Why Is Immigration Law Not a Suggestion?

Democrats and liberals have told us for decades that “the immigration system is broken” and that the laws are outdated. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals destroyed that narrative and “treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.” Ammon Blair explained the situation in his article published at The Blaze. 

In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a divided panel did something radical by modern standards: It enforced immigration law as Congress wrote it. The result ranks as one of the most consequential immigration rulings in a generation – and a direct rebuke to the legal fiction that has shielded millions of illegal aliens from mandatory detention for decades.

What the court actually said

The case turned on a simple question with enormous consequences: Do illegal aliens who entered the United States unlawfully – often years ago, without inspection or lawful admission – get discretionary bond hearings while in removal proceedings?

The Fifth Circuit answered no.

Writing for the majority, Judge Edith H. Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that any alien present in the United States who has not been lawfully admitted is, by statute, an “applicant for admission.” Congress supplied that definition in 1996.

Under the law, applicants for admission who cannot show they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” shall be detained pending removal proceedings.

“Shall” means mandatory. It leaves no room for discretionary bond hearings. It applies regardless of how long the alien has remained unlawfully in the country.

Physical presence does not confer the legal status or constitutional entitlements that accompany lawful admission, much less citizenship….

No other federal appellate court has squarely held that mandatory detention applies not only to recent border crossers but also to long-term illegal aliens living in the interior who entered without inspection years – even decades – ago.

Long-delayed enforcement

Nothing in the Fifth Circuit’s decision turns on novel statutory interpretation. Congress enacted this framework in 1996 to eliminate incentives for evading inspection and remaining unlawfully in the United States.

What changed was not the law but the willingness to enforce it.

After the Board of Immigration Appeals acknowledged the plain meaning of the disputed section in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, DHS implemented a policy treating illegal entrants as Congress defined them: applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention.

The response was immediate and predictable. District courts across the country rushed to block the policy, issuing a wave of rulings restoring bond eligibility.

The Fifth Circuit is the first appellate court to say what should have been obvious all along: Courts do not get to rewrite immigration statutes because enforcement is politically uncomfortable.

Asylum is not a loophole

One of the most persistent myths in immigration discourse claims that filing for asylum legalizes illegal entry. It does not.

Congress made illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. The statute contains no asylum exception. Illegal entry remains a crime even for those who later request asylum.

Asylum also does not create a “right to remain.” It is discretionary relief from removal.

Federal law allows an alien to apply for asylum after illegal entry. That provision does not cure inadmissibility, erase criminal violations, or entitle the applicant to release from custody….

Aliens who enter without valid documents remain inadmissible and subject to detention or removal.

Mandatory detention applies to many asylum seekers. Under the statute:

·         Illegal entrants go into expedited removal unless they establish a credible fear.

·         When an alien claims credible fear, the alien remains detained pending final adjudication.

·         Release runs through limited DHS parole authority, not judicial bond hearings.

The Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), holding that the statute mandates detention and does not allow courts to invent bond hearings where Congress declined to authorize them.

Law on the books vs. law in practice

The detention statute does not suffer from ambiguity. The conflict lies elsewhere.

Congress criminalized unlawful entry without exception. Congress also enacted the asylum provision through the Refugee Act of 1980, permitting any alien “physically present” in the United States or arriving at the border to apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry. That provision does not exempt such individuals from prosecution, detention, or removal. It does not repeal the detention mandate….

Over time, however, executive agencies – and sometimes courts – expanded a limited non-penalization principle into a broader immunity regime. Officials treated asylum eligibility as a basis to avoid detention, delay removal, and suspend enforcement mandates Congress never repealed….

Why this ruling matters

By enforcing the law as written, the Fifth Circuit restored a foundational principle of sovereignty: Illegal entry does not generate superior legal rights.

The dissent warns that enforcing the statute could produce large-scale detention. That warning is not a legal argument….

This ruling binds only Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi – for now. Other circuits have signaled resistance. A split is coming. Supreme Court review seems likely.

When that moment arrives, the court will face a question it has avoided for years: Does immigration law mean what it says – or only what politics permits?

The Fifth Circuit has answered. For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion. 

How Often Do You Show Your Identification?

The SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act require photo identification to vote in federal elections. Americans show identification at lots of separate locations and for various purposes. The last time that I showed my identification was to pick up a new prescription of pain pills. Showing identification to show who we are is an everyday experience; yet Democrats do not agree that identification should be shown to vote for their governmental representatives. A n article by the Blaze TV Staff discussed this strange phenomenon. 

In a recent poll from Pew Research Center, a whopping 76% of Democrats said they favored requiring photo ID to vote – a shocking departure from what Democrats like Chuck Schumer appear to believe.

“We’ve got to get this done and we’ve got to get it done very quickly. The SAVE Act is an abomination. It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country. We are going to do everything we can to stop it,” Schumer told reporters.

“How is it Jim Crow to ask for ID, a picture ID? That’s what the SAVE Act is. That you’d be required to have picture ID to go in and vote or to register to vote and then to vote. OK, that is not unreasonable,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license to drive a car, or to renew your driver’s license, or replace your lost license, get a learner’s permit. You need a photo ID to rend a car, to pick up a rental car, even if you prepaid it, to buy car insurance, to file auto insurance claims, to register your vehicle, transfer your vehicle’s title,” he continues.

But that’s not all, as Glenn also points out that you need a photo ID to get a parking permit, use car sharing apps, buy an airline ticket in person, board a commercial flight, and enter the TSA pre-check.

“Is it Jim Crow to ask for photo ID as they scan your eye? Is it racist to ask for photo ID when you check a bag at the airport or when you rent a U-Haul truck or a moving truck, buy a bus or a train ticket in person? Is that really ‘no blacks’?” Glenn asks.

“No blacks can ever go on the bus or the train or an airplane. Really? Really? No, it’s just too hard for them to get a photo ID,” he says, joking, “What a racist.”

Beck continued with his list of reasons why one would need a photo ID: open a bank account, withdraw large amount of cash, cash a check, rent an apartment. I could add a few more reasons: get a mammogram, pick up a prescription of controlled medication, rent a postal box, get a medical operation, transfer money between bank accounts or withdraw cash, open or change a utility account, enter a federal building (like Social Security), and many others.

No one claims racism or Jim Crow for any of those reasons. Yet racism is always claimed when Republicans attempt to make picture identification a requirement for federal elections.

Who Is Melania Trump?

My VIP for this week is Melania Trump – First Lady of the United States and wife of President Donald Trump. She is also a former model and a recent movie star in a documentary titled “Melania.” Virginia Grace McKinnon explained the message of the documentary in her article published at The Daily Signal. 

‘Melania’ sets the stage for the golden age of political storytelling.

If “the medium is the message,” the documentary giving audiences an inside look at the first lady’s life in the 20 days leading up to the 47^th presidential inauguration hists the mark on both.

The film grossed over $7 million in it’s opening weekend, making it the highest grossing, non-music, documentary in a decade.

Melania’s Philosophy

The first lady takes the audience to a variety of design meetings including the making of her Oscar de la Renta inauguration gown, and the infamous flat brim hat showing us her friendship with the designer Hervé Pierre.

But ‘Melania’ gives viewers more than the moment Trump says yes to the dress. The first lady goes into detail about her education and experience in architecture, the textile industry, modeling, and design.

“Melania’ gives you a taste of the philosophy of visual aesthetics the first lady puts to use when decorating the White House or design choices for official events.

That philosophy – sleek, graceful, bold but polite – also inspires her philanthropy….

A Behind-the-Scenes Experience

The film also offers some personal moments.

Trump sings her favorite Michael Jackson song, “Billie Jean,” in the car. She takes us o a trip to Mar-a-Lago which she describes as “more than a home” it is full of “warmth, sunshine, family, and friends.”

Then, after all the inaugural balls, we see President Donald Trump and the first lady come back to the White House in the early morning hours. Melania invites the camera into the kitchen where Trump appears to get a Diet Coke from the fridge before getting straight to work….

“I will continue to live with purpose and of course style,” Melania says proudly closing the film.

Melanie Trump and President Trump make a good pair. He is obviously proud of her, and she claims to be his biggest fan. One thing in her favor is that she does not appear to have any desire to run the country. She lives her life with purpose and style and serves the nation within her own sphere of influence.

Will Congress Pass the SAVE America Act?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is election security. Anna Paulina Luna, Republican Representative for Florida, has been outspoken about the need to “show proof of citizenship and photo identification to vote in federal elections.” She is an ardent supporter of the SAVE America Act that would require both. George Caldwell at The Daily Signal explained what the SAVE America Act is and why it should be passed. How Luna Says GOP Can Force a National ID Requirement to Vote

“The Senate has now sat on this for over 300 days,” Luna, R-Fla., told Punchbowl News in an interview published Thursday. “Something that … many members of Congress are tired of is ‘messaging bills’ … It doesn’t actually feel like we’re doing much of anything.”

“Messaging bills” are pieces of legislation with little possibility of becoming law that members support to amplify their political messaging.

Next week, the House will vote on the SAVE America Act. A previous version of the bill, the SAVE Act, passed by a 220-208 vote in April 2025.

The new bill, if signed into law, would enforce a national requirement of photo identification in order to vote in federal elections, in addition to requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.

It would also, as in the original SAVE Act, require states to clear voter rolls of individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for federal elections.

By words and actions, most Republicans show that they want secure elections and only Americans to vote in the elections. Some Democrats, on the other hand, tend to vote against any bills that would secure elections. Mackenzie Web at Patriot Fetch shared the following information. NEW: 84% Of Americans Demand Nationwide Voter ID Requirements With SAVE Act

Recent polling [February 2026] reveals a significant shift in public sentiment surrounding voter identification laws. With 84% of Americans backing the SAVE Act, which proposes mandatory photographic identification for voting in national elections, the issue is gaining increased traction. This overwhelming support places pressure on Congressional Republicans to act decisively on a key promise to bolster election integrity.

The SAVE Act, championed by Rep. Chip Roy and Sen. Mike Lee, stipulates that voters must present valid proof of citizenship and government-issued photo ID to participate in federal elections. This aligns with a broad public desire for confidence in electoral processes. A prominent statement from House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil underscores this viewpoint: “Americans should be confident their elections are being run with integrity.” His comments highlight the urgent push among supporters for transparent and secure elections, especially given concerns about mail-in ballots and voter registration practices.

Bipartisan support for voter ID measures has been consistently high. Data from surveys, including those from Gallup and Pew Research, indicates that a majority across political lines advocates for some form of voter ID requirements. This is evident from a 2021 Monmouth poll, which showed that 80% of respondents favored ID requirements, cutting across party affiliations.

Supporters frame the SAVE Act as a solution to public fears regarding electoral fraud, even though such fraud is rarely documented. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s strong stance on the matter emphasizes this urgency….

In stark contrast, Democratic leaders have voiced strong opposition. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized the legislation as a thinly veiled attempt to limit voter access, suggesting it could disenfranchise millions. This tension reveals a stark ideological divide, with Democrats asserting that voter fraud is not a prevalent issue and that restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. The concern about disenfranchisement highlights the complexities of the debate surrounding election integrity.

Despite the partisan conflict, the SAVE Act remains a politically potent proposal. It taps into lingering doubts from the 2020 election and reflects a broader conservative push for electoral reform. Public skepticism regarding the legitimacy of that election persists, as highlighted by recent polling indicating that 38% of Americans question the validity of President Biden’s victory, with 69% of Republicans echoing these sentiments.

 

When Will the Savior Return to the Earth?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Moses 7 and a lesson titled “The Lord Called His People Zion.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Throughout history, people have tried to achieve what Enoch and his people accomplished: building an ideal society where there is no poverty or violence. As God’s people, we share this desire. We call it building Zion, and it includes—in addition to caring for people in need and promoting peace—making covenants, dwelling together in righteousness, and becoming one with each other and with Jesus Christ, “the King of Zion” (Moses 7:53). If the world, your community, or your family isn’t quite what you want it to be, it’s helpful to ask, How did Enoch and his people do it? How did they become “of one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:18) despite the contention around them? Among the many details Moses 7 gives us about Zion, a particularly valuable one for Latter-day Saints might be this: Zion is not just a city—it is a condition of the heart and spirit. Zion, as the Lord has taught, is “the pure in heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 97:21). So perhaps the best way to build Zion is to start in our own hearts and homes.

This scripture block teaches several principles, including (1) I can help build Zion (Moses 7:16-21, 27, 53, 62-69); (2) Jesus Christ is “the King of Zion;” (3) God weeps – and rejoices – for His children (Moses 7:28-69); (4) Jesus Christ will come again in the last days (Moses 7:59-67).

This essay will discuss principle #4 about the return of Jesus Christ in the last days. We will first study the applicable verses, Moses 7:59-67.

59 And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? Forasmuch as thou art God, and I know thee, and thou hast sworn unto me, and commanded me that I should ask in the name of thine Only Begotten; thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne, and not of myself, but through thine own grace; wherefore, I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth.

60 And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah;

61 And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

63 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other;

64 And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

65 And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years;

66 But before that day he saw great tribulations among the wicked; and he also saw the sea, that it was troubled, and men’s hearts failing them, looking forth with fear for the judgments of the Almighty God, which should come upon the wicked.

67 And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world; and he saw the day of the righteous, the hour of their redemption, and received a fulness of joy;

These scripture verses tell us that Jesus Christ will return to earth in the last days – our day. Enoch’s vision, especially what’s recorded in Moses 7:59-67, is one of history’s first prophecies of the Savior’s Second Coming.

Former President Russell M. Nelson, in his October 2015 general conference address to the sisters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave the following description of the part that women play in preparing for the Savior’s coming: (“A Plea to My Sisters,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov 2015, 95-96; emphasis added). 

It would be impossible to measure the influence that … women have, not only on families but also on the Lord’s Church, as wives, mothers, and grandmothers; as sisters and aunts; as teachers and leaders; and especially as exemplars and devout defenders of the faith.

This has been true in every gospel dispensation since the days of Adam and Eve. Yet the women of this dispensation are distinct from the women of any other because this dispensation is distinct from any other. This distinction brings both privileges and responsibilities.”

President Henry B. Eyring quoted the above comments in his October 2020 general conference remarks titled “Sisters in Zion.” He then added these comments: 

This dispensation is distinct in that the Lord will lead us to become prepared to be like the city of Enoch. He has described through His apostles and prophets what that transformation to a Zion people will entail….

If the past is prologue, at the time of the Savior’s coming, the daughters who are deeply committed to their covenants with God will be more than half of those who are prepared to welcome Him when He comes. But whatever the numbers, your contribution in creating unity among the people prepared for that Zion will be far greater than half….

My experience has taught me that Heavenly Father’s daughters have a gift to allay contention and to promote righteousness with their love of God and with the love of God they engender in those they serve.

In Moses 7, we learn that Enoch spoke to God face to face and received much information. Part of that information was this description of Zion found in Moses 7:18:

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and

dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Here is the answer to eliminating poverty in the world: seek unity, be righteous, and care for the poor. When the Savior returns to earth, He will return to a gathering of righteous men, women, and children. If we want to see Jesus Christ return, we should start with becoming righteous ourselves and then helping others to become righteous.

Is Your Phone a Tool or a Companion?

Families are stronger when individuals use technology as a tool rather than a companion. It is a fact that an individual can become addicted to social media of all types.

In her article published at The Deseret News, Emma Neff stated that there are “serious terms that come from a tech-reliant society.” She wrote, “Textaphrenia and Textiety both refer to the anxiety that coms from constant texting and messaging notifications.” She added, “Nomophobia, short for “no-mobile-phone phobia,” is the fer or anxiety of being without a device…. [which] can lead to excessive phone usage and dependence on the device for social connection, validation and entertainment.” 

One does not need an official nomophobia diagnosis to be glued to one’s phone. According to a recent report from Review.org and quoted by Neff, “85% of people check their phones within 10 minutes of waking up, and 75% would not feel comfortable leaving their homes without it, as previously reported by the Deseret News.”

While phones are vital tools, many users are finding they can no longer function without them, and neither can their families. Parents may find phones and technology to be a source of contention in their homes as they strike a balance with themselves and their kids with their use.

Experts have shared their own tips and tricks that could be helpful for some as they try to enjoy the benefits media and technology brings, without the negative effects.

Rebecca Densley, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University who studies the intersection of media development and family life, told the Deseret News the solution to less technology use, isn’t abstinence.

“We don’t want to take away everything, and have our kids lose the ability to benefit from what media has to offer,” Densley said. “When parents are having regular and open conversations with their kids about media use, there are a lot of positive effects, and it helps to reduce the negative effects.”

Densley noted that while strict rules may work for young children, adolescents require more “buy-in.” Without a collaborative discussion, teens may succumb to the “forbidden fruit effect,” where restricted media becomes more desirable.” …

Experts agree that digital discipline starts with the adult. … parents must model socialization without screens….

To help bridge the gap between work and family, Robbins suggests being transparent. I you must check a work email, tell them when you need to use your phone and how long, then physically put it away.

Passive consumption versus active engagement

The impact of technology often depends on the “how” rather than the “if” or “how much.”

To help break habits and become more intentional with tech use, experts suggest a mix of physical and mental resets.

·         The media fast: Densley and author Josohua Becker recommend a “media fast.” If you return to your phone and immediately slide into old habits, your behavior may be more hardwired and could use a more intentional plan for technology use.

·         The rubber band trick: Becker also suggests putting a rubber band or hair tie around your phone to disrupt the scroll. This physical “speed bump” makes it harder to see the screen, forcing users to be more intentional.

·         Analog alternatives: Rather than letting the phone be a “Swiss Army knife,” experts recommend using alternatives like swapping a digital alarm clock for a physical one, or to use paper planners to keep your phone out of your hands.

·         Digital sunsets: The Mayo Clinic and Brooks both advocate for “the digital sunrise and sunset” rule: no screens for the first hour of the day or the last hour before bed.

Finding ‘awe’ in the real world

While structured rules and resets like digital sunsets protect our time, the next step is what to do with that reclaimed space. Reclaiming time from technology allows for unplugged activities and hobbies like cooking, walking, painting or playing board games. Densley noted research emphasizes the importance of “awe,” the grounding feeling found in nature or music, and how that ‘awe’ moments could replace digital feedback loops….

A 2023 study published in Scientific Reports found that daily experience of awe significantly reduced stress and improved overall well-being.

Densley added, “Those experiences of awe can be really grounding….”

What to do next

The goal, Densley says, is intentionality. These devices are designed to capture and keep attention and fighting that pull takes practice.

By recognizing this and giving grace, Densley shares through treating the phone as a tool rather than a companion, families and individuals can move forward through positive constructive conversations about technology use.

 

What Is Meant by the Message Put Forth by Leftists?

The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday concerns the message put forth by the Left. Their message is often inane and not worthy of comment. Sometimes their message is downright stupid. The comment by singer-songwriter Billie Eilish at the Grammy’s last Sunday is one of the more stupid ones, a message about which she probably did not think too seriously.

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil, senior editor, explained why Eilish’s “statement ‘no one is illegal on stolen land’ perfectly captures at least one inherent contradiction in the Left’s victimhood world view.” He claims that her statement “highlights what the ‘immigration’ debate is really about.” 

Activists who oppose the enforcement of immigration law often condemn the idea that any alien should be considered “illegal,” regardless of whether they came to America in accordance with our laws. They seek to remove any moral legitimacy from limits on immigration, suggesting that all immigration is permissible.

Yet leftists also claim that the United States was built on iniquity – that America broke its treaties with Native American tribes and effectively stole the land from them. While the U.S. does have a complicated history of land acquisition, this argument conveniently ignores the archeological record, which suggests that the Native Americans we often  refer to as “Indigenous” also took the land by force.

The “stolen land” motif isn’t really about tracing the history of which tribe “originally” owned the land – it’s more about propping up the victimhood status of the Left’s preferred constituencies….

‘No One Is Illegal’

To illustrate the point, let’s just accept one half of Eilish’s statement as true for a moment.

Let’s say “no one is illegal” in the way immigration activists mean it. Immigration law has no moral authority, so let’s open the borders and allow anyone to come here, regardless of their intent. We’d allow immigrants who want to honor our country by following the law, and those who do not follow the law. We’ll allow immigrants who intend to work hard and assimilate, and also immigrants who intend to lie, cheat, and steal. We’ll allow model citizens who face oppression in their home countries and we’ll allow terrorists and spies from America’s adversaries.

If no one is illegal, let them all come….

‘On Stolen Land’

Now, let’s take the second half of the statement seriously.

The United States was built on “stolen land,” so let’s return it to its original inhabitants. Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Span, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.

Let’s remove all the ostensibly evil “invaders” who “stole land.” Perhaps we should even remove all the human beings who settled North America in the first place and return it to the mammoths, or the dinosaurs, or the amoebas. How do we determine who the rightful “Indigenous” people are?

At this point, the inherent contradiction should be obvious. Any human settlement in the land now referred to as the United States could be considered “immigration,” and any immigration that involves taking ownership of the land could be considered “theft.”

Either the land has been stolen, or no one is illegal on it. You can’t have it both ways.

What’s the Answer?

Ultimately, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think it’s quite reasonable to draw the line at the sovereignty of the United States of America.

America is not without its sins, but our Constitution [is] arguably set up as just a system of representative government as is possible on Earth. We can hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box. We enjoy a legal and economic system that rewards creativity and invention, which help produce wealth for everyone. We enjoy a broad swath of fundamental rights.

Our system is imperfect, but it is far more just than the Left would have us believe.

The same is true of immigration law. While the Left is throwing a fit about President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport illegal aliens, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. has a comparatively welcoming immigration system.

The United States wants to welcome immigrants, but we want immigrants who will follow our laws, and we want to protect our sovereignty as a nation….

The United States has an interest in preventing terrorists, criminals, or agents of foreign powers form settling in our country….

But, if we understand what the Left means in combining [the two ideas spoken by Eilish], the message is obvious: “I hate the United States and reject its right to be a sovereign nation.”

O’Neil stated that he protests that final statement, and most Americans would agree with him. We do not need anyone living in the United States who hates America, and we certainly have the right to be a sovereign nation. Numerous commentators are calling the so-called protesters in Minnesota “communists.” If they really are communists and/or working for foreign interests, their true goal is to overthrow the government of the United States. Why would any sane person support that message?