
Trump has a secret weapon to defeat activist judges on immigration
The administration should use what it can control as leverage over what it cannot. The president is at the apex of his power in deciding which foreigners to admit. This is true from both a legal and practical standpoint. He should issue a proclamation under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) declaring that no new immigrants will get in until everyone who should be deported is gone.
It is a drastic solution. It is also the only thing that will work because liberal activists, rogue bureaucrats and complicit courts, refuse to honor Congress's sensible policy bargains.
For example, it is obviously irrational to import welfare cases. That is why, since 1882, the Immigration Act has prohibited anyone who is "likely at any time to become a public charge" from getting a green card. Yet, 54% of immigrant-headed households are on at least one form of public assistance. Today, over 11% of welfare benefits are claimed by immigrants who were admitted on the explicit premise that they would never claim welfare.
How is this possible? Bureaucrats subverted Congress's intent by interpreting the law narrowly. They insist it applies only if the alien is "primarily dependent" on the benefit and it is paid in cash, meaning taking Medicaid, public housing or food stamps does not count.
Merely enforcing the public charge ban would save at least $109 billion per year. But even modest attempts by the first Trump administration to restore the original meaning of the law were tied up in court for years and then abandoned by the Biden administration.
There is no legislative fix either, because activists will subvert the new law just as they did the old law. This is not speculation, it was tried.
In 1996, Congress passed an immigration reform package which requires family-based immigrants, 68% of the total, to obtain affidavits of support from a sponsor. The sponsor agrees to maintain the applicant at 125% of the poverty line and to reimburse the government if the immigrant winds up on welfare. Applicants without an affidavit are automatically disqualified.
This seemed like an excellent way to deter welfare cases from immigrating and to reimburse the government if any slip in. Again though, activists subverted the will of Congress with narrow interpretations and inaction.
The implementing regulations do not require welfare agencies to sue, and using an expensive benefit like Medicaid does not require reimbursement. So, in practice, there are "few documented cases" of the government ever suing sponsors to recover taxpayer funds and deter reckless sponsorships.
Another way the bureaucracy frustrates enforcement is by hiding data. A DHS study found that 70% of asylum applications were either fraud or suspected fraud. The Obama administration did not release it, until a whistleblower testified to Congress. Asylum is one of the major ways that illegal aliens fend off deportation. Over 1 million claims were filed in 2023. Voters pity asylum seekers, unaware it's mostly a scam.
Clearer laws? Useless. Activists will always invent some sophistry to defy even the tightest drafting.
Consider the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. Congress struck a clear deal: TPS could shield foreigners from deportation during crises, but in exchange, courts were barred from reviewing decisions to end it. The law explicitly states "no judicial review" for terminations. Yet, a judge blocked Trump from canceling TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans granted relief by Biden.
The only solution is to shut the border until the people we want out are gone. This will force activists to choose between helping criminals stay in the country and reopening the gates.
It's also easier legally. It's well-settled that foreigners living abroad cannot challenge a visa denial because admission is a privilege, not a right. Even when denying their entry would burden the rights of a U.S citizen, the government need only articulate a "facially legitimate" justification to prevail. A mere statutory citation suffices, and Trump holds an ace.
Eight U.S.C. 1182(f) authorizes the president to "suspend the entry of all aliens," or class of aliens, if he finds their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."
It is detrimental to America's interest to admit more immigrants when our mechanisms for filtering out welfare cases and asylum fraud are so broken. It might not be so bad if we could quickly fix mistakes, but it now takes forever to deport anyone.
The 1182(f) authority is crystal clear. Every president since Ronald Reagan has invoked it at least once. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to it in 2019, noting that it "exudes deference to the President." Recently, a district court opined the law "would certainly seem to authorize the President to close the border to arriving aliens" if it became apparent that the influx would overwhelm government facilities.
Activists will still sue, but the government can demand a prohibitive injunction bond by pointing to the welfare costs and the mandatory language of Rule 65(c). Also, it is well worth litigating because once a blanket pause is upheld, President Trump has a policy nuke.
Another way the bureaucracy frustrates enforcement is by hiding data. A DHS study found that 70% of asylum applications were either fraud or suspected fraud.
In the meantime, all final decisions about whether to grant immigration benefits should be made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem herself. Currently, the secretary delegates that authority to immigration officers, but Congress gave the power to her. Simply rescinding those delegations will slow immigration to a trickle while following the law to the letter.
Strong medicine, yes. But after decades of activist sabotage, it's the only cure.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Hong Kong's CK Hutchison seeks Chinese investor to join Panama Ports deal
HONG KONG (AP) — A Hong Kong conglomerate that's selling ports at the Panama Canal said Monday it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers, a move that could please Beijing but bring more U.S. scrutiny to the geopolitically fraught deal. CK Hutchison Holdings' initial plan to sell its port assets to a group that includes U.S. investment firm BlackRock Inc. pleased President Donald Trump, who has alleged that China interferes with the critical shipping lane's operations in Panama. However, they apparently angered Beijing and drew a review from Chinese anti-monopoly authorities. A Beijing-backed newspaper posted scathing commentaries about the deal, with one describing it as a betrayal of all Chinese. Beijing's offices overseeing Hong Kong affairs have reposted some of these commentaries, widely seen as an indication of Chinese leaders' stance. A Hutchison subsidiary has operated ports at both ends of the Panama Canal since 1997. After months of uncertainty brought by tensions between Washington and Beijing, Hutchison said in a statement that the exclusive negotiations period with the consortium has expired. However, it added 'the Group remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting major strategic investor from the PRC to join as a significant member of the consortium,' referring to the People's Republic of China. It said they needed to change the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction for the deal to be able to pass reviews by 'all relevant authorities." The awkward position Hutchison found itself in for months highlights the challenges Hong Kong business elites face in navigating Beijing's expectations of national loyalty, especially when relations between China and the United States are strained. Hong Kong has overhauled its electoral system to ensure the city is run by 'patriots.' CK Hutchison is owned by the family of Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing. It announced March 4 that it would sell all its shares in Hutchison Port Holdings and in Hutchison Port Group Holdings to the consortium that also includes BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited, a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Company. In May, Hutchinson co-managing director, Dominic Lai told shareholders that Terminal Investment was the main investor. Its parent company is led by Italian shipping scion Diego Aponte, whose family reportedly has a longstanding relationship with Li's. The initial deal, valued at nearly $23 billion including $5 billion in debt, would have given the consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including the ports of Balboa and Cristobal, located at either end of the canal. That agreement also required approval from Panama's government. The deadline for their exclusive negotiation period ended on July 27. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
US, China to launch new talks on tariff truce extension, easing path for Trump-Xi meeting
By David Lawder STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Top U.S. and Chinese economic officials will resume talks in Stockholm on Monday to try to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce by three months and keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from U.S. duties snapping back to triple-digit levels that would amount to a bilateral trade embargo. The Stockholm talks come hot on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet with the European Union on Sunday for a 15% tariff on most EU goods exports to the U.S., including autos. The bloc will also buy $750 billion worth of American energy and make $600 billion worth of U.S. investments in coming years. No similar breakthrough is expected in the U.S.-China talks but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and facilitate planning for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. A U.S. Treasury spokesperson declined comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China within weeks, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters on Sunday before European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen struck their tariff deal. DEEPER ISSUES Previous U.S.-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing U.S. and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include U.S. complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that U.S. national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Geneva and London were really just about trying to get the relationship back on track so that they could, at some point, actually negotiate about the issues which animate the disagreement between the countries in the first place," said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "I'd be surprised if there is an early harvest on some of these things but an extension of the ceasefire for another 90 days seems to be the most likely outcome," Kennedy said. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already flagged a deadline extension and has said he wants China to rebalance its economy away from exports to more domestic consumption -- a decades-long goal for U.S. policymakers. Analysts say the U.S.-China negotiations are far more complex than those with other Asian countries and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on U.S. industries. TRUMP-XI MEETING? In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon on a landmark trip to China, and a new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail planning. Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University's Center for International Security and Strategy in Beijing, said that a Trump-Xi summit would be an opportunity for the U.S. to lower the 20% tariffs on Chinese goods related to fentanyl. In exchange, he said the Chinese side could make good on its 2020 pledge to increase purchases of U.S. farm products and other goods. "The future prospect of the heads of state summit is very beneficial to the negotiations because everyone wants to reach an agreement or pave the way in advance," Sun said. Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered U.S. tariffs totaling 55% on most goods and further easing of U.S. high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, which reached $295.5 billion in 2024.


Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Brian Kilmeade: These stories are 'hogging up the stage'
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade gives his take on President Donald Trump's successes and the 'scandals' that are 'hogging the spotlight' on 'One Nation.'