Free Republic

Some cities and states ordered the police to stand down on the 2020 riots.
Trump did mention in another video that if the police stand down and the governor won’t activate the National Guard, then our military may be necessary to protect the people.

Donald Trump: ‘The enemy within’ should be handled by the military
Guardian News
Oct 2024
https://youtu.be/BfSAOPPSYC8
Google Voice Typed:
Maria Bartiromo:
What are you expecting? Joe Biden said. He doesn’t think it’s going to be a peaceful Election Day.

Trump:
Well, he doesn’t have any idea what’s happening, and he spends most of his day sleeping.I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people that have come in and destroying our country, by the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they’re being inundated.

But I don’t think the other problem in terms of Election Day, I think the bigger problem are the people from within.

We have some very bad People, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and I think they’re the and, and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary by National Guard or if really necessary by the military because they can’t let that happen.

Maria Bartiromo:
How are you gonna guard against the bureaucrats undermining you?

Trump:
Well, I always say, so we have two enemies. We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries, because if you have a smart president, he can handle them.Pretty easily. I handled. I got along great with all. I handled them.

Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4273584/posts

DOD Shreds All Remaining Constitutional Protections From Posse Comitatus Act in Anticipation of Post-Election Civil War 2.0
America First Report ^ | October 18, 2024 | Ethan Huff
https://americafirstreport.com/dod-shreds-all-remaining-constitutional-protections-from-posse-comitatus-act-in-anticipation-of-post-election-civil-war-2-0/
Excerpt from the article:
…“In the past, the department also claimed an inherent constitutional power to use the military to protect federal property and functions when local governments could not or would not do so. The validity of these claimed authorities has never been tested in court.”

Hillary and the Black Panthers: The Real Story
Richard Poe

http://www.legaled.com/hillaryatyale.htm

I can’t take it anymore. If one more person sends me that e-mail about Hillary and the Black Panthers, I’ll have to be dragged away screaming in a straitjacket.

You know the e-mail I’m talking about. It accuses Hillary of helping the Black Panthers get away with torture and murder during the early 1970s. With the 2004 presidential race drawing near, the spam mills are creaking to life, flooding the Internet once more with this agitprop classic.

Unfortunately, the e-mail mingles good information with bad, sowing more confusion than enlightenment. Some versions, for instance, carry the byline of radio talk jock Paul Harvey, who says he did not write it. Such misrepresentations help Hillary defenders dismiss the e-mail as a hoax.

The story is no hoax, though. Its basic elements can be found in respected Hillary biographies and exposes such as Barbara Olson’s “Hell to Pay,” David Brock’s “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” Joyce Milton’s “The First Partner” and Carl Limbacher’s “Hillary’s Scheme.”

Here are the facts.

In May 1969, fishermen discovered the body of Black Panther Alex Rackley floating in Connecticut’s Coginchaug River. Rackley’s captors had clubbed him, burned him with cigarettes, scalded him with boiling water and stabbed him with an ice pick before finally shooting him in the head.

New Haven detectives learned that the Panthers suspected Rackley of being a police informer. Panther enforcers had tied him to a chair and tortured him for hours. Police arrested eight Panthers and later extradited Panther leader Bobby Seale from California, after a witness accused Seale of ordering Rackley’s death.

Campus radicals supported the Panthers. They organized mass protests in support of the so-called “New Haven Nine.” Hillary was right in the thick of it.

By the time she entered Yale Law School in 1969, Hillary was already a radical celebrity on campus. Life magazine had featured Hillary in a piece titled, “The Class of ‘69,” which showcased three student activists whom Life’s editors deemed the best and brightest of the year. A line Hillary used in her Wellesley College commencement speech appeared under her photo: “Protest is an attempt to forge an identity.”

At Yale, Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action – a left-wing journal which promoted cop-killing and featured cartoons of pig-faced police.

A series of hard-Left mentors introduced Hillary to the brass-knuckle realities of revolutionary activism. As a Wellesley undergraduate, she met and interviewed radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whose Machiavellian tactics she admired. Hillary’s senior thesis supported Alinsky’s call for class warfare.

At Yale, Hillary found a new Svengali in the form of left-wing law professor Thomas Emerson, known around campus as “Tommy the Commie.” Emerson recruited Hillary and other students to help monitor the trial of the New Haven Nine for civil rights violations. Hillary took charge of the operation, scheduling the students in shifts, so that student monitors would always be present in the courtroom. She befriended and worked closely with Panther lawyer Charles Garry.

Some believe that the enormous pressure exerted by the Left helped ensure light sentences for the New Haven Nine. Whether or not this is true, the punishments were mild.

“Only one of the killers was still in prison in 1977,” reports John McCaslin in the Washington Times. “The gunman, Warren Kimbro, got a Harvard scholarship and became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College. Ericka Huggins, who boiled the water for Mr. Rackley’s torture, got elected to a California school board.”

Hillary’s defenders argue that she played no “significant” role in the New Haven Nine’s defense. This is semantic hairsplitting. Obviously, Hillary was less “significant” than Charles Garry or “Tommy the Commie” Emerson. But Hillary served as a trusted lieutenant to these movers and shakers. Moreover, she had a national profile as a campus activist. Hillary was no rank-and-file student protester, as her apologists claim.

Indeed, Hillary’s work for the Panthers won her a summer internship at the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Treuhaft in 1972. A hardline Stalinist, Treuhaft had quit the Communist Party in 1958 only because it was losing members and no longer provided a good platform for his activism. “Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB,” notes historian Stephen Schwartz.

The defense of the New Haven Nine marked Hillary’s initiation into the sinister underworld of the hard-core, revolutionary Left. To my knowledge, Hillary has never publicly renounced nor apologized for her role in that movement.

Google Voice Typed
No ad hominem, some 6th grade level banter calling him literally Hitler. Yet for all you Harvard Kennedy School educated elites, I’d expect a little bit more from you. But you know what? I’ll go on the ad hoc. And I’m against John Kelly while we’re at it, Because here’s what’s so interesting and here’s what you never see published about him too right I.It’s a little bit of a conflict of interest.In true Washington DC revolving door form, he sits on the board of a company known as Acuity International. Now you may know them from the fact that they have 10s of millions of dollars in federal contracts from the Biden regime or the fact that they recently sponsored on September 20th. We can throw that picture up a conference by the name.Of the International Stability Operations Association planning how they can assist with support and recovery efforts in Ukraine, with representatives from NATO, the Ukrainian government, the Pentagon and of course, USAID there. In other words, maybe John Kelly had the grand idea to leak this whole non story when he was maybe flying back from Ukraine because he saw how good the profit margins were going to be should Kamala Harris win. Right. And these people aren’t just scared of the gravy train drying up. No, no, that’s certainly part of it. These people can never.It’s enough, but what they’re really scared of is the impending audits of where the pre-existing appropriated funds have gone yet.

Senior Administration Officials Lied To Trump About Troop Levels So He Wouldn’t Pull Out Of Syria
Christian Datoc Senior White House Correspondent November 13, 2020 9:55 AM ET
https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/13/senior-administration-officials-lied-to-trump-about-troop-levels-so-he-wouldnt-pull-out-of-syria/

Jim Jeffrey, the United States’ retiring Special Representative to Syria and the special envoy in the fight against the Islamic State, confirmed Thursday that he and other senior administration officials routinely misled President Donald Trump on troop levels in the Middle East.

Jeffrey, speaking to Defense One, explained how despite Trump’s stated promise to withdraw America from endless Middle Eastern engagements, he was able to convince the president to commit to keeping between 200 to 400 troops in the region in 2019 to “secure” oil fields held by U.S. allies and other strategic positions.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” he stated. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Jim Sciutto, CNN’s chief national security correspondent, tweeted that senior Defense Department officials told him similar stories when interviewed for his book, “The Madman Theory.”

“If you look at his tweets, they were definitive about leaving,” Sciutto wrote Friday, quoting a passage from the book. “And then we didn’t leave. And now we haven’t left, we’re still there, and that’s a good thing.”

In #TheMadmanTheory, senior DOD officials told me how they fooled Trump into leaving troops on the ground:

“If you look at his tweets, they were definitive about leaving. And then we didn’t leave. And now we haven’t left, we’re still there, and that’s a good thing.” https://t.co/vo3HBxb7tg

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) November 13, 2020

Jeffrey, who publicly opposed Trump’s foreign policy before joining the administration in 2018, did praise Trump during his interview with Defense One. He claimed that Trump’s “modest” approach to Middle Eastern policy was far more effective than that of either former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“Nobody really wants to see President Trump go, among all our allies [in the Middle East],” he explained. “The truth is President Trump and his policies are quite popular among all of our popular states in the region. Name me one that’s not happy.”

In recent days, Trump has installed a totally new leadership group at the Pentagon, one which reports indicate will help him complete a full troop withdrawal from Afghanistan before the end of the year.

Senior Administration Officials Lied To Trump About Troop Levels So He Wouldn’t Pull Out Of Syria
Christian Datoc Senior White House Correspondent November 13, 2020 9:55 AM ET
https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/13/senior-administration-officials-lied-to-trump-about-troop-levels-so-he-wouldnt-pull-out-of-syria/

Jim Jeffrey, the United States’ retiring Special Representative to Syria and the special envoy in the fight against the Islamic State, confirmed Thursday that he and other senior administration officials routinely misled President Donald Trump on troop levels in the Middle East.

Jeffrey, speaking to Defense One, explained how despite Trump’s stated promise to withdraw America from endless Middle Eastern engagements, he was able to convince the president to commit to keeping between 200 to 400 troops in the region in 2019 to “secure” oil fields held by U.S. allies and other strategic positions.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” he stated. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Jim Sciutto, CNN’s chief national security correspondent, tweeted that senior Defense Department officials told him similar stories when interviewed for his book, “The Madman Theory.”

“If you look at his tweets, they were definitive about leaving,” Sciutto wrote Friday, quoting a passage from the book. “And then we didn’t leave. And now we haven’t left, we’re still there, and that’s a good thing.”

In #TheMadmanTheory, senior DOD officials told me how they fooled Trump into leaving troops on the ground:

“If you look at his tweets, they were definitive about leaving. And then we didn’t leave. And now we haven’t left, we’re still there, and that’s a good thing.” https://t.co/vo3HBxb7tg

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) November 13, 2020

Jeffrey, who publicly opposed Trump’s foreign policy before joining the administration in 2018, did praise Trump during his interview with Defense One. He claimed that Trump’s “modest” approach to Middle Eastern policy was far more effective than that of either former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

I’ve been using
https://freespoke.com/search/web?q=freespoke

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/36-months-jan-6-attack-capitol-0#:~:text=Approximately%20749%20federal%20defendants%20have,sentenced%20to%20periods%20of%20incarceration.

Three Years Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol
Saturday, January 6, 2024, marks three years – or 36 months – since the attack on the U.S. Capitol

Criminal charges:
Approximately 452 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 123 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.

Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.

Approximately 1,186 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 116 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Approximately 71 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 56 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.

More than 332 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.

Approximately 57 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.

Trump’s Economic Club of Chicago Interview
https://www.c-span.org/video/?539131-1/president-trump-interview-economic-club-chicago

October 15, 2024
Campaign 2024
Former President Trump Interview with the Economic Club of Chicago
2024 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was interviewed by Bloomberg News Editor in Chief John Micklethwait at the Economic Club of Chicago. The former president took questions about his promises for the economy and foreign affairs, such as how his plans would affect the national debt and how tariffs would impact prices in the United States. Also, he defended the actions of his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, when the U.S. Capitol was attacked, and he declined to comment on whether he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin since leaving office.

https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1845910687392190617
Insurrection Barbie
@DefiyantlyFree
This is my favorite lane of propaganda to debunk. There is no proof that the 2020 election was stolen except:

1. Six states changed their election laws two months before the 2020 election by executive fiat, instead of going through the proper channels in the legislature. That is a violation of their state constitutions and that in and of itself is enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 election.

2. Mark Zuckerberg, hard left, spent $450 million dollars of private money on our elections. After the 2020 election analysis revealed that most of that money went to benefit Democrats.

3. 6 swing states stopped counting the votes on election night for the first time in American history. At the time that they stopped counting the votes, Donald Trump was ahead of Biden in each of them.

4. The unelected tech oligarchs in conjunction with the FBI in this country censored a very important story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and Joe Biden’s corruption. People who worked in the intelligence community, came out and said it was Russian disinformation only to have that laptop be admitted into evidence as part of an FBI investigation and criminal prosecution of Hunter Biden. Polling after the election showed that if people knew about the Hunter Biden laptop story it would’ve changed 17% of the vote.

5. 2,036,041 ballots were touched by anomalies.

6. 923 American citizens filled out affidavits alleging voter fraud, and signed them under penalties of perjury.

7. 50 plus courts blocked evidentiary hearings into the alleged fraud found in 2020.

8. Prior to 2020 there were four other contested elections, one in Florida, one in the 78th district of Missouri, one in the ninth district of North Carolina, and one in the 22nd district of New York. In every single one of those four instances, there was an evidentiary hearing. In the 2020 election, there was no evidentiary hearing. For the first time in American history.

9. No election contest in American history has had 923 fact witnesses sign under penalties of perjury and stake their personal freedom in testimony to attest to the irregularities and legal issues found in various states.

10. 37 states in the United States of America altered their absentee or mail in ballots ballot integrity procedures before the 2020 election.

11. If those 37 states used the same ballot integrity procedures that they used in 2018, swing states would’ve found an upwards of 30,000 more ineligible ballots.

12. In Pennsylvania, counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after the election.

13. Any one of those is enough to say that there was enough fraud in the 2020 election to doubt the outcome. Can I prove Donald Trump would’ve won the election if the Democrats hadn’t cheated? No I can’t prove a counter-narrative, but I can tell you that this amount of fraud leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that Joe Biden didn’t win.

The insurrection therefore was on 11/3/2020.

1/6 was a lawful protest with permits that got out of hand. Unlike Democrats who spent 10 months burning down this country to the tune of $2 billion dollars, and injuring 740 police officers nationwide, the capital riot had a couple million dollars in damages, 140 police officers that were injured and zero deaths. Except the 3 Trump supporters who were unarmed and killed without any investigation by the corrupt government.

Anybody who is clutching their pearls about January 6 without mentioning the fact that there was a large federal presence and many anomalies that have yet to be answered is a liar and a partisan hack.

You sound like an uninformed stage 10 TDS patient who needs to detox from CNN and MSNBC.

You can endorse the cackling communist from California, but don’t you dare pretend like the reason why you’re doing it is because Donald Trump did something wrong.

Cell Phones to legal residents only

The ‘Climate Emergency’ Is a Hoax (declaration of 1,609 scientists)
Gatestone Institute ^ | September 10, 2023 | Robert Williams
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19962/climate-emergency-hoax

More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, have signed a declaration saying that “There is no climate emergency.” The declaration is unlikely to get any attention from the mainstream media, unfortunately, but it is important for people to know about: the mass climate hysteria and the destruction of the US economy in the name of climate change need to stop.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” states the declaration signed by the 1,609 scientists, including Nobel laureates John F. Clauser from the US and Ivar Giaever from Norway/US.

“Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They... ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial... There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.” — 1,609 scientists, There is no Climate Emergency, clintel.org.

“I was taught that you tell the whole truth [as a scientist]....” Koonin said. He noted as well the immorality of asking the developing world to cut down emissions, when so many do not even have access to electricity and the immorality of scaring the younger generations.... — Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy; current professor at New York University, fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. — Hoover Institution, August 15, 2023.

I typed that Public law 414 chapter 2 section 212 many years ago from a PDF that no longer exists and put it here as a reference.
This is the link:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4270385/posts?page=40#40

This link no longer works:
https://www.gpo.gov/.../STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf

46 posted on 10/12/2024, 9:40:18 AM by bimboeruption
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4270385/posts?page=46#46
Referenced that same PDF that no longer works.

I don’t think anyone thinks Harris will crack down on immigration.

CHAPTER 12—IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

***Section 1373
Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

***Section 1357
Powers of immigration officers and employees

(a) Powers without warrant

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

***Section 1330, (this is in reference to Sessions withholding money from California)
Collection of penalties and expenses

(3)(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall refund out of the Immigration Enforcement Account to any appropriation the amount paid out of such appropriation for expenses incurred by the Attorney General for activities that enhance enforcement of provisions of this subchapter.

(Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, California Governor Jerry Brown could be looking at life in prison)
***Section 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)(A) Any person who—
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

***Section 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(This section deals with kids born outside the U.S., except for this paragraph:)

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

***Section 1409. Children born out of wedlock

(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—

(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,

(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,

(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and

(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years—

(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,

(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.

***Section 1423. Requirements as to understanding the English language, history, principles and form of government of the United States

(a) No person except as otherwise provided in this subchapter shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own application who cannot demonstrate—

(1) an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language: Provided, That the requirements of this paragraph relating to ability to read and write shall be met if the applicant can read or write simple words and phrases to the end that a reasonable test of his literacy shall be made and that no extraordinary or unreasonable condition shall be imposed upon the applicant; and

(2) a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States.

***Section 1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired

(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when All of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.

(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.

(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2001-title8/html/USCODE-2001-title8-chap12.htm

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 25, 2017

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE INTERIOR OF THE
UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.

Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.

Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation. Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.

Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

(d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

(e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens.

Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.

Sec. 4. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United States. In furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order, I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.

Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

Sec. 6. Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, and by no later than one year after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States and from those who facilitate their presence in the United States.

Sec. 7. Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers. The Secretary, through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357).

Sec. 8. Federal-State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.

(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).

(b) To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties.

(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdiction.

Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.

(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.

(b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.

(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.

Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as “Secure Communities” referenced in that memorandum.

(b) The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures for consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and comment proposed regulations rescinding or revising any regulations inconsistent with this order and shall consider whether to withdraw or modify any inconsistent policies and procedures, as appropriate and consistent with the law.

(c) To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Secretary shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies.

Sec. 11. Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators. The Attorney General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and implement a program that ensures that adequate resources are devoted to the prosecution of criminal immigration offenses in the United States, and to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent crime and the reach of transnational criminal organizations into the United States.

Sec. 12. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate. The Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States.

Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States.

Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order within 90 days of the date of this order and again within 180 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 16. Transparency. To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:

(a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;

(b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and

(c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.

Sec. 17. Personnel Actions. The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.

Sec. 18. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 25, 2017.

(e) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Public law 414 chapter 2 section 212
https://www.gpo.gov/.../STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf
GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION
SEC. 212. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
(1) Aliens who are feeble-minded;
(2) Aliens who are insane;
(3) Aliens who have had one or more attacks of insanity;
(4) Aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect;
(5) Aliens who are narcotic drug addicts or chronic alcoholics;
(6) Aliens who are afflicted with tuberculosis in any form, or with leprosy, or any dangerous contagious disease;
(7) Aliens not comprehended within any of the foregoing classes who are certified by the examining surgeon as having a physical defect, disease, or disability, when determined by the consular or immigration officer to be of such a nature that it may affect the ability of the alien to earn a living, unless the alien affirmatively establishes that he will not have to earn a living;
(8) Aliens who are paupers, professional beggars, or vagrants;
(9) Aliens who have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense), or aliens who admit having committed such a crime, or aliens who admit committing acts which constitute the essential elements of such a crime; except that aliens who have committed only one such crime while under the age of eighteen years may be granted a visa and admitted if the crime was committed more than five years prior to the date of the application for a visa or other documentation, and more than five years prior to date of application for admission to the United States, unless the crime resulted in confinement in a prison or correctional institution, in which case such alien must have been released from such confinement more than five years prior to the date of the application for a visa or other documentation, and for admission, to the United States;
(10) Aliens who have been convicted of two or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement actually imposed were five years or more;
(11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy;
(12) Aliens who are prostitutes or who have engaged in prostitution, or aliens coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution; aliens who directly or indirectly procure or attempt to procure, or who have procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose; and aliens who are or have been supported by, or receive or have received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution or aliens coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution;
(13) Aliens coming to the United States to engage in any immoral sexual act;
(14) Aliens seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor, if the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General that
(A) sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, and qualified are available at the time (of application for a visa and for admission to the United States) and place (to which the alien is destined) to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, or
(B) the employment of such aliens will adversely affect the wages and working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed. The exclusion of aliens under this paragraph shall apply only to the following classes:
(i) those aliens described in the nonpreference category of section 203 (a) (4),
(ii) those aliens described in section 101 (a) (27) (C), (27) (D), or (27) (E) (other than the parents, spouses, or children of United States citizens or of aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence), unless their services are determined by the Attorney General to be needed urgently in the United States because of the high education, technical training, specialized experience, or exceptional ability of / such immigrants and to be substantially beneficial prospectively to the national economy, cultural interest or welfare of the United States;
(15) Aliens who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission, are likely at any time to become public charges;
(16) Aliens who have been excluded from admission and deported and who again seek admission within one year from the date of such deportation, unless prior to their reembarkation at a place outside the United States or their attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory the Attorney General has consented to their reapplying for admission;
(17) Aliens who have been arrested and deported, or who have fallen into distress and have been removed pursuant to this or any prior act, or who have been removed as alien enemies, or who have been removed at Government expense in lieu of deportation pursuant to section 242 (b), unless prior to their embarkation or reembarkation at a place outside the United States or their attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory the Attorney General has consented to their applying or reapplying for admission;
(18) Aliens who are stowaways;
(19) Any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States, by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact;
(20) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, any immigrant who at the time of application for admission is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General pursuant to section 211 (e) ;
(21) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, any quota immigrant at the time of application for admission whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of section 203;
(22) Aliens who are ineligible to citizenship, except aliens seeking to enter as nonimmigrants; or persons who have departed from or who have remained outside the United States to avoid or evade training or service in the armed forces in time of war or a period declared by the President to be a national emergency, except aliens who were at the time of such departure nonimmigrant aliens and who seek to reenter the United States as nonimmigrants;
(23) Any alien who has been convicted of a violation of any law or regulation relating to the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, or who has been convicted of a violation of any law” or regulation governing or controlling the taxing, manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose of the manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, marihuana, or any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves, or isonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining opiate; or any alien who the consular officer or immigration officers know or have reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any of the aforementioned drugs;
(24) Aliens (other than those aliens who are native-born citizens of countries enumerated in section 101 (a) (27) (C) and aliens described in section 101 (a) (27) (B)) who seek admission from foreign contiguous territory or adjacent islands, having arrived there on a vessel or aircraft of a nonsignatory line, or if signatory, a noncomplying transportation line under section 238 (a) and who have not resided for at least two years subsequent to such arrival in such territory or adjacent islands;
(25) Aliens (other than aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and who are returning from a temporary visit abroad) over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading, who cannot read and understand some language or dialect;
(26) Any nonimmigrant who is not in possession of
(A) a passport valid for a minimum period of six months from the date of the expiration of the initial period of his admission or contemplated initial period of stay authorizing him to return to the country from which he came or to proceed to and enter some other country during such period; and
(B) at the time of application for admission a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card;
(27) Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States;
(28) Aliens who are, or at any time have been, members of any of the following classes:
(A) Aliens who are anarchists;
(B) Aliens who advocate or teach, or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government;
(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with (i) the Communist Party of the United States, (ii) any other totalitarian party of the United States, (iii) the Communist Political Association, (iv) the Communist or any other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state, (v) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party, or (vi) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt: Provided^ That nothing in this paragraph, or in any other provision of this Act, shall be construed as declaring that the Communist Party does not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means;
(D) Aliens not within any of the other provisions of this paragraph who advocate the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under the authority of such organization or paid for by the funds of, or funds furnished by, such organization;
(E) Aliens not within any of the other provisions of this paragraph, who are members of or affiliated with any organization during the time it is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, unless such aliens establish that they did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time they became members of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist organization;
(F) Aliens who advocate or teach or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches
(i) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or
(ii) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or
(iii) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (iv) sabotage;
(G) Aliens who write or publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or who knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating or teaching
(i) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or
(ii) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or
(iii) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or
(iv) sabotage; or
(v) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship;
(H) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in paragraph (G);
(I) Any alien who is within any of the classes described in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), and (H) of this paragraph because of membership in or affiliation with a party or organization or a section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision thereof, may, if not otherwise ineligible, be issued a visa if such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa and the consular officer finds that
(i) such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under sixteen years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes, or
(ii) (a) since the termination of such membership or affiliation, such alien is and has been, for at least five years prior to the date of the application for a visa, actively opposed to the doctrine, program, principles, and ideology of such party or organization or the section, subsidiary, branch, or affiliate or subdivision thereof, and
(b) the admission of such alien into the United States would be in the public interest. Any such alien to whom a visa has been issued under the provisions’ of this subparagraph may, if not otherwise inadmissible, be admitted into the United States if he shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission to the United States and the Attorney General finds that
(i) such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under sixteen years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and when necessary for such purposes, or
(ii) (a) since the termination of such membership or affiliation, such alien is and has been, for at such membership or affiliation, such alien is and has been, for at least five years prior to the date of the application for admission actively opposed to the doctrine, program, principles, and ideology of such party or organization or the section, subsidiary, branch, or affiliate or subdivision thereof, and
(b) the admission of such alien into the United States would be in the public interest. The Attorney General shall promptly make a detailed report to the Congress in the case of each alien who is or shall be admitted into the United States under (ii) of this subparagraph;
(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry,
(A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security,
(B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or
(C) join, affiliate with, or participate in the activities of any organization which is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950;
(30) Any alien accompanying another alien ordered to be excluded and deported and certified to be helpless from sickness or mental or physical disability or infancy pursuant to section 237 (e), whose protection or guardianship is required by the alien ordered excluded and deported;
(31) Any alien who at any time shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law,
(b) The provisions of paragraph (25) of subsection (a) shall not be applicable to any alien who
(1) is the parent, grandparent, spouse, daughter, or son of an admissible alien, or any alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or any citizen of the United States, if accompanying such admissible alien, or coming to join such citizen or alien lawfully admitted, and if otherwise admissible, or
(2) proves that he is seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution in the country of his last permanent residence, whether such persecution be evidenced by overt acts or by laws or governmental regulations that discriminate against such alien or any group to which he belongs because of his religious faith. For the purpose of ascertaining whether an alien can read under paragraph (25) of subsection
(a), the consular officers and immigration officers shall be furnished with slips of uniform size, prepared under direction of the Attorney General, each containing not less than thirty nor more than forty words in ordinary use, printed in plainly legible type, in one of the various languages or dialects of immigrants. Each alien may designate the particular language or dialect in which he desires the examination to be made and shall be required to read and understand the words printed on the slip in such language or dialect.
(c) Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to the provisions of paragraph (1) through (25) and paragraphs (30) and (31) of subsection (a). Nothing contained in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Attorney General to exercise the discretion vested in him under section 211 (b).
(d) (1) The provisions of paragraphs (11) and (25) of subsection (a) shall not be applicable to any alien who in good faith is seeking to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (28) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be applicable to any alien who is seeking to enter the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant under paragraph (15) (A) (iii) or (15) (G) (v) of section 101 (a).
(3) Except as provided in this subsection, an alien
(A) who is applying for a nonimmigrant visa and is known or believed by the consular officer to be ineligible for such visa under one or more of the paragraphs enumerated in subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (27) and (29)), may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General, or
(B) who is inadmissible under one or more of the paragraphs enumerated in subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (27) and (29)), but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General.
(4) Either or both of the requirements of paragraph (26) of subsection (a) may be waived by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly
(A) on the basis of unforeseen emergency in individual cases, or
(B) on the basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign contiguous territory or of adjacent islands and residents thereof having a common nationality with such nationals, or
(C) in the case of aliens proceeding in immediate and continuous transit through the United States under contracts authorized in section 238 (d).
(5) The Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
(6) The Attorney General shall prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of excludable aliens applying for temporary admission under this subsection. The Attorney General shall make a detailed report to the Congress in any case in which he exercises his authority under paragraph (3) of this subsection on behalf of any alien excludable under paragraphs (9), (10), and (28) of subsection (a).
(7) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section, except paragraphs (20), (21), and (26), shall be applicable to any alien who shall leave Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, and who seeks to enter the continental United States or any other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided That persons who were admitted to Hawaii under the last sentence of section 8 (a) (1) of the Act of March 24, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 456), and aliens who were admitted to Hawaii as nationals of the United States shall not be excepted by this paragraph from the application of paragraphs (20) and (21) of subsection (a) of this section, unless they belong to a class declared to be nonquota immigrants under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) of this Act, other than subparagraph (C) thereof, or unless they were admitted to Hawaii with an immigration visa. The Attorney General shall by regulations provide a method and procedure for the temporary admission to the United States of the aliens described in this proviso. Any alien described in this paragraph, who is excluded from admission to the United States, shall be immediately deported in the manner provided by section 237 (a) of this Act.
(d) Upon a basis of reciprocity accredited officials of foreign governments, their immediate families, attendants, servants, and personal employees may be admitted in immediate and continuous transit through the United States without regard to the provisions of this section except paragraphs (26), (27), and (29) of subsection (a) of this section.
(e) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In the 1980s Los Angeles bussed White kids to minority Black neighborhoods and the Whites moved out of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Illegal Hispanic aliens moved into Los Angeles.
We passed Prop 187 to deny illegals government funds.
Judge Mariana Pfaelzer overturned our vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XxrIjCu3b1Q
October 3, 2024
I haven’t paid much attention to Vivek Ramaswamy but the guy is more intelligent than I thought.

John Bolton is a major player in the deep state and in this interview denies there is a deep state.
I didn’t voice type his opening statement.
These people kill many thousands of people and have no trouble sleeping.
They killed over 600,000 people in Syria.
There were 6 million Syrian refugees.
They overthrew Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
Syria turned to Iran, Russia and China to fight our American trained rebels.

Vivek in this interview says over a million people have died in this Ukrainian War and says the Ukraine will have to give up some territory.

This is Google Voice typed

ViveK:
First of all, I’d like to thank the Steamboat Institute for hosting this debate and BMI for welcoming us. It’s been a great few hours here meeting the cadets. And I also want to take a moment to thank Ambassador Bolt for participating in this debate. He has experienced slightly greater than probably anybody in this large room. I hope we’re all able to learn from that, including.Through the open dialogue that we have through this debate, I do think that the path to truth runs through free speech and open debate, and I’m hoping that’s exactly what we open up tonight as the resolution is drafted. It’s very hard to disagree on the face of it that the US should use diplomatic power and military light to advance America’s interests.It’s hard to disagree with, but I wouldn’t do that.But I think the essence of what’s at stake is whether or not the United States and the way I read it, actually, that’s for me.Is whether or not the United states has a role to play as a globalist and.The answer to that question was made is an absolute.I have little doubt that Ambassador Bolton and I actually share the same goal with the United States of America, the question of our foreign policy, which is to make the United States of America a stronger nation.

But where I think we have some disagreements, and at times deep disagreements, isn’t the question of how we exactly do.I appreciated the reference to American history, and I frankly learned a few things from your opening remarks from history dating back to 250 years ago. What I’d like to do in my opening is to refer to the history of the last 25 years and the.The results of that interventionist?On policy, let’s start with just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s.There’s the financial force, $8 trillion on those two wars alone. That doesn’t include other engagements in other parts of the world, including the recent Ukraine costs or other parts of the latest. That’s in a moment where our national debt is 34 trillion.Dollars well on our way to interest payments on our national debt.

Being the largest line item on our federal budget, that won’t fall on Ambassador Bolton’s or my generation’s shoulders.So much as it will under generation of the cadets who are in the audience today. But it’s not just the financial cost of those worlds.It’s the human cost, including the cost to Americans themselves. 8000 nearly 7 to 8000 American lives lost. Men and women who died in those groups.53,000 Americans who were wounded or injured. 30,000 more deaths if he got the suicides just afterwards.And if the financial costs and the human costs weren’t persuasive enough about the volley of those forms.I would further add that the crisis in Europe, for those who care about the strength of our allies, the mass migration crisis in Europe today is actually in part a direct function of our failed intervention in the Middle East, a lot of the mass migration from Muslim countries and the direct consequence of destabilization that the United States played a role.In C

Now I have no doubt that the people in the audience here already to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country. Should our country require. That’s why I respect all the people who are here for what you.We do. That being said, we cannot in good conscience send America’s sons and daughters to go die and or if we haven’t identified what the objective of that war will be. And the reason I’m against the resolution, as I see, which is whether or not the United States should be the world’s global policeman.Is the evidence suggests that we have failed miserably for that $8 trillion, for those 7000 lives, for the 53,000 interns, for the 30,000 more suicides, for the aggregate chaos in Europe as a consequence of that collateral damage, What exactly happen?

Let’s take a review of recent history. 40 years later, the Taliban, for God’s sake, is still in charge of Afghanistan. All the stronger, even more so than when we arrive 80 plus billion dollars of U.S. military equipment that we left behind.Iraq, I would argue, is a more deep destabilize the country more vulnerable to Iranian incursion.Than before we showed up. So should we be willing to make a sacrifice, including the ultimate sacrifice for our country, but required? Yes. But it better darn well to actually be to advance American interests rather than to undermine those same interests.

And over the course of our conversation.Respectful challenge I would offer to Ambassador Bolton.Is to identify anyone of the examples in which we have adopted an interventionist more policy in the last 20 years. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen could argue now Ukraine. What is a single example that we could point to? We’d act.Actually been successful in seeing that, and I think the absence of a good answer to that question is a damning indictment to a foreign policy interventionism of the last 20 years.

And do those who wouldn’t find any of those arguments persuasive alone, let me leave you with one more.Which is that this has distracted us from focusing on the ultimate national security threat that we actually do face to fail to come along.Which is the rise of the Communist Party of China. There will be those who make the argument that this is apples and oranges, that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Well, again, I prefer to measure by the results.

Right now we’re the first time in modern American history 2 1/2 decades where we don’t have a carrier strike group in the Asia Pacific region. And the reason why is we very recently.Set the USS.The Middle East. The last time we did it was in conjunction with our invasion of Afghanistan.Or $20 billion plus behind on military supplies. It’s supposed to be sent to Taiwan at least 1/3.Which were routed into Ukraine instead. Documenting 1 Abrams text talking about high Mars. We’re talking about Stingers.We’re talking about coastal defense system or from coastal coastal defense.At least 6.7 billion of that $20 billion that would have gone to Taiwan has gone to Ukraine instead.

We have actually strengthened inadvertently the Russia China alliance since the Ukraine war began, which puts China in a stronger position relative to the United States, while the United States itself is in a weaker position, basically China, when we think about that model of international diplomacy, since that too is part of the resolution.

I do think that the multilateral institutional model of diplomacy has failed us, especially in the 21st century, through the UN, through the WTO and other multilateral international institutions by increasing our dependence on China. One of the things I did learn and I appreciated learning from your opening remarks, Ambassador.I didn’t know the fact that 90% of the gunpowder in the American Revolution came from France.But it wouldn’t have made sense for 90% of that gunpowder to come from actually our adversary, which is the United Kingdom.Yet today, 40% of the semiconductors that power the Department of Events actually come from China.

95% of certain pharmacies cover the job. Most of our military industrial base depends on our chief adversary China, and that was directly achieved by the model of international diplomacy at the mediated through these so-called multilateral international institutions.That created a false equivalence between the United States and China, a false economic equivalence through the climate change agenda that was disproportionately applied to the United States without being applied to China,

a false moral equivalence as trading relationship with China created an increased dependence on China for our modern wave life,

but also.Companies like Black Rock or Nike or Airbnb or JP Morgan, who relentlessly criticized the United States without saying a peep about the actual human rights atrocities in places like China. And that undermines our greatest geopolitical asset of all, which is not our nuclear arsenal action.It is our moral standing on the global stage.

And that is important direct function of diluting our resources that have been misspent.On wars in other parts of the world, especially in the 21st century, over the period of which China achieved mere parody, if not military parody. Now, when the United States. So those are the three points I’d like to leave you with over the course of the evening.

Is that first, the evidence suggests that the interventionist foreign policy of the 21st century.Has been nothing short of an abysmal failure by saying so as not to blame those in the past, but to learn from the mistakes of the past so that we may harness them to.To correct them in the future.

Second point is that even if none of the arguments relating to financial cost, the human cost or the impact on Europe’s mass migration crisis convincing, at least be convinced by the fact that it has deterred. It has stopped us and diluted our ability to deter the number one threat that we actually do face, which is the rise of the Communist Party of China.And that the model of diplomacy over the last 20 years, over the last several decades, dependent on multilateral institutions.

Governing our diplomatic relationships with other countries.Has failed the best interests of the United states by actually eating?Increasing our dependence on the. The very adversary we should seek to determine for our own national security, and it’s for those reasons the.That I hope you’re persuaded over the course of the evening.

The model of the United States serving as that global policeman has not actually advanced the best interest of United.States. And then even though I respect Ambassador Bolton’s commitment to the goal of making.United States stronger and Sharon, my method of getting there.Is part number. Thank you very much for the warm welcome and I look forward to the conversation. Thank you very much.

…
So I’ll start with one area where we agree. You heard in my opening remarks, you heard Ambassador Bolt referred to the same thing.I think the single greatest threat to the United States is the strength and growing strength of the Russia, China alliance. I think where we differ in our agreement, in our in our views, here is exactly how we got there.

I do think that the actions of the United States and the West and the United States in particular have had the inadvertent effect of strengthening the.I don’t attribute bad intentions to the people.We did it.

I don’t think anybody in the United States who cares about the country wants that access for that alliance to grow stronger. But that is what we’ve done in part, especially over the time horizon you describe. The last 15 to 20 years is when we’ve seen the strengthening. We grant the facts, but the interpretation of those facts is that it’s exactly over the period that NATO expand.Far more than we ever envisioned that you saw Russia running in China’s hands for its own protection.

Precisely over the period that we applied sanctions, Russia economic that they became more economically dependent on China, and China didn’t welcome them economically for free, but had military concessions in ******. Let’s take a look at how harmful this is to the United States. Russia has hypersonic missile capabilities and arguably nuclear capabilities.ahead of that of the united states china’s naval capacity is now arguably at least at parity with the united states and has an economy that we depend on for our modern way of life. Those two nations should not be in an alliance with one another for to advance the best interest of.Who else? And we may.Commitment and I appreciate the discussion we’ve already had about history, so we’ll take that one step further. It was in 1990 that James Baker made a commitment to Gorbachev.

John Bolton:
He did not

Vivek:
his words if I may, if I may, if I may, but I but it’s. It seems that you may may anticipate what I’m about to refer to.It says not one inch, so not one inch hard way. You can deny whether he said those words or not.

Maybe maybe the historians who have written about it evolving life for the last 30 years, but I don’t believe they have. He said that NATO would expand not one inch past East Germany.The point of NATO was to deter Soviet expansion, if NATO has expanded far more after the fall of the USSR than it ever did during the existence of the USSR.Far further than East Germany,

so I believe that has further sent Russia into China’s hands out of their own self-interest.You look at the Ukraine war, let’s do what this timing of these events, they now upgraded their otherwise 2001 strategic partnership to now what they call the No Limits partnership in conjunction in the same year that we actually have the Ukraine war escalation and eventually the start of the Ukraine war breaking out.

So I believe that our own best intentioned actions have actually achieved a worst case scenario of a Russia, China military alliance where we now have joint military exercises occurring off the coast of the Aleutian Islands, not far from Alaska, which is part of the United States of America.So if I were speaking to the president, I tried to be the president, but.We’ll put that to one side.

I do. I do believe it’s important to have civilian control of the military precisely because we’re able to make decisions that are responsive to the electorate. But if I were asked to advise the next president, here’s what I would say is that our top objective in resolving the war in Ukraine should be the chief peace quickly while advancing American interest in the top American interest should be.Weakening, if not dismantling, the Russia, China alliance.

Any deal that we do in Ukraine should be contingent.On Russia no longer conducting joint military exercises with China. And by the way, we can monitor that there will be consequences, but that’s the top objective we should achieve.Yet the Russian military presence out of the West, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, where there is direct to indirect Russian military presence, we don’t want them in our hands.

And I think that those should be meaningful concessions that we should extract Russia in return for at least opening the possibility of reopened economic relations with Russia and allowing Russia to no longer be Vladimir Putin, to be XI Jinping’s little brother, which is a position that I don’t particularly believe he enjoys being in. You look, there are kinks in that armor.Where he sends weapons to India or other bordering nations to China right after their meeting won’t let China complete a railroad to meet reach the actual ocean in northeastern China with Russian land standing in the way.

I believe now is our moment to achieve something similar to what Richard Nixon actually did in pulling the.Mao LED China out of the Brezhnev LED USSR at a moment where that was deemed to be impossible. That’s.The kind of diplomacy that I think we should use to end the Ukraine war on reasonable terms, end it quickly.De escalate the possibility of nuclear conflict and don’t do it for free.Require Russia to exit that military lines with China, exit their military presence in the West, and we will have strength in US National Security interests across.Poop.

So my view is Israel is a sovereign nation that deserves the support of the United States to make whatever decisions it deems best for its work.And I believe that we have actually been unhealthy. Should we be joined by those strikes? So I think that decision belongs to Israel. That’s my answer.

John Bolton talks

Vivek continues:
Couple of points in response to that. One is I think if we’d admitted data Ukraine to NATO at that time, you’d actually see Russia and China in a treaty with one another, even upgraded from the partnership that they’re in today, which would have been.Nothing short of a disaster, but I want I want to also point out the history where shortly you would also remember that George Cannon, the architect of post Cold War policy before his death in the late 1990s, pointed to NATO expansionism as the single greatest mistake that the United States made in the aftermath of the Cold War. He’s not some isolationist. He was the guy who actually.was the chief architect of Cold War deterrence,

now we can talk about the history all we want. I think where we stand today, if we were in the room advising the president, my question would be, how do we advance American interests today?And I believe that involves peace in Ukraine as quickly as we can get there on reasonable terms while weakening the Russia China alliance and getting the Russian military presence out of the West. My question for Ambassador Bolton, with due respect, is because I think it’s important and relevant to conversation.How do you define success in this Ukraine war?

Bolton responds with a lot of crosstalk.

Vivek:
Well, I’m going to 1st require an understanding of what your answer was to my question to be able to respond to it. And I think the question is, we can actually disagree about what the objective is or whether we should pursue that objective, but we should understand what the objective actually is.So as I understand your response, but I want to make sure I properly understand it before before engaging.Your view is that it has to be the pre war boundaries that have to be restored to Ukraine. That is the war objective that result. That’s what I take is your understanding. I understand your question.

Bolton:
That is that is my position and the present position of the entire NATO alliance and you can

Vivek:
just descriptive here.Not sort of drawing an argument just to get the viewpoints on the table. So is Crimea then part of Russia or is it part of Ukraine?

Bolton:
It’s part of Ukraine, as the Russian Federation agreed at the Bell of Asia agreement in 1992.So.

Vivek:
I think it’s at least constructive because.We are able to have a discussion where we know what we’re disagreeing.I think it is absolutely not only unrealistic, it is unfathomable that from these conditions we’re going to get to a place where somehow by waving a magic wand, Crimea is going to be returned to Ukraine. Zarisha talking about all of the other parts that are occupied today, That’s just not going to happen.

It is.And one example of how that’s lunacy is let’s just track the recent history. Let’s not debate 40 years ago. We could go back that far, too. Let’s debate the last two years.In 2022, Zelensky was willing to negotiate terms of peace before the West, including Boris Johnson, but also the United States goaded him out of negotiating for peace.

Then had Zelensky negotiated in April of 2022 without being goaded by the West.Ukraine would have done a better deal territorially than they could possibly do right now or anytime in the foreseeable future. And I think that that is a damning indictment of our own interventionist policies.

It wasn’t not only not good for the United States, where we’ve now spent $175 billion more since then that, frankly, we could have used.To protect our own borders as well as we wish to protect Ukraine.But it hasn’t even served Ukraine’s best interests, where you have 1,000,000 people across both Ukraine and Russia that have either been killed or injured in the conflict since then.

So the fact of the matter is our increased engagement since then has actually been a disservice not just to the United States, but also to even Ukraine itself in a way that.It’s just for anybody following this war, the idea that somehow Crimea, we have a plan possibly for Crimea, let alone the other regions, Luhansk don’t. Yes, being restored to Ukraine.

This is mythology and I don’t think that it’s going to happen just by wishing it into existence, in contrast to a reasonably negotiated deal that achieves peace in the near.And actually the chiefs other US objectives like weakening the Russia, China alliance in the process, which I do believe is a far more realistic, important and achievable goal along the way.

Bolton:
I’d like to know when in 2022, Joe Biden, one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had.

Vivek:
I agree with that.

Bolton:
That has led the gridlock we had. Biden’s sole goal has been to avoid Ukrainian defeat, not to win, and that’s part of the problem.

Vivek:
Well, I think the.Big part of the problem here, a lot of the stress at the feet of Biden as well in terms of cutting off our own Keystone Pipeline while allowing the pipeline in Western Europe to proceed right through from Russia to Germany. This doesn’t make any sense, but. But we criticized Biden and we had violent agreement all day here long from from multiple different angles. But the question of what we should do from here.There’s two options. One is we continue to fund and escalate this war without either a clear war aim or a war aim that is patently unachievable and unrealistic. Or we can acknowledge where we are today and settle on reasonable terms that best advance American interest, including security guarantees for.Ukraine, they’re backstop by American self-interest, which I think is a better food, right?And Chad,

Crosstalk
what was what was that answer to the question about JD Vance’s plan?Look, look, JD has spoken. It brought do you agree or disagree, yes or no, colleague Donald, yes or no?

Vivek:
I agree that we.We should actually look at what best.American interests, right?

Bolton and crosstalk:
Yes or no is that hard state?Question, do you agree with the JD Vance peace plan for Ukraine?State your premise of state where your premise actually went very broad strokes. He is not offered and

Vivek:
Donald Trump, I think has been intelligent.To say that we’re going to actually negotiate on the facts, he’s not going to show his cards to put five months before he takes off.Office has that negotiation, Jay, so do we. Do I support?

Crosstalk

Bolton:
JD Vance said a few weeks ago that his plan he believed a reasonable plan was that Russia keeps the territory in Ukraine and now has he created militarized zones between the Russians and Ukraine.Along the ceasefire line and Ukraine agrees not to go into NATO, he said. That would be reasonable. Do you agree with that or disagree with it?

Vivek and crosstalk:
Depends on what other conditions come with it, if it comes with conditions.Why put any other conditions? Do you agree with what he said so far? You can talk to JD Manson. You know what the answer is. Ladies and gentlemen, what the answer is. If I may, I’ll give you my perspective.Right. So very quickly. So I want to go to China.

Vivek:
And my perspective is if that comes with commitments to weaken the Russia China alliance and get the Russian military presence out of the West, that’s absolutely a reasonable starting point of discussion. And my question back for you is?Are you OK? And what is your perspective on whether an American made missile?Would be appropriate for Ukraine to use against Russia. And the second part of that question is what’s your perspective on the US response, what it should be if a Russian made missile in the US And look,

Bolton:
your, your plan to condition peace in Ukraine on Russia splitting from China. China’s illusion, I think. I just want to say that the idea of Russia, no, it’s not the idea of that. You have no idea what you’re talking.No idea what you’re talking.I I believe it’s a great argument. I believe it’s an accurate statement. I I I respectfully disagree. I I I believe that when a country is.subject of unprovoked progression like ukraine is and that implicates fundamental american interests the fundamental american interest being peace and stability in europe which we have sought through three wars too hot and 1 cold In the 20th century that the Russian invasion of peril that we should, we should provide the means for Ukraine to defend itself and vindicate our interest in peace and stability. That means that you don’t allow the war to be fought only on Ukrainian territory. And yes.The defense of their country should involve the ability to strike targets in Russia. Now, it’s difficult at this point because of the way Biden has mishandled it, but there’s no doubt that that’s something that we should do. And if Russia chose to do what you would do, then we would respond to it.

It’s great. All I do think is especially for for the next generation, you know, for we describe this set a good example.I’d love to keep it focused on policy differences and I’ve no doubt that Ambassador Bolton, one of the things I love about documents, he has a depth of experience.That I respect.Respect. But I also think that it is going to be the next generation that is impacted by the decisions that the prior generation makes. It’s going to be the people in this room who security that we actually care about passing on to the country. And so you know though many of these people may not have also been there at the time that that George Kent made that statement in 1998. I think that having a discussion.Future ought to actually be done based on reason rather than on. You know, I’m certainly not going to participate in dunking on my plot, but what I will say is this.The heart truth of the matter is, do you believe it is realistic for us to have Russia on the terms of the war that exists as they?Exists right now to return Crimea and the other occupied regions to Ukraine. I don’t think there is a single personal in good faith beliefs.That is a realistic game at all versus a negotiated deal that involves reopening some economic relations with Russia. But.Weaken Russia’s alliance with China because of the economic relationship. I think that is the far more realistic path and one that far better advances US long run interest. But I’d like for you to make sure we get a clear answer to your second question because your first, it’s the first question was clear. You were OK with American made missiles being sent into target Russia. What exactly do you think?Best response should be Russian made missiles in the United States.

Bolton:
I don’t think they dare do it and I think if they did they would face severe consequences. Our deterrence works. (crosstalk) that failed was the deterrents against the Russian invasion. Putin has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine repeatedly. There’s been no evidence that it’s anything but pure bluff.

His military, as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said a year and a half ago, is being fed into a wood chipper in Ukraine. And and that’s something that happens to be very much in American interest, but what we need to do, particularly because we’ll come to China here in a minute.To convince the rulers in Beijing that we still have the resolve to oppose their efforts to breakthrough the first dial in chain and to take over the South China Sea is to convincingly show that aggression like Russians against Ukraine will be defeated. Because if they think that the that.Succeed. Others will take advantage of it. And I will tell you the calculus in Beijing is if America and the West won’t defend against an unprovoked aggression in Europe itself, we will never come to the side of Taiwan.Very quickly, Taiwan, yeah. So I think it’s gonna be a good bridge to. A good, good bridge to.Discussion.

Vivek:
I think we both share a view that it would be a bad thing. For the United States and our long run interests, if China would annex Taiwan anytime it was, I think it would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. But where we disagree.Is that China is in a stronger position to do so when #1 Russia is actually in China’s half in the Russia China military alliance and #2 when the United States is actually stretched thin with other wars that don’t directly relate to the United States interest as much as the one in the South China Sea would.

The fact of the matter is the reason.Were delayed on many of those shipments to.Taiwan is precisely because of other wars, particularly the Ukraine war, that were involved in the reason that.That we moved a carrier strike group out of these Asia Pacific region.Leaving us for the first time in the last 25 years without a carrier strike group in the.Specific region is precisely because of the conflicts that leads, so we have to focus on the actual threat that we face.

And that is staving off the pressure from Communist China. And I reject the premise that China somehow feels, by way of analogy, that if they’re going to.Allow them to take a part of Ukraine that we get to take part of Taiwan because we have the moral authority to do it. China doesn’t reason based on.They’re reason based on hard power.

And our hard power with respect to China is weaker when we’re involved in other Orthodox that don’t advance our interests.

Bolton:
Well, if, if we got to that point, it would show our policy and fundamentally fail. But it is, it is clear that if China breaks through the 1st island chain at any point. That it would mean the collapse of our alliance systems all over the Indo Pacific. What what we need to show to Beijing is not out moral authority. It’s precisely about hard power. Russia used hard power Ukraine twice and it’s getting away with it and I think it leads the Chinese to.They can do the same whether it’s on Taiwan or their continued advances in the South China Sea or in the land borders in Asia. I think you.Prevent this by building up not at tanks and and and land based weapons for Taiwan. Because I don’t think the Chinese ultimately are going to invade. I think they’re going to create a political pretext to try and throw a blockade around China talking about two entirely different sets of weapon systems.And to the extent there’s any strain at all, you need to increase the defense budget. That’s what I said. But what about if we’re at that point? I mean, if we’re at the juncture of force, if, if, if we have done what we can to put Taiwan in a position to defend itself and the Chinese do attack, whether through blockade or invasion, yes, I think we have to come to.Mr. Ramos 1 is so

Vivek:
first of all about the weapon systems being different, I mean.This involves a hubris of expecting that we know exactly how that conflict is going to play out. It is a hard fact of $20 billion military supply backlog that we now face up with respect to Taiwan, 6.7 billion or more was actually due to equipment than otherwise was routed to Ukraine, not just in one Abrams tanks.But Harpoon Coastal defense systems? Stingers.And other military supplies as well that could be relevant to Taiwanese actual defense. So what should we be doing?

I agree with Ambassador Bolton that in four years from now, we’re in a position where Taiwan is either being forcibly or indirectly annexed by China. That will be evidence of a disaster in our own policies. We should actually be strengthening our alliance with countries like.I don’t say that because of, you know, obviously data recess. Some people ask that.

But I say it because actually China gets a good portion of its oil supplies and other supplies through the Indian Ocean, through the Andaman Sea, that if they know that India is on side with the United States to be able to block the intimacy if there are those conditions, if we know that we have appropriately deterred action, turned Taiwan into a porcupine occupying.Arming that island with the ability to deter Chinese aggression, that’s what a successful strategy looks like.

But we are any weaker, not stronger position to do it when we’re also funding wars in Ukraine without clearly directed or realistic war aims to win, when we’re drawn into other conflicts in other parts of the world. And I should say it’s entirely.Hypocritical.To wear the mantle of justice protecting democracies from invasions when we have other situations in the world that otherwise I expect not going to talk about today. Like our media.

Like Azerbaijan’s one sided steamroller of the Nagorno Karabakh region, also on the Soviet periphery. For 120,000 Armenian Christians were displaced for the last time I could check.Nobody in the United States stopped to even mention it on the news.

So we can’t selectively say and have the moral authority to say we’re defending democracies, except sometimes when we’re actually funding Azerbaijan to displace 120,000 Armenian Christians and then are going to carve out region. But somehow where the magical defending democracy.
…
I think that right now, first of all, 2024, look at.In forward, we should do everything we can to deter that from happening. And under 2028 we should look at what best advances American interests. But I think it would be an easy.Disaster for Taiwan, the annexed by China would observe.

Bolton:
Well, let me say I I don’t favor the United States being the policeman of the world. I favor us pursuing our national interest, which is not the same thing. And as as to whether there’s a deep state, you’re not smart enough to be a deep state.If, if there were a deep state, we wouldn’t be here having this debate. I can tell you there, there are a lot of good people out there trying to do the right thing. But the idea that we’re run by a deep state is deeply paranoid. So I.Yeah,

Vivek:
I respectfully disagree with that.actually

We use terms like America first. I’ll I’ll define it for you.Sometimes we we are lazy. We bandied around, we don’t say what. Here’s what it means.Two things. One is the people we elect to run the government. Are the ones who actually run the go and #2 is those leaders.Oh, their soul moral duty, soul the.Citizens of this country.And not enough. That’s what it means to stand for American First.

Start with #1 Today, the people who set most public policy are not the ones who are ever elected to run the government.In fact, there are 4 million people in the federal bureaucracy, including, I’d start to say, in the national security establishment, who are not only never elected to their positions, but actually, according to the supposed interpretation of civil service rules, cannot even be fired by the people who were elected to those positions.That’s not actually a democracy.

That is a new type of modern technocracy that would make our founding fathers, including those you quoted at the start, roll over in their graves that they never imagined. So I do think that a root cause of many of our foreign policy failures is also the same root cause as many of our domestic.including the rise Of the welfare and the regulatory state. It is that the people we elect to run the government aren’t the ones actually running the government. And I do think that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state. When you invade the rest of the world, you effectively invite them. That’s exactly what’s happening to Europe. It’s deeply linked to our own border crisis in this country. So the question is how?We best advance the interests of the United States of America.

I’ll start to begin with the question, I mean very quickly because I want to see if we can just a quick, I’ll be very quick here. I just want Ambassador Paul to give an opportunity to address the question I raised at the outset, if we can pick one example.Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Any example from the 21st century where that foreign intervention on behalf of the United States actually ended up advancing American interests? I’d wait for the answer to that.

Bolton:
Afghanistan. Let’s start there. Well, let’s start there. Absolutely. Maybe you’ll give me a chance.After the 9/11 attack. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and cheat Al Qaeda and prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. And at least until 20/21.When, pursuant to the Trump agreed withdrawal proposal with the Taliban and divided actual withdrawal, we had succeeded. There were no terrorist attacks against the United States from Afghanistan.After 2001, now that foreign terrorist fighters are returning to Afghanistan, and even the Biden administration has testified publicly that ISIS K has the capability to launch terrorist attacks against the United States today as it launched earlier this year.In Iran and in Russia, this is where I’m not going to.

Vivek:
we have a difference in opinion if you call Afghanistan a success.I looked 20 years later, that same Taliban is still in charge, armed with 80 plus billion dollars in military equipment that we left behind. How hard is that to figure out the intervention? It’s like a Marxist argument, right? The Marxist always argue that the problem with the state intervention is we didn’t do enough of it. And that’s exactly the form of argument that

Bolton:
we have in the interventionist philosophy we had.Very imperfect government in Afghanistan. We were not there to make it into the Switzerland. Central Asia

Vivek:
Taliban is in charge today

Bolton:
and had we stayed? Had we stayed?I will finish my sentence. Have we stayed, the Taliban would not be in charge. But it was Donald Trump’s desire to get American forces out that produced this catastrophic mistake. I suppose you supported the withdrawal. You’re responsible. That position is responsible for the consequences of Taliban impact.

Vivek:
I respectfully disagree when you actually could have executed a withdrawal and. Manner that President Trump laid out? Don’t do it during fighting season.Really. One at a time, I’ll let ambassador, I’ll let you come back.So the bottom line is a judge set of policies by its results. Iraq is more vulnerable to Iranian incursion before we showed up. Libya is a failed state. Syria. Afghanistan now is run by the Taliban. If we fail to learn from our mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat.Them in the future and that’s why I think we have to recenter the obligation of US elected leaders to focus on exclusively what advances American interests rather than advancing a bureaucratic state’s vision of what they call advancing.

Bolton:
But let me just say you asked me to name one example, which I did if we had about another 3 hours I’d be happy to explain why the others.Good examples too.
…
Bolton:
Look, I am one of thousands of Americans.Who have argued with the Europeans for decades they need to spend more money on the fence. And Trump’s argument about spending more money on defense, I think bid help contribute increase in spend. The trouble with Trump’s approach is he wants to withdraw from NATO and that’s what I fear. But in terms of getting them to spend more, that’s correct. But it’s also important to understand that it’s not simply.A question of reaching a 2% target or anything else. Let me give you one example. Iceland, a NATO member from the beginning, doesn’t have a military, its share of defense, and its gross gross domestic product is 0.Should we throw Ukraine? Should we put it in slip? Should we throw Iceland out of NATO? Should we allow the Russians to build air and submarine bases there? I don’t think so. Look at a map. What is Iceland contribution to NATO? It’s Iceland. And I think that’s worthwhile. So you have you have to look at the total picture.But there’s absolutely no dispute that our allies have often been free riders and that should be unacceptable though.Be back and you can respond to that if you want.

Vivek:
I want to ask the quick response to that is those arguments as valued as valiantly as they might have been made one very successful if as of 2023 last year.A majority of NATO countries were still not spending. The 2% requisite of their GDP on their own national self-defense and so I do believe it has this historical model of diplomacy over the last 20 years through these multilateral institutions best advanced interests of the United States of America. Answer that question is decidedly no and I do believe that those arguments have been.Less successful without using the kind of leverage that President Trump I think, brought effectively as.
…
So here’s one where I think there is a fissure on the America first, right, actually because I think.Debate that we’re having on stage today is mostly when you maybe broad struggle to characterize as an America First mission of the conservative movement versus a neoconservative vision of the conservative movement.

Here I’d like to actually air a separate fissure even within the America First right.We should say there’s a diversity of use. I believe the right way to actually get serious about declaring economic independence from China requires not just on shoring to the United States, but actually requires expanding our trading relationships with our allies, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, India.We talk about South America in this context where that becomes relevant, and it’s different from those whose economic policy is focused on protecting American manufacturers from the effects of foreign price competition.

So that’s an internal debate to the American first movement. That’s not going to play out in the next 35 days, something much more relevant with an election coming up. But I do think in the next 3.5-6 years is going to become an important dividing kindness. Is our seriousness about declaring an independence from China so much so that we’re willing to expand our relationships with other allies? I believe the answer to that question.Yes, from an economic perspective, but if your principal goal is to actually protect American manufacturers from the economic effects of foreign price competition, you’re necessarily delaying the timeline needed to declare independence from China.

So to your question, not relating only to South America, but even our other allies around the Asia Pacific, I think.Serious about decoupling from China and pharmaceutical supply chain and our military industrial base that will require more, not less straight than those allies. And the way that we actually make American manufacturers more competitive isn’t by protecting.Effects of that trade, but it’s. Stood by dismantling the regulatory state, another species of the deep state that actually shackles the American economy. That, I think is the path forward. I’m best.

Bolton:
Well, I think we have been asleep at the switch on China for a long time and. And I think that we have failed to protect our own country and and many others from Chinese theft and intellectual property, which they’ve been extremely successful at and we’ve allowed them through the Belton Rd. initiative and a number of other approaches including outright corruption to make extraordinary.Not just in Latin America, but in Africa and South Asia.

So this is it. We come at this at A at a very perilous point because we’ve been asleep for so long under this illusion that China would be a responsible soldier in international.Affairs, and it was engaged in a peaceful rise, none of which was true, and the fact that war to remove.Move Chinese influence in places where it’s gained considerable strength, at least of which is Venezuela.

We’re between Russia and China. They have been able to prop up the Chavez Maduro regime in ways that are very harmful across Latin America. What this means more than anything else is that Americans have to pay more attention to foreign policy.You can’t decree a policy if people don’t know what’s going on and you have to be committed to a forward strategy around the world and not say our only problem is China and East Africa.
…
Vivek:
So I think that there’s two very different discussions to be had here. 1 is, is your goal just to nakedly raised tariffs? To protect American manufacturers from the effects of foreign price competition, I think the way we predict American manufacturers is dismantle the regulatory state, including a lot of the internationalism through the climate change regulations and otherwise that are shackling American industry vis a vis China or other countries to which the same restraints don’t apply.

That is different.From saying that a country is actually already applying hired tariffs to us, either directly or indirectly. Indirectly by otherwise subsidizing domestic industry.In their own countries, while not actually giving similar favorable treatment to US trading partners.If they’re already applying that standard, then I think it’s a fair game for the United States to say if you’re going to effectively.We apply a tariff to us, we’re gonna at least level the playing business.

The right outcome of that can usually be both countries get rid of those restraints altogether, and I think that’s a good thing.But we aren’t really engaging in free trade. That’s a myth if the other side is engaging and repentance.that was a mistake we made with china by the way with the bipartisan consensus in both parties dating back to the 1990s we thought we could somehow use capitalism as a nectar to spread democracy to china and I don’t know if you were in the room when that happened either, but that has been, I think, a miserable failure where we thought we could export Big Macs and Happy Meals and somehow that was going to spread democracy to China.

The truth is we thought we could use our money, our investment to get them to be more like us. They used access to their market, their money, in some ways our money to get us to be more like that. And.So when it’s not an even playing field but the other side is engaging in state sponsored capitalism and air quotes, which is really just old world dentalism, then no, we should not be pretending like they’re a.Free trading partner and say that we don’t do tariffs in the US, but if both sides are willing to say that we actually don’t want restraints or favoritism on.Either side, and we actually want it at level playing field to compete.I think the use of the threat of tariffs as a lever to drive change on the other side is smart, intelligent and necessary, and that is something that looks important.

Bolton:
Well, Trump doesn’t understand tariffs, which is makes a coherent discussion of what he’s trying to do almost impossible. But I can tell you what, what I recommended when I was in the White House is that I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t use tariffs, but I would say that I would pass legislation that said that it would be illegal.To import any Chinese manufactured goods or services that were based in whole or in part on stolen American technology. And the argument used against that within the administration was that’s almost all of it would be no trade with China at all.Which shows that fundamentally we have the capacity to to do a lot of harm to China because of the way it it conducts trade, the way it it performs in the World Trade Organization that that we just haven’t taken advantage of.You know, it’s it’s the Chinese that took advantage in the WTO of the ability to declare yourself in developing country and get more favorable terms on some trade agreements, which is outrageous given China’s economic strength. The answer to that I thought was declare the United States.And then see what happens

Vivek:
Very quick because then we have, we soon will be for spending any more than $8 trillion on a lot of wars that are in advance our interest. I do want to come back to the woman’s question earlier though, because this is this.Embodiment of the culture and character of the deep state, and I think this is important for every American to understand.I think a lot of the professional civil servants view the presidents, the ones we elect who come along every few years is kill the puppets to come and go.But they don’t really understand. Actually, I happen to believe that Donald Trump really does understand what he’s doing with respect to economic policy, including his use of the threat of tariffs. But I do think when we think about the character of both the economic policy expert establishment and the national security policy expert establishment, there is embedded in it. And I think you see it on stage tonight, a fundamental skepticism.Of actual self governance and democracy. The idea that OK, the guy you put in charge, he really just doesn’t get it. Therefore it’s our job to do it instead. And I think that’s actually, we talked about the American Revolution at the outset. That’s why we fought an American Revolution. We said hell no to that mission because that’s the way old world Europe.And the people in the ones where they elect Gambier Rd. trust and let, let’s let Ambassador Bowen come in and then we’ll get a an essential distinction on display of exactly what those are.

Bolton:
Glad he said earlier he wasn’t going to engage in docking up here tonight.It wasn’t an observation fact of the character of Culture Watch. I will try and finish this sentence too.

I couldn’t agree more. I’d love to see the size of the civilian part of the federal government reduced, enormous reducing the regulatory burden, the useless expenditure of money.Yeah, that there’s a.You use the term warfare state.
…
Vivek:
First of all, I want to thank you moderating a great debate and Ambassador Bolton, at times obviously a heated discussion, but I want to thank you for your participation in this well. And I think the heated nature of our dialogue reflects the fact that we did.Keep the care about what makes the United States stronger for the next generation of Americans, even if we have some deep disagreements on exactly how we get there.

Now I believe in.Raise peace and strength.But I believe in peace through actual strength, which is different than the.Appearance. Oh, sorry, I believe there’s a generational difference on stage today.I don’t just mean that the fact that we’re obviously different ages, but of different.Perspectives from our experience and I think if you came from an area in the United States where you remember that era of the Apollo Vision School.Remember the error of putting that man on the moon? The idea that we as Americans can achieve anything we set our mind to? Of course, I believe you’re likely to see the world through a prism where you believe that we can in.Intervene in multiple different foreign conflicts and prevail at the same time, including existing goals in Ukraine that involves the restoration of Crimea and all the other regions that are occupied, because we’ve done it before.

That was the America we know we loved, we miss. And for my part, you have regenerational bias, too. I’m a millennial. I’m the youngest person ever to run for U.S. President as a Republican.I grew up in the era of the not only Afghanistan war but the failed Iraq war were jaded, were cynical about the possibility that in.Know what? We’re able to use this warfare state to somehow achieve our goals when it hasn’t worked out that way.

My message to our generation is this.We can’t just be cynical about our country. I want to get back to that country, that shining city on a hill where we know we can achieve even what others will say is impossible. But we can’t get there through the appearance of strength, through projecting that strength in multiple regions where we don’t actually have it. We need to rebuild our own tower.

We need.Close the gap of recruitment in the US military.We have a 25% recruitment gap in the US military right now. Less than 16% of Gen. Z says they’re even proud to be American.There’s a deep deficit of national pride in this country and that is in part due to the failures of the last 20 years after the Berlin Wall fell, after we achieved that ultimate victory.

I do think that it was a failed bipartisan consensus of democratic capitalism in China to engaging in conflicts that didn’t directly advance American interests in ways that came back to actually harm American interests that have left our generation so cynical that you have young people not like those in this room, but many, especially those who aren’t to say that’s what’s going to happen with my service then I don’t want to do it.

Versus actually rebuilding a country.That isn’t strong and achieves peace through actual strength rather than the artificial appearance of it. And so I call for the future of our conservative. Of what?Which I think Ambassador Bolton and I are both.Is to revive the principles that make this country great the first time around end of the welfare state in all of its forms, the domestic.Regulatory state, the domestic entitlement state, but also the foreign policy nanny state as well.

We don’t want to replace the left wing nanny state with the right wing nanny state.The right answer for the future is want to get in there and dismantle in any state.In every form, not just the entitlement state, the regulatory state, but this broader foreign policy, any state as well. To look our allies in the eye and say that our relationship is stronger when we’re able to be honest with one of them.

To say that we’re going to provide protection where it advances our own interests, but we are also going to be.Downright stern in demanding that you pay for your fair share of it. Not because we’re just saving dollars for the United States, though that’s important enough when we face a $34 trillion national debt. But also because then we’re not going to be chain ganged into wars where those countries are not internalizing fully the costs of actually entering those numbers. That’s not an isolationist position, it’s a pro American position and I think that duty of our elected leaders flows back not to the rest of the world.

Duty of US elected leaders is to the citizens.Right here. And so yes, at a moment we have a more porous southern border than we have at any point in our national district.When the synthetic fentanyl with inputs from China are flowing through that border, kill an 80 thus 80,000 plus Americans every.Year on American soil at a time when we have a deficit of national pride that’s the greatest we’ve seen in our modern National History or recruitment in military has declined when you see the US depending on China for our own military and National Defense

yes we require a new way forward that’s different from.Copying the methods of the last 20 years that got us. And so that’s what I’m calling on us to do, to not only have this conversation and use this as useful starting form.But to say that we don’t have to repeat those mistakes if we’re willing to learn from them, and if we do, then I don’t believe we have to remain this nation.Decline is a choice. We don’t have to be. We don’t have to be the nation in decline.

I believe we still can be a nation in assembly.Condition way, but in a true.Where and you know how we achieve peace through strength. The shining city on a hill no longer shines. What hope does the rest of the world have?The way we’re going to do this isn’t by intervening elsewhere, but by making sure that our shining city on a hill is as strong as we possibly can be at home. That’s how we strengthen democracy abroad is by remaining the strongest democracy right here in it.Thank you all. God bless you and your families. Thank you for coming today and thank you to our participants. God bless. Thank you.

Alabama, Kansas and Wyoming have new laws.
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri and Georgia have certified ballot measures on which voters will decide this year.

Prop 13
California’s Proposition 13 is a property tax limitation initiative that was passed by voters in 1978. It limits property tax increases and provides protection for property owners from large fluctuations in property taxes.

Tax rate
The general levy tax is limited to 1% of the assessed value of the property.

Assessment
Properties are assessed at their fair market value at the time of sale.

Reassessment
Property assessments can only increase by a maximum of 2% per year, unless there is a change in ownership, new construction, or other specific circumstances.

Taxation
In the year a property is purchased, it is taxed at its purchase price.

Effect on homeowners
Homeowners who stay in their homes benefit from lower taxes if property values increase by more than 2% per year.

Effect on rental market
Proposition 13 applies to landlords and reduces the turnover of owner-occupied homes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/
Tim Walz 10/01/24 Lies on Abortion:
Yeah. Well, the question got asked, and Donald Trump made the accusation that wasn’t true about Minnesota. Well, let me tell you about this idea that there’s diverse states. There’s a young woman named Amber Thurmond. She happened to be in Georgia, a restrictive state. Because of that, she had to travel a long distance to North Carolina to try and get her care.

Amber Thurman died in that journey back and forth. The fact of the matter is, how can we as a nation say that your life and your rights as basic as the right to control your own body is determined on geography?

There’s a very real chance, had Amber Thurman lived in Minnesota, she would be alive today.

That’s why the restoration of Roe v. Wade. When you listen to Vice President Harris talk about this subject, and you hear me talk about it, you hear us talking exactly the same. Donald Trump is trying to figure out how to get the political right of this. I agree with a lot of what Senator Vance said about what’s happening. His running mate, though, does not. And that’s the problem.

Pro-Life OB/GYN: Kamala Harris’ ‘dangerous lies are killing women’
Catholic Vote ^ | September 23, 2024 | Susan Berry, Ph.D.
https://catholicvote.org/pro-life-ob-gyn-kamala-harris-dangerous-lies-are-killing-women/

Pro-Publica reported that Thurman died in 2022 after being hospitalized for an infection that developed after she took abortion pills in North Carolina since she was more than six weeks pregnant with her twins. Georgia’s law limits abortion after six weeks, but clearly permits the procedure when the mother’s life or physical health is endangered. When Thurman arrived at the emergency room in Georgia, her twins were already dead, but “she had not expelled all of the fetal tissue from her body” and needed a “dilation and curettage, or D&C.”

The outlet reported that doctors “monitored her infection spreading, her blood pressure sinking and her organs beginning to fail,” and decided to operate after 20 hours – when it was already too late.

Similarly, Candi Miller, another Georgia mother, died after taking abortion-inducing drugs and, reportedly, in reaction to the media’s false claim that she could be prosecuted under her state’s law, did not act to obtain emergency medical treatment.

Francis, an OB/GYN, posted two videos to X last week urging Harris and her media allies to stop their “dangerous lies” to women:

After watching Harris’ comments in Atlanta about the deaths of Thurman and Miller, Francis said on Wednesday that she agrees both women’s deaths were “100% preventable.”

“However, their deaths were not the fault of Georgia’s abortion law,” Francis said:

No pro-life law in the country prevents OB/GYNs like me from intervening when a woman is facing a potentially life-threatening complication of her pregnancy. They do not have to be knocking on death’s door before we can intervene. In fact, I can speak from experience, as I practice in Indiana, which has a very similar law. Madam Vice President: Stop lying to my patients! Your lies are harming women and they’re harming physicians!

On Friday, Francis posted again on the “dangerous lies about abortion drugs” and the claim that “state abortion laws are killing women.”

Georgia’s abortion law, Francis explained, not only was meant to protect women and children in the state of Georgia, but also is very clear in that doctors can intervene in cases where women are facing potentially life-threatening complications of their pregnancy, or even if they have a chronic medical condition that poses a severe threat to their life or physical health.

Miller, the OB/GYN pointed out, “avoided going to see the doctor with these complications because she had heard the lies about Georgia’s abortion law and was afraid to go to the doctor that she wouldn’t receive the care that she needed, or that she would be prosecuted.”

“There’s not a single state law in this country that prosecutes women who have had abortions,” Francis continued, and there’s not a single state law in the entire country that prevents doctors like me from intervening to manage complications, especially complications that we see routinely after women take abortion drugs. Candi and Amber, who we heard about yesterday, both suffered severe complications from abortion drugs that potentially led to their death. It’s important for women to understand that these drugs carry inherent risks and the way they’re being dispensed online now, because of the FDA’s reckless actions in removing medical supervision, is especially dangerous. It’s time for these lies to stop. Stop putting a political agenda ahead of women’s health!