Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

An “All Party Parliamentary” group has released a gripping report on the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel.  All-Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses of the British Parliament.  The following is a very brief summary.

The Hamas-led attack on Southern Israel on 7 October 2023 was one of the largest terror attacks in history, resulting in 1,182 fatalities and over 4,000 wounded. A total of 251 hostages were taken – 210 were alive and 41 were dead bodies. It was the largest single massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust and the deadliest per capita terrorist attack, with just over 1 in every 10,000 Israelis killed and the third overall deadliest terrorist attack in the world to date.

The attack resulted in over 4,000 wounded individuals treated at hospitals, with gunshot wounds, grenade injuries, and burns. Trauma centres faced overwhelming numbers of severe cases, treating patients whilst under ongoing rocket fire. The mental health repercussions since 7 October, including PTSD and suicides, have led experts to classify the event as a mass trauma affecting Israeli society.

A total of 863 civilians were killed on 7 October, accounting for 73% of the dead. The remaining 27% of fatalities were those serving in active duty – either in the military or as first responders. Women and children account for 27% of those killed during the attacks and 49% of hostages taken alive – 316 and 102 respectively. The youngest victim of 7 October was just 14 hours old – her mother had been shot whilst driving to the hospital to give birth and a bullet hit the baby girl’s leg whilst in utero. The oldest victim was a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor, who was killed at Kibbutz Holit.

The victims were killed through shootings, asphyxiation and burning, grenade explosions, RGP and missile attacks. Many victims were subjected to mutilation, sexual violence, and other forms of deliberate brutality before or after death. Forensic teams faced immense challenges in identifying remains due to the extent of desecration to bodies, with some victims identified months later through fragments like teeth.

Hamas orchestrated and led the attack, with 3,800 of its elite Nukhba forces and members of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades invading Southern Israel. They were supported by 2,200 individuals from other armed groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and civilians from Gaza. A further 1,000 individuals stayed in Gaza to operate rocket launchers and provide tactical support.

Hamas maintained strict secrecy regarding the 7 October attack, with the operation details withheld from most of its fighters until hours before its execution. Only a small group of senior leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Mohammed Deif, the head of Qassam Brigades, were fully aware of the plan. Lower-ranking commanders and participants were informed of their roles just days, or even hours, in advance.

When the militants crossed the border, they came armed with advanced RPGs, drones, small arms, and explosives, including thermobaric weapons. The sheer volume of arms was designed to cause maximum destruction. Weapons such as the strip-and-frame charge explosive were specifically created for the attack. The explosive frame was designed to breach the border and to be affixed to home saferoom doors in Israeli border communities, to break in.

The perpetrators documented their actions on the day, through GoPro body cameras and mobile phones. They livestreamed and recorded their actions, uploading them to social media sites like Telegram.

The Hamas-led attack began with an unprecedented barrage of rockets, aimed at southern Israel and the larger metropolises across the country. This was followed by 119 breaches in the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel over the course of the attack, and simultaneous incursions by air and sea.

Once the border had been penetrated, the attacking forces breached community defences and caused widespread destruction. Kibbutzim such as Be’eri, Kfar Aza, and Nir Oz were the worst affected. Be’eri and Kfar Aza experienced the highest death tolls, with 99 and 62 civilians killed respectively. Nir Oz saw the most kidnappings, with 75 people taken hostage, alongside 7 abducted bodies. The communities were attacked by Hamas, other armed groups, and Gazan civilians. They destroyed homes, committed atrocities, systematically looted, and set fire to properties. Fierce battles ensued at some locations, with some areas only reclaimed by Israeli forces on the evening of 7 October and others remained contested for days. By 11 October, 89% of the communities in the Gaza envelope had been evacuated, displacing tens of thousands of people.

Hamas-led forces also launched coordinated attacks on three cities in the western Negev: Sderot, Ofakim, and Netivot, which resulted in 88 fatalities.

The Nova Music Festival, held near Kibbutz Re’im, became the deadliest site of the attacks, with over 370 people killed, most of them young attendees under 30.

The death toll made the attack on the festival “the deadliest concert attack in history.”

Illustration: Pixabay

The U.S. faces three existential crises. In Part 1, we discussed national security. In this section we review the national debt and education.

National Debt

The National Debt is closing in on 37 trillion.   Fiscal Data notes that Over the past 100 years, the U.S. federal debt has increased from $395 B in 1924 to $35.46 T in 2024. The U.S. debt to GDP ratio surpassed 100% in 2013 when both debt and GDP were approximately 16.7 trillion, obviously an unsustainable situation.  The national debt has increased every year over the past ten years. Interest expenses during this period have remained fairly stable due to low interest rates and investors’ judgement that the U.S. Government has a very low risk of default. However, recent increases in interest rates and inflation are now resulting in an increase in interest expense.

The General Accounting Office reports The federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path that poses serious economic, security, and social challenges. We reported that:

As of September 30, 2024, publicly held debt was $28.2 trillion, or 98% of the size of the economy Publicly held debt is projected to grow more than twice as fast as the economy, reaching 200% of the size of the economy by 2047. Government spending on net interest in FY 2024 exceeded federal spending on Medicare and national defense, and is projected to keep growing.

Attempts to address the debt are frequently met with harsh opposition by elected officials whose re-election chances are dependent on promise more to constituents.

Education

In 2024,The Nation’s Report Card reports that the average reading score for the nation at grade 4 was 2 points lower compared to 2022 and 5 points lower compared to 2019. NAEP scores are also reported at five selected percentiles to show the progress made by lower- (10th and 25th percentiles), middle- (50th percentile), and higher- (75th and 90th percentiles) performing students. The 2024 scores at all selected percentiles except the 90th were lower compared to 2022 percentile scores. 

A Discovery.org study notes that “The results nationwide are dismal, according to the Nation’s Report Card. Virtually every major city shows declining proficiency for their students, even as school spending continues to increase. For years, we have been told that more money is what is needed to improve student learning. Yet more money has not worked for one simple reason: money is not the problem. The problem is the system. 

In public education, we reward mediocrity and discourage excellence… A teacher cannot be fired for poor performance. Consequently, evaluations have little or no meaning…This lack of accountability is not limited to personnel but applies also to the expenditure of education funds.

Education Week Notes that “More countries are edging ahead of the United States in math and science achievement, according to the latest results from an international test of 4th and 8th graders in the subjects.”

America’s economic and cultural future depends on the educational success of its children. That success does not appear to likely under current conditions.

Conclusion

Any one of these crises would normally be enough to rock the nation.  Yet, despite the warnings of individuals both in and out of government, there is not an adequate sense of urgency.

The United States currently faces three extraordinary and unprecedented crises.  Remarkably, a sense how deep these challenges appears to evade the media and the public.

First, and most imminently dangerous, is the threat to our national security. Never, since the British burned the White House in the War of 1812, has America had a combination of enemies with the military power, the manufacturing capacity, the population, and the raw materials to defeat the nation.

Second, Washington has overspent in the past, but never to this monumental degree and never without gaining much of anything in return. If the U.S. Treasury were an individual or a business, it would be considered bankrupt.

Third, our future generations are ill-served by an educational system that has failed them.

Examine the national security threat first.

National Security

Russia has the world’s largest nuclear force, and Vladimir Putin has been increasingly vocal about his willingness to use it.

A British Government study notes that “Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with a stockpile estimated at 5,580 warheads, of which 4,380 are operational (strategic, non-strategic and reserve).Russia’s large arsenal of 1,558 non-strategic/tactical warheads are not currently subject to any arms control limitations….Since 2008, Russia has been extensively modernising its nuclear capabilities. In 2018 President Putin outlined a number of new nuclear weapons capabilities that are intended to counter US missile defence systems. These include hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles, a nuclear-powered torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. In December 2023 the Russian Ministry of Defense said that modern weapons systems comprised 95% of its nuclear inventory.”

Russia’s lead in nuclear arms is echoed by China’s lead in naval vessels,

 The U.S. Naval Institute reports, citing an official Pentagon study, that “ China’s navy is, by far, the largest of any country in East Asia, and sometime between 2015 and 2020 it surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships, meaning the types of ships that count toward the quoted size of the U.S. Navy. DOD states that China’s navy “is the largest navy in the world with a battle force of over 370 platforms, including major surface combatants, submarines, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries. Notably, this figure does not include approximately 60 HOUBEI-class patrol combatants that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). The… overall battle force [of China’s navy] is expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030.” The U.S. Navy, by comparison, included 292 battle force ships as of January 29, 2024, and the Navy’s FY2024 budget submission projects that the Navy will include 290 battle force ships by the end of FY2030. U.S. military officials and other observers are expressing concern or alarm regarding the pace of China’s naval shipbuilding effort, the capacity of China’s shipbuilding industry compared with the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and resulting trend lines regarding the relative sizes and capabilities of China’s navy and the U.S. Navy.”

The problem will not be addressed quickly. America’s capacity to rebuild has been sharply reduced due to the reduction in the defense industrial base.  A Congressional Research Service report warns that

“The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of “empty bins.”

Some think tanks, periodicals, DOD officials, and Members of Congress have voiced similar concerns. These arguments often center on the role the industrial base would play in a great power war, and make reference to studies, wargames, and forecasts suggesting the United States could run short of critical defense equipment in a conflict (especially one involving China). Industrial capacity could help determine the outcome of such a contingency in two broad ways: (1) enabling production in advance, so equipment could be stockpiled and prepositioned; and (2) allowing materiel to be replenished after hostilities have begun. In addition to conditioning U.S. military performance during a conflict, advocates of expanding industrial capacity have touted it as a means of strengthening deterrence. If potential adversaries believe U.S. industry can sustain a war effort indefinitely, this argument runs, they may be less likely to risk conflict.

A Breaking Defense analysis  warns that “America’s military is inappropriately structured and the US industrial base is ‘grossly inadequate’  to confront the dual threats of Russia and China, according to a new, high-powered formal review. “The U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise) required to adequately prepare” for a global conflict, reads an early page from the final report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy…A bipartisan ‘call to arms’ is urgently needed so that the United States can make the major changes and significant investments now rather than wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The support and resolve of the American public are indispensable.”

Thus, the United States currently has an inadequate military, and lacks the timely capacity to address the crisis.

The article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

There is an alarming shift in Russian espionage tactics, involving the recruitment of individuals suffering from substance addiction for sabotage missions as part of a broader hybrid warfare strategy targeting Sweden and Europe, according to a March report from Sweden’s Security Service. In a recent written statement, Sweden’s Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen, SÄPO), urged local police departments in Sweden to increase surveillance and be alert for increased Russian intelligence activities, including the dissemination of disinformation, cyberattacks, and covert operations.

Drug addicts are reportedly being sought because of their low social status and subsequent effective invisibility, a valued quality in espionage operatives, says John Daly of the Jamestown Foundation. Russia relies on “legitimate” espionage methods and channels such as its embassy personnel and religious institution. It conducts covert operations and targets potential assets through online social media campaigns, he adds. Recently, though, Moscow has dramatically increased its intelligence efforts to destabilize Sweden. It may be due, in part, to the country’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) one year ago.

The recent SÄPO statement points out that foreign powers are using security-threatening and hybrid activities, influence, theft of technology and knowledge, mapping and threats against its opponents in an escalation of illegal intelligence activities in the new NATO member state. Last month, the publication Säkerhetspolisen noted an increased “Russian risk appetite” accompanied by threats of sabotage. In recent years Iran has used criminal networks in the country to carry out violent acts with quiet support from the Kremlin.  The heightened focus on “hybrid warfare,” suggests an evolution in tactics that include a range of activities aimed against Europe. 

“Public opinion in both Sweden and Finland was firmly against joining NATO before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, support for NATO membership subsequently surged,” says Daly. This is not the first public announcement from SÄPO. Last year its head, Charlotte von Essen warned at a national “People and Defense” conference that Russian intelligence activities we well as other security-threatening events would increase with NATO membership as the motivating factor for Russian hybrid warfare.  

Moscow has long relied on  the use of “expendable” agents, individuals who are used for single missions. Von Essen revealed that SÄPO has been infiltrated by Russian intelligence in the last few years. As far back as 2021, Peyman Kia, one of two brothers of Iranian origin were charged with spying for Russia for over a decade. Both held positions at SÄPO and Militära underrättelse-och säkerhetstjänsten (Military Intelligence and Security Service, MUST). Peyman’s position was in the most secret known Swedish intelligence organization, Kontoret för särskild inhämtning (Office for Special Collection, KSI). The brothers shared top secret information, according to Daly, from the Security Service and Armed Forces.  After they were caught, Peyman received a life sentence in prison and his brother, Kayyam, was given almost ten years. Russia has many “expendable” agents in place. After recruitment they are used to carry out sabotage and influence operations throughout Europe. The global intelligence community has long recognized that the Kremlin not only recruits but also provides instructions via social media platforms and places little care on their fate if caught. Day says that “their singular missions deny them knowledge of the specific breadth and depth of Russian intelligence efforts.” Putin used the Russian Orthodox Church in Sweden as a second “legitimate” asset, says the publication Expressen AB.

Russian espionage operations are not confined to Sweden; they present challenges across Europe today. Daly suggests that they also impact NATO’s larger defense challenges. Last week, the UK Defence Journal noted that Sweden takes its alliance responsibilities seriously and marked the first anniversary of its accession to NATO by deploying JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets to Poland as a contribution to NATO’s Enhanced Air Policing mission. Poland and the Baltic states are reporting similar espionage cases involving Russian assets. 

Sweden’s membership in NATO produced a decisive powershift in the Baltic region. While it may make the region safer, it also presents an increased intelligence interest from Russia and threat to Sweden’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty. Russia is adept at using politically destabilizing, hybrid tactics to create unrest and shift focus away from its other aggressive activities. In December, Washington and Stockholm signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly address foreign malign information influence activities and the spread of disinformation. The goal is to strengthen cooperation amid heightened geopolitical tensions. 

To bolster a quick response to counter Russian aggression, General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, confirmed that US troops will remain stationed across Europe.  President Trump is also advocating for NATO member countries to increase their defense spending. He proposed they allocate at least 5% of their Gross National Product (GNP) to defense, a significant rise from the current 2% guideline. The collective defense capabilities of NATO may be needed to ensure Sweden, and the Baltic states, remain free of Russian threats and interference in their internal affairs in the coming year.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

China is deepening its cooperation with Central Asia to secure access to the region’s vast supply of raw earth materials.

Kazakhstan, a major player in the uranium and critical minerals market, is one of Beijing’s main targets. The Central Asian state is positioning itself as a strategic mineral hub to attract foreign investment and diversify its partnerships. With increased geopolitical competition for copper,
zinc, lead and nickel, China is racing to deliver those technical and economic benefits to Kazakhstan.

Western democratic states are growing increasingly concerned over the level of China’s involvement in the region and its ability to exact limited control over strategic resources. Beijing offers Kazakhstani
leaders job creation, technology transfer, and new economic channels, in an attempt to replace Russia’s earlier dominance in the region. Yunis Sharifli, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Kazakhstan aims
to balance Chinese involvement by “actively pursuing partnerships with the United States, European Union, and Japan, while incorporating local content and knowledge transfer into future agreements.”

Last June China and Kazakhstan formalized a landmark agreement to construct one of Central Asia’s most advanced copper smelting facilities by the end of 2028, capable of producing 300,000 tons of copper annually. At a cost of over $1.5 billion, the facility represents a transformative integration of upstream and downstream operations, combining access to one of the world’s largest copper mines with state-of-the-art processing technology. China will bring 1,000 jobs to the country with this single
project, according to the Astan Financial Center.

In March, Gabidulla Ospankulov, Chairperson of the Investment Committee of the Kazakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke on a panel discussing “Investments, Supply Chains, and National Legislation” at
the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s 2025 convention, notes Sharifli. He spoke about his country’s growing geostrategic position as a crossroads in the global supply chains among China, the
United States, and the European Union. Currently, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) China controls approximately 70% of the world’s capacity for processing critical minerals such as lithium,
cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite. During the last two years, China increased joint ventures with Kazakh mining companies to lock in supply deals and expand refining capabilities. As hard as Western
nations are pushing back on China’s overseas investment strategy to diversify its supply, Beijing is equally strident about ramping up its efforts to create joint ventures and control Kazakh mining companies.

Last November, China’s Jiaxin International Resources Investment Company opened its first tungsten production plant in Kazakhstan in the Almaty region, according to the Ministry of Industry and Construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Beijing understands Astana’s financial, technological, and human resource constraints in extracting mineral resources. Xi Jinping also recognizes that Western advanced economies need these same resources. Sharifli says that one of the most notable areas of Chinese-Kazakhstan cooperation in critical minerals thus far has been an agreement signed last month between Kazakh First Deputy Prime Minister Roman Sklyar and the PRC’s East Hope Group General Director, Changjun Meng. It establishes plans for a vertically integrated non-ferrous metals production complex for aluminum, copper, and silver. The agreement, he says, includes a $12 billion investment for the creation of approximately 10 thousand jobs and the establishment of an industrial ecosystem.

The Prime Minister of Kazakhstan says the Chinese-led project promises to introduce cutting-edge metallurgical technologies while expanding his country’s presence in international markets for finished metal products.
The OCSE Academy in Biskek says that “Kazakhstan hosts the largest number of projects and receives the largest amount of Chinese investment” with Turkmenistan the second largest recipient of Chinese
financing. Historically China focused primarily on securing access to raw materials throughout Central Asia. Today, Beijing is adapting to Kazakhstan’s strategic priorities for domestic value addition.

The United States is responding to these developments by increasing its diplomatic ties with Kazakhstan and the other Central Asian states. Washington is calling on the region not to lean too hard into China or
Russia. The US is offering development financing through the US International Development Finance Corporation to fund non-Chinese infrastructure and mineral projects. Washington also initiated talks to
collaborate on rare earth and uranium projects to thwart Chinese and Russian effort to control global critical mineral supplies.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: A Tajikistan scene (Pixabay)

Were the  Democrats right?  Was Congressional action the only way to “fix” the crisis at the Southern Border?

Of course not.

On the day of his Inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” “Over the last 4 years,” the Order states, “the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws…[t]his order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.”

 The Order provides that the “Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to…[ensure] the successful enforcement of final orders of removal.”  Further, “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure [the enforcement of] Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of aliens in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.”  Moreover, “[t]he Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall take all appropriate action to prioritize the prosecution of criminal offenses related to the unauthorized entry or continued unauthorized presence of aliens in the United States.”

The Order also states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take appropriate action…to ensure the efficient and expedited removal of aliens from the United States.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, “[t]he proclamation’s reliance on statutory authorities to suspend legal entry of aliens seems to rest on legal arguments that courts have explored…frequently…[t]he Supreme Court has interpreted the President’s delegated authority…broadly, and Presidents have invoked this authority in a variety of contexts to suspend the entry of certain classes of aliens.”   Which is just a roundabout way of saying that yes, the president has the authority to demand that the laws currently in existence be enforced.

What has been the result of this exercise of Presidential power?  Let’s ask CBS News.

“The number of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border illegally in President Trump’s first full month in office plunged to a level not seen in at least 25 years, according to preliminary government data obtained by CBS News. [In February 2025] Border Patrol recorded about 8,450 apprehensions of migrants who crossed into the country unlawfully between official entry points along the U.S.-Mexico border, the statistics show. On some days during a record spike in illegal crossings under the Biden administration, Border Patrol recorded more than 8,000 apprehensions in a single day…In January, Border Patrol agents at the Mexican border recorded 29,000 apprehensions, down 38% from 47,000 in December. The drop from January to February was even more pronounced, amounting to a roughly 70% decrease.”

But wait – I thought it was the system that was broken, and only Congress could fix it!

Clearly, all that was needed to “fix” the Southern Border was enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Increased enforcement at the Border itself is only one prong of the Trump Administration’s efforts to control illegal immigration.  The removal of illegal aliens, particularly those engaged in criminal activities while in the United States, has also become a priority.

“Federal officers swept into sanctuary cities on President Trump’s first full day in office,” The New York Post reported, “nabbing more than 300 illegal migrant criminals – including an attempted murderer and a child molester – to hold them for deportation…[t]he coast-to-coast dragnet – a multi-agency effort led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – picked up felons in and around Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Miami…It was just the start of what border czar Tom Homan has promised will be a renewed effort to boot 700,000 illegal migrants who have committed crimes from the US – and sanctuary cities will not be spared.” 

Those Sanctuary Cities don’t plan on giving up their illegals anytime soon.  For instance, San Antonio, Texas, claims that “Sanctuary cities offer protection for immigrants who seek the United States in pursuit of the American Dream….this desire to seek safety and bring opportunity into our lives connects us all…Sanctuary cities provide protection and security to undocumented immigrants by forbidding city or law enforcement officials from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to inquire into the immigration status of individuals.” 

As pleasant as these sentiments may sound, according to the Department of Justice, “[f]ederal law provides that state and local jurisdictions ‘may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officers] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). 

On this basis, the Justice Department has announced that “Sanctuary jurisdictions should not receive access to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice. The Department will exercise its own authority to impose any conditions of funding that do not violate applicable constitutional or statutory limitations.”

Another element of the Trump Administration’s efforts to halt illegal immigration is outlined in an Executive order entitled “Securing Our Borders.” “Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States,” the Order states. “These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years. This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.” 

In this regard, “[t]he Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to deploy and construct temporary and permanent physical barriers to ensure complete operational control of the southern border of the United States.” Further, “[t]he Secretary shall…issue new policy guidance…including the termination of the practice commonly known as ‘catch-and-release,’ whereby illegal aliens are routinely released into the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law.”

The Order also provides that DHS shall “[c]ease using the ‘CBP One’ application as a method of paroling or facilitating the entry of otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United States,” and “[t]erminate all categorical parole programs…including the program known as the ‘Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.’”

These directives go far in shutting the door to illegal entry through both our Southern Border, as well as through the Biden Administration’s CBP One on-line app, which allowed “travelers to apply for a provisional [entry visa] prior to arriving at a land border crossing. Travelers who apply for their [entry visa]  ahead of time will experience faster processing times to expedite entry.” 

What a great idea – allowing prospective immigrants to fill out a form on line to expedite their illegal entry into the country!  What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps the most important Executive Order is the one entitled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.” Here, President Trump describes the problem in this fashion; “Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)…The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees. This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” 

To that end, “[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status…”  However, “[n]otwithstanding the suspension of the USRAP…the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit aliens to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such aliens as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”

This action closes the loophole exploited by the majority of illegal aliens who poured through our Southern Border between 2020 and 2024.  Rather than accept all claims of refugee status at face value, these claims will now be examined on a case by case basis, with an eye towards admitting people who do not pose a threat to our country.

Naturally, the challenges to these changes in immigration policy are only beginning.  But the initial results are encouraging.  For instance, according to the ACLU, “[o]n January 20, 2025, shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump turned off the app [CBP One] which had allowed a limited number of people to make appointments to come to the border and apply for asylum. People who had made appointments months before were turned away that afternoon. On January 23, we filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of the individual plaintiffs in our case, whose January 25 appointments at the border had been cancelled. We asked that they be allowed to present themselves at the border, apply for asylum, and be paroled into the United States while their claims were adjudicated. On February 6 the court denied that motion on the ground that it had no power to order the parole of anyone into the United States.” 

Further, sanctuary cities are fighting back against the suspension of their federal funding. As described by media outlet The Center Square,  “[t]he city of Seattle is joining in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration for implementing federal policies that target jurisdictions protecting illegal immigrants. The lawsuit was initially filed on Feb. 7 and spearheaded by the County of Santa Clara and San Francisco. King County was the first jurisdiction to join the lawsuit alongside…Portland, Ore., and New Haven, Conn. The lawsuit relates to a Trump-issued executive order and a U.S. Department of Justice memorandum withholding funds and pursued enforcement actions against jurisdictions with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.” 

However, the Trump Administration is also fighting to enforce its policies.  ABC News reports that “[t]he Justice Department is taking legal action against the state of New York and Gov. Kathy Hochul…over its alleged resistance to supporting the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration…[Attorney General Pam] Bondi said the lawsuit was centered around New York’s Green Light Law that she claimed prohibits the state’s sheriff’s department and other agencies from sharing motor vehicle data with federal authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement.” 

New York is not the only Sanctuary state or City being sued by the federal government. According to Reuters, “[t]he U.S. Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and city of Chicago…seeking a court order blocking…several Illinois and Chicago laws that ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ [federal] immigration policies. The lawsuit said sanctuary laws such as the Illinois TRUST Act, which prevents state and local law enforcement from assisting federal civil immigration enforcement, violate the U.S. Constitution’s ‘Supremacy Clause’ that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it.” 

Regardless of these efforts to either protect or challenge the Biden Administration’s status quo on immigration, President Trump’s actions to control illegal immigration are wildly popular.  The Pew Research Center notes that “[t]here is widespread public support for the ramp-up of deportations. A majority of Americans also approve of an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, which is another component of Trump’s executive actions… 59% of U.S. adults say they approve of Trump increasing efforts to deport people who are living in the U.S. illegally, including 35% who strongly approve… 47% approve of Trump’s plans to cut federal funds to cities and states if they do not help federal deportation efforts. Another 52% disapprove of this… 44% approve of the administration suspending asylum applications from people seeking to live in the U.S, while 55% disapprove. 

Of course, these results generally depend upon which party you belong to. “74% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Trump administration is doing the right amount to deport immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Another 12% say it’s doing too little and 13% say it’s doing too much. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the administration is doing too much on deportations, 21% say the administration’s approach is about right, and just 4% say it’s doing too little.”

It remains to be seen if the Courts are as enthusiastic about the return to Common Sense immigration policies as is the majority of the public.  But so far, the early results are encouraging.

Judge John Wilson (ret) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

In our book, Not Wasting a Crisis, the Lawless Biden Administration, we devote four chapters to our discussion of the absolute chaos created at the Southern Border by the polices of the Biden White House and the then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.  In Chapter 19, we quoted from the House Committee on Homeland Security, which stated that “[i]n the final month of FY2023,CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] recorded 269,735 encounters at the Southwest border…[t]he annual numbers proved just as catastrophic. In FY23, CBP recorded more than 2.4 million encounters at the Southwest border and more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide. Just this fiscal year, 169 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally, and at least 1.7 million known gotaways have evaded apprehension since FY2021.” 

The Committee’s Report for 2024 is even worse. “Yet again,” the House Committee states, “under President Biden, ‘border czar’ and Vice President Kamala Harris, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the annual border encounter numbers have once again proven to be catastrophic. Since the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, CBP has recorded more than 10.8 million encounters nationwide, including more than 8.72 million at the Southwest border. By contrast, CBP recorded around 3 million encounters nationwide, including 2.37 million at the SWB, from FY2017-2020. Nationwide border encounters this fiscal year increased nearly 50 percent compared to FY2021. Of the 2.9 million nationwide encounters in FY2024, nearly half were at ports of entry, while only 15 percent of nationwide encounters were at ports of entry in FY2021. In addition to these encounters, CBP has recorded another roughly 2 million known gotaways since the start of FY2021, roughly four times the number recorded from FY2017-2020.” 

If we accept the conventional wisdom that approximately 11 million illegal aliens resided in the United States before 2020, during the Biden Administration’s tenure, that number swelled to more than 20 million people who have invaded and occupy our country. 

As we noted in Chapter 22 of Not Wasting a Crisis, “[t]his represents one of the largest invasions in recent history.  The Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 numbered approximately 160,000 troops, less than the total number of border crossers in any given month during the past two years…[w]hen Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, he used approximately 650,000 troops, which represents less than any average three months of border crossers in either 2022 or 2023. In fact, the invasion of our Southern Border in 2022 and 2023 is larger than Operation Barbarossa in 1941, when Hitler used 3 million troops for his invasion of Russia.” (Citations omitted.)

Much like the Roman Emperor Nero, Mayorkas fiddled while our Southern Border burned down. This is the statement made by the Homeland Security Secretary in April of 2024 in support of his request for an increase in his Department’s budget;  “Every day, the 268,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security carry out our mission to protect the safety and security of the American people. They protect our shores, harbors, skies, cyberspace, borders, and leaders….The dedicated public servants of DHS deserve full support, and the American people deserve the results a fully resourced DHS can deliver. The funding opportunities outlined in the President’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget for DHS are critical to meeting both goals… The President’s budget…provides funding for hiring more enforcement personnel and bolstering refugee processing. Our immigration system, however, is fundamentally broken. Only Congress can fix it. Congress has not updated our immigration enforcement laws since 1996 – 28 years ago. And, only Congress can deliver on our need for more border patrol agents, asylum officers and immigration judges, facilities, and technology.” 

Notice that one of Mayorkas’ funding priorities was “bolstering refugee processing.” But as we described in Not Wasting a Crisis, almost anyone’s claim of refugee status was accepted without question. “[M]ost illegals,” we wrote in Chapter 22, “claim status as an asylum seeker with a credible fear of persecution if they return home; receive a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court; and are released into our country. And only in the mind of Alejandro Mayorkas is this considered ‘securing the border.’”

Further, Mayorkas claimed that our immigration laws were broken, and that “only Congress can fix it.”  This was a mantra chanted by Democrats throughout the Biden years, usually used in support of a comprehensive Immigration Bill, the last version of which “provides DHS emergency authority to summarily remove or prohibit the entry of certain non-U.S. nationals…if DHS encounters an average of 4,000 non-U.S. nationals within a seven-day period…This emergency border authority…may be modified by the President under specified circumstances.” 

In other words, this bill, sponsored by Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-CT), would allow thousands of “refugees” to cross the border before the door was closed, and also allow the President (Joe Biden), to modify this “emergency authority,” potentially to allow even more “refugees” to cross the Southern Border.

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay