: (a) horse patrols at the border would be immediately suspended pending further investigation of the charges, and (b) the specific agents in the aforementioned photos would remain on administrative duty while the probe was being conducted. Biden’s announcement prompted Rowdy Ballard to say: “The horse is a great tool we’ve used [at the Border Patrol] for almost 100 years now. And with that going, it’s going to be harder to patrol that area.”
President Biden said in response to the (false) reports: “It was horrible [what] you saw. To see people treated like they did [sic]. Horses nearly running people over and people being strapped.” “It’s outrageous,” he added. “I promise you those people will pay. They will be investigated. There will be consequences.”
Border Patrol agents reacted angrily to Biden’s remarks. One agent, for instance, told Fox News that Biden had “just started a war with Border Patrol,” adding: “I see the administration wants to fry our agents.” Another agent said: “Would you go to work and do your best knowing that if you do your boss is going to ‘make you pay?’ I’m dumbfounded and don’t know what to say. Is the president threatening to throw us in prison?” National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd called Biden’s comments “completely and totally outrageous” and accused the president of “playing politics with Border Patrol agents’ lives.” “Nobody was struck by a rein, not one person was struck by a rein, not one person was run over by those horses,” said Judd. “They used the tactics they were trained to use, to do the job [Biden] sent them out to do — these are executive branch employees. He sent them out there to do the job, and now he’s criticizing them because his base wants them to.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that President Biden and his entire Administration were “horrified by the photos of the Border Patrol officers and that behavior.” “We feel those images are horrible and horrific,” she added.
Vice President Kamala Harris said she was “outraged” by the “horrible and deeply troubling” images shown in the photos. “Human beings should not be treated that way,” she elaborated, “and as we all know, it also evoked images of some of the worst moments of our history where that kind of behavior has been used against the indigenous people of our country, has been used against African Americans during times of slavery.”
Rep. Maxine Waters said at a press conference on September 22: “We’re saying to the president and everybody else: You’ve got to stop this madness. And I want to know, in the first place, who’s paying these [Border Patrol] cowboys to do this work? They’ve got to be gotten rid of. They’ve gotten to be stopped. It cannot go on.” Waters then told the reporters in attendance: “Write the story. Tell the story about what is going on. Let people know that they’re trying to take us back to slavery days – and worse than that.”
Rep. Ayanna Pressley described the “whip” controversy as “egregious and white supremacist behavior.” “Haitian lives are black lives,” she said. “They’re lives, and they’re black lives. And if we really believe that black lives matter around the globe, this is the moment to stand up.”
DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said that a full investigation was warranted. “One cannot weaponize a horse to aggressively attack a child,” he stated. “That is unacceptable. That is not what our policies and our training require. Please understand, let me be quite clear, that is not acceptable. We will not tolerate mistreatment, and we will address it with full force based on the facts that we learn.”
More Than 12,000 Haitian Illegal Migrants Are Released into American Interior
All told, roughly 30,000 migrants passed through the Del Rio International Bridge area between September 9 and 24. Approximately 12,400 of them were released into the U.S. interior with instructions to report for immigration court hearings sometime in the future. Aside from those, about 2,000 were removed via 17 plane flights to Haiti under Title 42 provisions. Another 8,000 decided to return to Mexico voluntarily. Another 5,000 were processed by the Department of Homeland Security to determine whether they would be sent back to Haiti or permitted to pursue their immigration/asylum cases. And some 3,000 were in detention.
Many More Haitians Heading Toward U.S. Border
On September 25, 2021, PJ Media reported that, based on numbers provided by the Panamanian government, an additional 20,000+ Haitians were trekking northward through the Darien Gap — the roadless, dangerous, 66-mile sliver of jungle and swamp connecting Colombia and Panama — with their sights set on America’s southern border.
On October 1, 2021, Breitbart.com reported: “Mexican officials are concerned that more than 125,000 Haitian migrants are expected to be in their country by the end of 2021 with the majority trying to reach the U.S. border. However, the figure could be much higher due to migrants who enter Mexico without notifying authorities. The concerns expressed by officials range from law enforcement to humanitarian and sanitary issues since Mexico does not have the resources to absorb the influx.”
Biden Appoints Opponent of Border Security to Head the ICE Office Tasked with Prosecuting Illegal Aliens Facing Deportation
In late September 2021, President Biden appointed Boston-based immigration attorney Kerry E. Doyle to lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), whose duty is to prosecute illegal aliens facing deportation. A strong opponent of border security, Doyle in 2017 had co-filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s temporary suspension of immigration to the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Venezuela.
“Doyle’s record extends also to initiating sanctuary legislation in local communities and [being] a critic of ICE as an enforcer of federal immigration law,” reported Breitbart.com. Former ICE senior advisor Jon Feere described Doyle as “a strong advocate of sanctuary policies” and a supporter of legislation that would bar local law enforcement from even inquiring about a suspect’s immigration status. “Disturbingly,” wrote Feere, “by opposing the 287(g) program Doyle is supporting the release of illegal aliens arrested for a litany of crimes in Massachusetts including manslaughter, armed carjacking, armed robbery, aggravated assault and battery, child rape, strangulation of a pregnant woman, assault and battery of a 60+/disabled person, kidnapping, home invasion, burglary, fentanyl trafficking, cocaine trafficking, carrying an unlicensed firearm, credit card and identity fraud, and drunk driving, to name a few crimes.”
No More Worksite Immigration Raids
In an October 12, 2021 memo issued to the Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS) and Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agencies, Mayorkas announced that the DHS would now end all mass immigration-enforcement operations at worksites in the United States. Asserting that such operations should target employers of illegal migrants, rather than the migrants themselves, Mayorkas wrote: “The deployment of mass worksite operations, sometimes resulting in the simultaneous arrest of hundreds of workers, was not focused on the most pernicious aspect of our country’s unauthorized employment challenge: exploitative employers. These highly visible operations misallocated enforcement resources while chilling, and even serving as a tool of retaliation for, worker cooperation in workplace standards investigations.”
Caravan of 60,000 More Migrants from Mexico Head Toward U.S. Southern Border
On October 21, 2021, a throng of possibly more than 60,000 migrants left the southeastern Mexico city of Tapachula and began a northward trek toward America’s southern border. According to the Post Millennial: “Mexican authorities made an attempt to stop them with agents in riot gear. However, they were severely outnumbered by the migrants, and didn’t stand a chance. The Mexican police line broke within seconds, and the migrants streamed through largely unopposed after that.” Notably, the migrants’ activities were highly organized and carefully orchestrated. As Fox News reported: “The caravan is not merely a group of migrants congregating together, organizers made migrants who wished to participate in the caravan to register with a QR code on their phones or a web link to participate.”
The Financial Costs of Illegal Immigration
What are the costs of the Democrats’ cynical political maneuverings, in addition to the division they have created in our political system? At the federal, state, and local levels, U.S. taxpayers currently shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the education, medical, welfare, and law enforcement-related costs associated with the nation’s estimated 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children (who were born in the United States). According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, this “amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member.” By contrast, illegal aliens pay only about $19 billion in federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and excise taxes annually, meaning that they represent, on balance, a huge financial drain on the United States.
On September 1, 2021, the Center for Immigration Studies issued a report showing that welfare use by households headed by non-citizens — including legal immigrants, foreign visa workers, green card holders, and illegal aliens — was high relative to native-born Americans. Some key excerpts from the report:
The Crime-Related Costs of Illegal Immigration
Yet another enormous cost that illegal aliens impose on American society shows up in crime statistics:
The numbers cited above are staggering. Yet, no matter how stark the evidence that America’s economic and social foundations are buckling under the enormous strains imposed by illegal migration and the abuse of our asylum system, Democrats continue to press for policies that would only amplify the destructive effects of those burdens. They are determined to do everything in their power to overwhelm the nation’s border-security bureaucracy to the point of crisis, which in turn would set the stage for Congress to pass some type of hollow, face-saving “path-to-citizenship” measure that would give the false appearance of doing something to address the problem.
The Democrats’ ultimate objective is a simple one: to import a massive bloc of new voters who will support their party in overwhelming numbers for generations to come, thereby changing forever the economic, cultural, and political landscape of American society. This motive was illuminated with crystal clarity by a 2018 Center for American Progress Action Fund memo in which onetime Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri called on Democrats to aggressively defend former president Obama’s DACA program, which protected hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from being deported. And why was this so vital to Palmieri? Because those illegals, she explained, represented “a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”
To be sure, there is a strong racial component in this Democrat strategy. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Knowing this, Michelle Goldberg wrote an October 29, 2018 opinion piece in The New York Times titled “We Can Replace Them” — a reference to the white people whom she characterized broadly as “white nationalists.” She ended her piece with these words: “In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.”
The Washington Times put it this way in 2019: “With declining support from white and older Americans, the Democrats have concluded that their future lies in importing a new electorate from south of the border.”
It is well established that a significant majority of immigrants to the United States tend, when they become active politically, to support Democrats. All told, approximately 70 percent of Hispanic voters in the U.S. today cast their ballots for Democrats. This is consistent with a Pew Research Center finding that 75 percent of Hispanics in America would prefer a bigger federal government that provides more taxpayer-funded services—a typically Democratic position—as compared to just 41 percent of the overall U.S. population. An important study by University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel confirms that increased levels of immigration at the county level are associated with diminished support for the Republican party in those locales. This occurs, says Gimpel, not only because of Democrat votes cast by immigrants—many of whom are currently non-citizens and thus cannot vote—but also because of outmigration by natives who dislike the cultural and economic changes that immigration often brings.
The orchestrated-crisis strategy that Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven first put forth 55 years ago has gone from being a strategy of political outsiders, to being a keystone of today’s Democratic Party. When they first proposed altering the nature of American society by stressing its key components to the breaking point, Cloward and Piven saw it as a way to persuade the disaffected black “masses” to “deliver their [political] loyalties to their benefactors,” who were mostly Democrats. The goal today is likewise to help Democratic politicians obtain the political loyalty of disaffected minorities, but these minorities are now being imported from other nations.
 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dhs-secretary-90-percent-of-recent-asylum-seekers-skipped-their-hearings/; https://www.westernjournal.com/dhs-chief-reveals-large-percentage-asylum-seekers-disappear-skip-court-hearings/
 https://www.thenation.com/article/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty/; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, Nelson Current Publishing Company, 2006, Chapter 6.
 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html; https://www.city-journal.org/html/compassion-gone-mad-12145.html; https://www.city-journal.org/html/acorn%E2%80%99s-nutty-regime-cities-12414.html; https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending; Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, chapter 6.
 https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/project-vote-pv; https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/human-service-employees-registration-and-voter-education-fund-human-serve; Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 126.
 https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2012/02/14/pew-one-in-eight-voter-registrations-inaccurate-51-million-citizens-unregistered; https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2012/02/14/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-evidence-that-americas-voter-registration-system-needs-an-upgrade
 https://www.gao.gov/assets/160/155529.pdf; https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1994/10/v17n4-3.pdf
 http://business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf; https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-securitization-encour_n_303041; https://books.google.com/books?id=y0oPY1wguY8C&pg=PA68&lpg=#v=onepage&q&f=false
 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration; https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/04/28/watch-illegal-aliens-cross-into-america-during-maria-bartiromos-interviews-with-n2545505; https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Why-a-Texas-border-wall-won-t-deter-Central-13541575.php
 Ibid.; https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Why-a-Texas-border-wall-won-t-deter-Central-13541575.php; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-has-hit-breaking-point-at-border-amid-immigration-surge-customs-and-border-protection-commissioner-says/2019/03/27/d2014068-5093-11e9-af35-1fb9615010d7_story.html?utm_term=.92ff1b2403a3
 https://torres.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/statement-immigration-executive-actions; https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1162167/quigley-introduces-bill-to-safeguard-sanctuary-cities/#.XSlqKehKiUk; https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1155538/rep-vargas-statement-on-president-trumps-anti-immigrant-executive-orders/#.XSlqAuhKiUk
 https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1162037/#.XSlqtuhKiUk; https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h342; https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/748
 https://soto.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-soto-speaks-out-against-border-wall-funding; https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1146878/rep-carbajal-statement-on-trumps-border-wall-executive-action%23.Wv3lLWaZPUI#.XSls3ehKiUk; https://gonzalez.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-gonzalez-speaks-house-floor-opposition-border-wall-funding
 https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/07/unethical-ineffective-and-inhumane-democrats-demand-end-trumps-family-separation; https://thehill.com/homenews/news/398167-biden-rips-trump-immigration-policy-one-of-the-darkest-moments-in-our-history; https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/394434-bernie-sanders-calls-for-trumps-disastrous-immigration-policy; https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/politics/elizabeth-warren-ice-immigration-protests/index.html
 https://cis.org/Arthur/McAleenan-Details-Scope-Disaster-Border; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrant-families-were-unrelated.
 https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Monthly%20Apprehensions%20%28FY%202000%20-%20FY%202019%29_1.pdf; https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Total%20Monthly%20UAC%20Apprehensions%20by%20Sector%20%28FY%202010%20-%20FY%202019%29_0.pdf; https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Total%20Monthly%20Family%20Unit%20Apprehensions%20by%20Sector%20%28FY%202013%20-%20FY%202019%29_1.pdf
 https://cis.org/Arthur/McAleenan-Details-Scope-Disaster-Border; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/dna-tests-reveal-30-of-suspected-fraudulent-migrant-families-were-unrelated. In July 2019, The Washington Examiner reported that “in a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children.”
 https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741769333/u-s-sets-new-asylum-rule-telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere; https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-announces-major-crackdown-on-asylum-seekers
 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-announces-major-crackdown-on-asylum-seekers https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dems-wont-curb-illegal-immigration-they-plan-pass-resolution-condemning
 https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/immigration-reform/daca/; https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/22/joe-biden-vows-amnesty-for-all-illegal-aliens-in-first-100-days-we-owe-them/
 https://www.natlawreview.com/article/biden-administration-abandons-trump-era-public-charge-rule; https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/09/dhs-secretary-statement-2019-public-charge-rule; https://ogletree.com/insights/dhs-promulgates-public-charge-rule-to-promote-self-sufficiency-penalize-reliance-on-public-benefits/
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/04/executive-order-on-rebuilding-and-enhancing-programs-to-resettle-refugees-and-planning-for-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-migration/; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/27/2017-23630/resuming-the-united-states-refugee-admissions-program-with-enhanced-vetting-capabilities
 https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/biden-administration-announces-campaign-to-make-it-easier-for-millions-of-immigrants-to-become-citizens_3884942.html; https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/02/executive-order-restoring-faith-in-our-legal-immigration-systems-and-strengthening-integration-and-inclusion-efforts-for-new-americans/
 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-the-revision-of-civil-immigration-enforcement-policies-and-priorities/; https://cis.org/Mortensen/President-Trumps-Executive-Order-Puts-Americans-First-Least-75-Illegal-Aliens-Eligible
 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/biden-vows-to-roll-back-trump-immigration-policies.aspx;; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/02/biden-deportations-ice-immigration-enforcement/
 https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_federal_policy_on_immigration,_2017-2020; Some sanctuary policies are “formal,” in the sense that they are embodied in laws passed by local governments requiring city employees to refrain from notifying the federal government that illegal aliens are living in their communities. Other sanctuary policies are “informal” — not codified anywhere in written form, but nonetheless carried out by local government workers.
 https://www.theblaze.com/news/record-number-migrant-children-held-in-cells; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unaccompanied-minors-detention-cells/2021/03/10/a0d39390-81c6-11eb-bb5a-ad9a91faa4ef_story.html
 https://www.theblaze.com/news/record-number-migrant-children-held-in-cells; https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unaccompanied-minors-detention-cells/2021/03/10/a0d39390-81c6-11eb-bb5a-ad9a91faa4ef_story.html
 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migrant-southern-border-june-topping-1m-fiscal-year; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/nearly-190-000-border-crossings-seen-in-june-busts-bidens-claim-its-seasonal
 https://www.dailywire.com/news/10155/9-things-you-need-know-about-illegal-immigration-aaron-bandler; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/illegal-immigrants-responsible-for-almost-three-fourths-of-federal-drug-possession-sentences-in-2014
 https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities; https://www.usagovpolicy.com/tag/crime-committed-by-illegal-immigrants/
 https://cis.org/Immigrations-Impact-Republican-Political-Prospects-1980-2012; https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/immigration-democratic-party-republican-party-dream-act-party-affiliation-conservatives-limited-government-traditional-values/
Crashing The Border: The Left’s Manufactured Crisis (pamphlet)
By John Perazzo
Unaccompanied Alien Children and the Crisis at the Border
By The Center for Immigration Studies
April 1, 2019
The History of the Flores Settlement
By The Center for Immigration Studies
February 11, 2019
Fake Family Units at the Border
By The Center for Immigration Studies
February 15, 2019
An Incredibly Violent Journey to the United States
By The Center for Immigration Studies
October 25, 2018
Family Unit Apprehensions Soared in FY 2018
By The Center for Immigration Studies
October 24, 2018