Supreme Court Allows President Trump to Enforce “Public Charge” Rule For Immigration…

Today the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to continue enforcement of the “public charge” rule on immigration. The SCOTUS decision allows the government to enforce a provision of federal immigration law banning non-citizens from receiving a green card if the government believes the applicant is likely to become a “public charge” – or reliant on government assistance.

The ruling blocks a nation-wide injunction put into place by a single activist judge.

WASHINGTON – […] The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.

At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.

The court’s liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, would have blocked the regulation’s enforcement.

After losing at the lower courts, the Justice Department asked the high court to intervene, allowing temporary enforcement until the issue is resolved on the merits. The states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New York, as well as New York City and immigrant rights groups had brought the suit.

The Trump Justice Department has gone repeatedly to the Supreme Court to lift court-ordered injunctions, bypassing the traditional appellate process.

Justice Neil Gorsuch — supported by Justice Clarence Thomas — wrote a separate concurrence, criticizing the increased reliance on nationwide injunctions to block government policies. (more)

Here’s the ruling:


WHITE HOUSE – Today’s stay from the Supreme Court is a massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution. This decision allows the Government to implement regulations effectuating longstanding Federal law that newcomers to this country must be financially self-sufficient and not a “public charge” on our country and its citizens.

Two courts of appeals had already ruled that the Government should be able to implement these regulations, but one single district judge’s nationwide injunction remained. As two Justices pointed out today, the expanding practice of district courts entering nationwide injunctions raises real problems about the proper power of a judge to decide only the case before him or her.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Illegal Aliens, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to Supreme Court Allows President Trump to Enforce “Public Charge” Rule For Immigration…

  1. BestBets says:

    Not tired of winning.

    Liked by 37 people

    • Frankie says:

      Kevin Sherlock’s books “Ellis Island: When America Did Immigration Right” and “Ellis Island Scrapbook” (both from 2010) explain the common sense rules we had for immigration back in the day. President Trump has like minded people researching the regs from back in the day …. the public charge rule dates from the Teddy Roosevelt administration … and back then, they didn’t allow anchor baby citizenship .. 500 children were born on Ellis Island but only one got American citizenship because her father was an American citizen. Sherlock sent copies of these books to the Trumps, and posted on his website the classy thank-you notes Melania Trump sent him and his wife. Sherlock’s wife Eileen writes whodunits — she also sent the First Lady two of her murder mysteries.

      Another reason to love our wonderful First Lady … her class, graciousness, and gratitude.

      Liked by 9 people

      • JJ says:

        Trump should focus on ending ALL benefits of ANY kind to non-citizens… this country is financially insolvent and supporting other countries citizens (parasites) is insanity.

        Remove the magnet… and the parasite roaches will scatter and leave.

        Liked by 5 people

        • JTR says:

          My DH is not a citizen, but he has had a green card and lived (and worked) in this country for many years. The country he comes from has a mutual treaty for their citizens as far as Social Security goes. He had to have a sponser to come here, and had to sign paperwork pledging not to accept welfare or food stamps for 5 years. We have never asked for a red cent over all of these years, But we feel he earned his SS. Between 2 countries, he worked for over 45 years. He still works!

          I wouldn’t call him a parasitic roach!

          Liked by 1 person

          • Snow White says:

            Your husband is an example of what a true self supporting immigrant is, the kind this country needs. He is definitely not a parasite!

            Liked by 1 person

            • JTR says:

              Thanks, Snow White. He wants to become a citizen so bad! He had a brain aneurism about 10 years ago and he doesn’t think he could pass the test. We’ve always had good insurance, and his doctors say he is a walking miracle! He had 3 weeks in ICU, brain surgery, and went back to work in 6 weeks!

              He’s healthy as a horse, but has problems remembering things. Physically he is a grand specimen for his age, and if you met him, you would not know anything was wrong. But memorizing things is difficult for him. He ALWAYS has a wee notebook in his pocket and makes lists, lol! I have to clean up his list-piles.

              I just love him to bits!

              Liked by 2 people

    • Justice Warrior says:

      More! More winning!!


  2. ShainS says:

    The #Winning will continue until morale improves.

    Liked by 34 people

  3. alliwantissometruth says:

    Today, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government has the right to enforce federal law

    Does any sane person need another example of democrat / progressive insanity and usurpation?

    Liked by 56 people

    • Yy4u says:

      What is shocking to me is that the 4 liberal justicea are politicians not judges. One knows how they will rule on any case.

      Liked by 24 people

      • California Joe says:

        The Democrats wanted a 5th Leftist that’s why they are going after Kavanagh next!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Raptors2020 says:

        The 4 left-wing justices subscribe to a simplistic dogma that is clear in their own minds:

        1. Inequality is the main source of the world’s problems. Erase inequality and you end war, poverty, crime, even racism; that’s why they’re fanatics for open borders.
        2. The USA is another major source of the world’s problems. Make the US poorer and weaker and you improve the world. Obama wanted Iran to be richer and have nuclear weapons to balance the power of this country.
        3. They subscribe to Marx’s doctrine of False Consciousness (simply put, people are ignorant of their own best interests). The strange elitism of leftist leaders who purport to be populists (Hillary) can be traced to this. This snobbery and moral superiority allows them to ignore laws they don’t like.

        Rush talks about Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, who now lectures at university. Madeleine teaches her students that the USA is just an accident of history; just lucky, not at all superior morally or philosophically. This bizarre dichotomy saturates the minds of all prominent Democrats. They adore themselves, but have contempt for their own country, its Constitution and its history. Recognize anybody, Barack?

        Liked by 15 people

        • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

          Madeline notsoAlbright may just be an accident of history.

          Liked by 6 people

        • icthematrix says:

          Indeed, this is the elitist thought process and qualifier for membership in the “global society cult”. Obamanation led the flock for years, pontificating as the anointed one. Dangerous seeds continue to be sown.

          Liked by 1 person

        • TheLastDemocrat says:

          Nice post.

          “False Consciousness” actually has a legal term. It is a very well recognized, and is a very powerful concept. Generally it should be applied very “judiciously” (as they say).

          From Cornell Law’s legal-dictionary “wiki:”
          Parens Patriae: (par-ens pa-tree-ee) Latin for “parent of his or her country.” The power of the state to act as guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves, such as children or disabled individuals. For example, under this doctrine a judge may change custody, child support, or other rulings affecting a child’s well-being, regardless of what the parents may have agreed to.

          In my opinion, if you review these big ideas and efforts of the Prog Do-Gooders, everything parallels what God says or directs. We informally call this “Jesus Complex.” Our superior overlords are out to save us from ourselves. I believe you either head down a path in life trying to replicate what God has already figured out, or you straighten up, get right with God, and follow God’s direction of how to live your life and how to mess with the lives of others. With no God of any import, Progs see a world that obviously is troubled, and see no greater moral force in the wold to address this beyond their own magnificence.

          Stay prayed up, everyone. Keep your nose in the Bible, and keep getting yourself to church. IF you see a guy carrying a well-worn Bible that is a shambles, chances are that his life is not.

          Liked by 2 people

        • FrankieZee says:

          That is why they are attacking Trump 24/7/365. They know that another SC Justice will be conservative if he is re-elected. The liberals on the SC always vote in lockstep.

          Liked by 2 people

          • teabag14 says:

            Yes, FrankieZee. Well stated. THIS is one of the main reasons why we must show up in force at the polls in November & elect Donald J. Trump for a second term. If we are to preserve our Constitutional Republic, we must have in power those who follow our Constitution & our Rule of Law. Under no circumstances can we rely on polls or the assumption that PDJT is going to win reelection. It is WE THE PEOPLE who make that happen by casting our vote. ❤🇺🇸

            Liked by 1 person

        • Linda K. says:

          It is important we keep the Senate, to protect Kavenaugh and to let Mitch keep on filling the courts with Constitutional lawyers as judges! You don’t have to be a conservative as Dersh proved yesterday to love the law.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Betty says:

          I think it was on Watters World who asked Tucker Carlson what he thought about Hunter Biden and Tucker let loose. If you can find the clip and post it you would be doing everyone a favor. I can’t find it, I am tempted to think it has been “disappeared” but I know I have limited search talents.

          Tucker said Hunter Biden was a symptom and that Washington DC was crawling with Hunter Bidens, most of whom are better at fleecing the Public then Hunter – and that he had lunch with some of them just that day.

          Then he went off on Madeleine Albright who he says everyone in DC revers, “ohh-ooo, you had lunch with Madeleine Albright”, as though she is something wonderful – But he says she isn’t any better then the rest – he said she retired from public life, formed a Corporation, sold America to China and made millions.

          Liked by 3 people

      • namberak says:

        It seems to me we tend to forget, at our peril, I know I do, that a judge is nothing but a politically well connected lawyer with a fancy robe. In some states, they are what we ordinarily define as politicians because they run for for the office. That they would have a consistent set of legal precepts rooted in the actual laws as written is probably asking too much.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Sentient says:

      Brilliantly succinct.

      Liked by 6 people

    • John says:

      I Thought laws made made to be enforced.

      Liked by 2 people

    • lotbusyexec says:

      Amen for common sense 👍

      Liked by 2 people

    • Betty says:

      “Does any sane person need another example of democrat / progressive insanity and usurpation?”
      And taking a step further back, a comment I read yesterday asks – Since when have we become a Judicial Monarchy?

      The Supreme Court Rules …? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state:

      It is the opinion of the Supreme Court that the Executive Branch of our government has full AUTHORITY to enforce the “Public Charge Rule’ that was first established by Congress in 1882 in order to allow the U.S. government to deny a U.S. visa to anyone who “is likely at any time to become a public charge”

      Remember when Senator Ted Cruz made the radical statement that President Trump need not obey the Supreme Court, that their “rulings” are just opinions.

      I think we need to work that idea into the American understanding of our Republic.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. TwoLaine says:


    Liked by 14 people

  5. So when is the SC going to address the illegality of a single district court judge abusing his authority by attempting to set nationwide policy? When?

    Liked by 33 people

    • Who addresses this: “As two Justices pointed out today, the expanding practice of district courts entering nationwide injunctions raises real problems about the proper power of a judge to decide only the case before him or her.”

      Liked by 12 people

      • old45model says:

        From ‘Down Under’, I find it rather unusual that a district judge can give him/her self nationwide injunctive powers. I would have thought that would only apply to the Supreme Court.
        Would it not be wise to limit the powers of a district judge to only the district to which his/her appointment was effected?

        Liked by 14 people

        • Dutchman says:

          My understanding is that what you describe WAS ‘the plan’, that ONLY the Supreme Court could issue nationwide rulings,…thats one of the things that makes it “Supreme”, the other being there is no appeal of a Supreme Court ruling.

          I am not sure exactly HOW we got into this mess, but definetly need to fix it, permanently.

          Congress COULD, theoretically adress it legislatively, but too many Globalist that want the current situation to continue.

          I should think the SCOTUS could also address it, and IIRC Scalia had previously commented they were going to have to, if it continued.

          But then he ate a pillow, so here we are.
          Good to see PDJT’s two nominees didn’t go squishy on this,…thats reassuring.

          Liked by 7 people

          • littleanniefannie says:

            The perplexing thing here is that it is always the radical leftist judges who seems to make these rulings. When is the last time you saw a conservative judge get a national stay? And the 9th Circus seems to be the Iniquity Den of Choice.

            Liked by 6 people

        • TheLastDemocrat says:

          45: I believe this is how it works:
          Our various states govern themselves for the most part, but some matters such as “civil rights” and “interstate commerce” are federal level matters. The first layer of federal courts are the “circuit courts,” each with its own multi-state region. (In the old days, a judge would literally travel a circuit from state to state to hear cases that had been waiting for him to come by; this is an old arrangement and probably was and may still be in place in Australia).

          Federal Circuit courts abide by the Federal Constitution; they just apply the Constitution in their jurisdiction. But a legal principle can be decided by a circuit court for a specific jurisdiction, and because the decision is purportedly per the Constitution, it can be perceived as applying to the entire nation; it sets a very impactful precedent.

          At times, there will be two similar cases arising in two circuit jurisdictions and the decisions will not entirely match each other. We essentially then would have two prevailing laws at odds with each other. Being federal law, this cannot go on. So, the issue can rise to the Supreme Court level in one of a few ways, and so reconcile what our law is, across the nation.

          In a sense, the progressive “9th circuit court” could then set national law by making decisions at the circuit / regional level, and having the rest of the nation perceive that a Constitutional level question has been decided by a federal level court.

          A state could “defy” that decision. It is a bit complicated what would then happen. But one reason to defy such a decision would be to get sued for that decision, have the case go to the circuit court, and have a differing decision be made. It is complicated, but this could nullify the first decision, or force a review of the two in context of each other at a higher level to hammer out which version of the law will prevail.

          In other areas, states can have different laws, and there is no problem with differences from state to state. An example is highway speed limit. One state can set max speed limit to be 70MPH, and the next state over can set it to be 80MPH. No big deal; just states’ rights. One state can have death penalty for some crimes and another state can have no death penalty for any crime. No problem. [However, if someone wanted to see “death penalty” as a violation of “civil rights,” then they could maybe get a federal case, and so try to trump this states’ rights deal; the circuit court and maybe SC might decide for or against, or decide it is a state matter and so decide to not hear the case, thus reaffirming some matter as a state’s jurisdiction, which is a major way the state/federal stuff works out.]

          In simple terms, the federal government has jurisdiction over “enumerated powers,” and the states have jurisdiction over anything else, which are the “reserved powers,” reserved to each state to decide. Looking up either term will get you right to a wiki or some other page explaining this complicated legal set-up we have between states’ legal jurisdiction versus federal.


      • It’s Gorsuch and Thomas.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

        District Court Judges…Stay in the lines.
        the Deplorables

        Liked by 4 people

  6. simplewins says:

    Eat that lying libs.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. WES says:

    Unfortunately this does nothing to address the issue of lowly federal judges continuing to issue nation-wide injunctions.

    Liked by 6 people

    • SHV says:

      IMO, perhaps the most important part of this ruling is Gorsuch and Thomas calling bullsh*t on “Obama” district court judges making National rulings blocking things things that aren’t SJW approved.

      “Neil Gorsuch Issues Savage Rebuke to Activist Judges and Nationwide Injunctions”

      Gorsuch, Thomas, et. al. waiting for the “right case and one more PDJT SC judge to drop the hammer on these activist judges and also for a “scorched earth” 2A case. Roberts can’t be trusted on either of these, among other, issues.

      Liked by 20 people

      • meow4me2 says:

        Double like for distrust of John Roberts. I personally want him out as Chief Justice. The FISC problems alone should be enough for the man to step down, since he hasn’t done anything to correct them.

        Liked by 7 people

        • TheLastDemocrat says:

          Wow. Trump gets re-elected. The FISC issue progresses, and a decision is made that J Roberts really messed up, and he opts to step down. It is generally beyond his control so his blackmailers cannot lean on him about it. Trump gets to appoint Roberts replacement.


    • tucker7518 says:

      That has to stop, it is too much power for a lowly federal judge.

      Liked by 4 people

    • MD says:

      The libs will file the same lawsuit again just from a slightly different angle and issue another nation wide injunction. They’ll keep doing that until they get a major beat down from the SC.

      Liked by 1 person

    • old white guy says:

      all of their nation-wide injunctions can be ignored. just how would they enforce them?


      • Rob says:

        It would then need to be resolved by the SC. Great way to force the issue to be addressed, ignore it until ruled on by SC.


      • testpointwp says:

        As we have seen, repeatedly, most bureaucrats at the federal, state and local level are democrats who will enforce or not enforce civil and criminal law as they see fit. That holds for administrative law/regulation as well.

        Those swamp dwellers are the true enforcers as we have seen with the FISA court, the IRS, EPA, etc. Our best hope is to drain the swamp with Pres. Trump leading the charge for four more years.


  8. Sean Supsky says:

    Democrats, the far left ones, are crying because we get to have laws on the books enforced.

    Liked by 6 people

    • X XYZ says:

      Our national crisis: Selective enforcement. Selective prosecution.

      Most laws are unconstitutional. Having too many laws is even worse than having no laws at all. But our “lawmakers” have to justify their existence.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Eric says:

    Further reminder the liberal wing of the court isn’t intellectually honest.

    Liked by 15 people

  10. todayistheday99 says:

    We are winning back what we should have had all along until OPuke gave it all away.

    Liked by 9 people

  11. Loren says:

    I lived in another country. Mean laws applied just to get approved to live there, some of the laws. After three years must be come a citizen or leave, must show that you can support yourself and family and have a certain amount of money in the bank, no criminal convictions and of course obey the laws of the host country. It took 1 yr and 4 months to get an OK.

    It was the 70’s and the country was Australia. The United Sates was the same and maybe more difficult.

    Liked by 6 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      My sister (US born) is married to an Aussie and back in the 1980’s she couldn’t even visit the country with her husband until she could provide proof of a return airline ticket.

      I believe the policies of the past decade have made it is much easier to get in if you can claim to be fleeing oppression and have the right color or ethnicity. If I am wrong please inform me.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Bendix says:

        Tars, I think they (Australia) loosened up too much, learned their lesson, and are now trying to backtrack.
        They had a ruling not that long ago, when a woman (Muslim) living in Papua New Guinea or someplace was allowed to come to Australia for medical treatment, and sued for the “right” to stay.
        The court ruled there is no such right, that Australia has the right to decide who enters, absolutely.
        I want to post a link, but I am having trouble finding the story now. I may have details wrong.


    • Panama requires, (not sure of other countries), that you have income of 100K+ (last I checked), just to be a expat..

      Liked by 1 person

      • DeplorableCheckIn says:

        No Panama only requires that you have 5 Grand and visit once a year to become a citizen. I looked into this once because Panama is known as a SHTF easiest country to get a passport from if your primary country goes to hell or you just want to retire in Panama.


    • tucker7518 says:

      And the United States has illegals from Mexico who have been here for 20 to 30 years and still can’t speak English.

      Liked by 3 people

    • meow4me2 says:

      The US used to enforce the public charge rule. I definitely remember it from the 1980s. Then no one talked about it much, not sure if that started with Papa Bush or WJC.

      Liked by 1 person

      • stenwin77 says:

        I believe, if you’re coming into our country from anywhere that isn’t our southern border, you have to have a sponsor. is that still the case? Just hispanics and “muslims” get special treatment.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Roger Duroid says:

          My friend from India with a Green Card, tried to bring his 70 year old grandmother here just for a visit. To get a visitors visa for her, INS required him to show proof of health insurance with a policy he had to buy here for her. Too much $$$ for him so she never came. This was 16 years ago.


  12. hokkoda says:

    Seems like Trump and the Court have worked out an arrangement on these absurd “nationwide injunctions”. Maybe it’s an informal agreement, but he has won a long string of these, and the timelines are pretty short since he’s bypassing the appellate reviews.

    It’s stuff like this which makes it important to quickly acquit and get back to the business of the country. The winning continues, and Democrats’ primary weapon against the Public is the court system, and that weapon is being neutralized.

    A way to lock in these wins is more Trump judges. I think even those flaky fence sitter Repubs understand how much good Trump is doing.

    Liked by 8 people

    • MustangBlues says:

      ”’hokkoda says:
      January 27, 2020 at 10:58 pm
      Seems like Trump and the Court have worked out an arrangement on these absurd “nationwide injunctions” Good Point, and

      This is the fruiting of President Trump’s greatest first term achievement: Implementing the dedicated selection of constitutional, competent judges to thwart and root out, the progressive tyranny in the heart of the judicial beast:

      The political selected, anointed judges who rule on the definition of the law, the yokes of social order.

      A new Presidental Type, A Leader, not a Placator, guides the destiny of America The Great.

      Now, human sanity has returned, no more zealot communist progressive liberal anti American goon squad ruling for all. Their day has passed.

      Liked by 5 people

      • hokkoda says:

        I hope so. Most importantly, I hope that our squish Senators recognize that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to clear the path for future GOP Presidents to act more or less unobstructed by Federal District Courts. It’s not just important for Trump to be acquitted. To lock in these institutional changes, he needs a 2nd term. This stuff benefits Trump in the short term, but also Republicans in the long term. Mitt Romney might still want to be President someday (I hope not, but he’s probably going to run again.) He’s not going to want to be greeted by a weaponized judiciary when he gets there. If he’s smart – jury’s out – he’ll act with his own long-term interests in mind.


    • tucker7518 says:

      Mitt Romney is plucking my last nerve. What is wrong with that man?

      Liked by 4 people

      • diogenes says:

        Would you like the list alphabetical or categorical?

        Liked by 4 people

        • meow4me2 says:

          Bucket them into categories and then do a histogram. Keep it simple – backstabbing the President, ignoring the will of his voters, moral pontificating, etc.

          Liked by 2 people

      • stenwin77 says:

        Has he made more stupid statements since the Dershowitz ass-whooping?


      • hokkoda says:

        The Government Party really really does not like us…

        Liked by 2 people

      • MfM says:

        I supported him and voted for Mitt, but was very disappointed in how little he really worked at being elected. I’d still vote for hm against Obama, but he is no surprise as a Congressman. He’s a sleaze and a snake. Romney seems jealous of Trump, but didn’t do 1/10th of the work to get elected that DJT did.

        What Romney really doesn’t get is that we’ve all seen his behavior. He got Trump to endorse him and then turn on the Prez. Romney’s holier than thou attitude comes across as very phony.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. starfcker says:

    Very nice.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Magabear says:

    #Winamin. 😁


  15. JohnCasper says:

    “The court’s [so called] liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, would have blocked the regulation’s enforcement.”

    Rule # 1: Whatever will increase the democrat’s voter base.
    Rule # 2: See Rule # 1.

    Liked by 3 people

    • tucker7518 says:

      Everything the Democrats do is to keep them in office for life.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Linda K. says:

      I would like to know their reasoning. My son married a girl from Germany and they had to go through all sorts of paperwork and a lawyer etc. to make sure she came in the right way. He also was responsible for her support. He could not bring her in and collect welfare.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bendix says:

        Their reasoning is personal feelz that oh we need to be nice to the poor immigrants, because American culture is so bad.


        • X XYZ says:

          That’s the Democrat position. Since the Bush Kings, the Republican position is that America is so wealthy that now we can afford to support everyone who wants to come here, including every human being on this planet. Come on in, folks! Free goodies for you here in the USA!

          The words of Emma Lazarus:
          “…The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
          Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,..”


  16. wendy forward says:

    Gorsuch concurring was awesome.

    Liked by 6 people

  17. The court’s liberal justices, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, would have blocked the regulation’s enforcement.

    This should read: “The court’s ACTIVIST NON-Constitution-following justices, Justices RBG, … ”

    It is a travesty that judges like this should even be on the nation’s high court.

    Liked by 9 people

  18. calbear84 says:

    We have enough public charges already, thank you very much. Good job Mr. President.

    Liked by 7 people

  19. T2020 says:

    Thank the Lord for another victory!😇🙏👍🏻⭐️🇺🇸

    Liked by 6 people

  20. Freedom Wire: “After getting threatened with tariffs if they continued to do nothing about the throngs of people trying to come across the border, Mexico got involved and started using its own military to help combat the hordes of immigrants trying to get into the US.

    So, it seems, that Mexico IS paying for the border wall. The only difference is that they’re not building it out of steel or concrete – they’re building it with THOUSANDS of troops that stop these migrant caravans before they get too far. They’re not just paying for the wall, they ARE the wall.

    Get this; Nearly 15,000 troops are deployed to Mexico’s northern border, where they’ve set up 20 checkpoints. At the southern border, another 12,000 troops are deployed and have set up 21 checkpoints. That may not be a physical barrier. But it’s definitely a wall. That they’re paying for.”

    Status: True.

    Liked by 18 people

    • Ironclaw says:

      The real problem with that is that the next time a communist gets in the Oval, they can wink and nod at the Mexican president and it can all go away overnight. The beauty of a wall is that they can’t turn it off, they can’t deactivate it, they can’t furlough or fire it. It just stands there and does what it’s meant to do.

      Liked by 10 people

      • zekness says:

        it is also a form of demonstration..symbolic in its structure…and in its reasons for construction. It is also a deterrent.

        It is also a formidable obstacle that WILL mitigate against the scourge of drug and human trafficking that should make every single human being physically convulse at the scale and effects of this on-going lack of courage to protect our citizens from these horrendous and toxic criminal enterprises.

        I look at the wall as a monument.

        It says ” this is MY country…You are not permitted unless ALLOWED”


        When I was young I lived in Germany, My father took my family across Checkpoint Charlie into east berlin…a communist block. The wall left a extraordinary impression on me. I was young. I asked so many questions. Why?

        Then it was conclusively explained to me: the wall was constructed to prevent escape into freedom. The communist state could not compete to the democratic freedoms enjoyed by the west. So they had to create a wall. Because the idea of communism could not actually work when just a few yards away, it was clear the western ideas were preferable. The wall, you see, was a physical barrier, but it was also a psychological wall. The wall was built on propaganda.

        This southern wall expresses no similarities to the Berlin Wall. This is not some political idealogical manifestation. It is the result of a real and clear and present danger that has been allowed to exist for decades…It is an answer to a danger that is real and terrible.

        This wall protects against those that would do harm to US. This wall forces the criminal enterprises to locate their efforts into much more difficult paths. Paths that are more efficiently and tightly controlled.

        This wall asserts an unconditional challenge to our Southern American Governments: You are responsible for your own. You will not longer be permitted to hold your people in such low regard. You WILL govern. We will not govern for you. We will ask that you take your responsibilities with the care of respect that your people deserve. We have placed this wall here to remind your of those responsibilties. We will meet you at this wall and discuss how you will solve your internal problems, your economic defects, and we will help you do that. However, what we will not do anymore, is to continue to be the safety valve for problems that you refuse to solve yourself. This wall is for US…But it also FOR YOU!

        Liked by 8 people

        • LafnH20 says:

          Nicely done, zekness.

          Nicely done, Indeed!!

          Liked by 1 person

          • zekness says:

            JTR….Wow…thank you so much for that. My father would sing this loud and proud. He was a really good singer…a true spirit and character. The Colonel doesn’t do as much singing these days, but he hasn’t lost that spark…

            My entire life has been to honor my father and those like him as he and they before them.

            It’s sounds corny to these young kids when you try to explain it.

            but I can tell you leaves a big impression even on the new young generation to hear an old fella roaring out a solid battle hymn. It certainly gets their attention…And I think that’s the point.


      • X XYZ says:

        No. They can and would demolish it. Demolition is easier to do than it is to build anything.


  21. Colorado Rich says:

    What are the commies gonna do when 80,000,000 people vote for President Trumps re-election? But the new topic now is since the commies stole our first election, we deserve a replacement, Trump 2024. God bless the USA

    Liked by 5 people

  22. jus wundrin says:

    Bout damn time!

    Liked by 1 person

  23. alliwantissometruth says:

    Democrats and the “media” simply say “the public charge rule” without explaining what it means to their nitwit base, and then go on and on about racism

    If they explained it to their brain dead base like this…

    “It means we can no longer accept immigrants that have no money and will need housing, food, schooling and health care that you the taxpayers will have to pay for”

    The nitwits might finally understand just whom they’re voting for

    Liked by 12 people

    • Kimmy K says:


      Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      In addition, perhaps in part because of the immigration lsw changes put in by Ted Kennedy, the term “immigrant” and especially illegal immigrant is,automatically associated in many people minds with ‘hispanic’, hence any attempts to enforce immigration laws are “rascist”.

      Reality is both legal and illegal immigrants come from every country and region of the world, to the U.S.

      I knew an illegal from Canada, when I was young. White Canadian, did a visa overstay.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Sentient says:

    This ruling shouldn’t even be characterized as the president winning (although he is). An honest press would say that it’s Congress that’s winning because a duly-passed law (albeit one passed by a prior congress) can now be enforced by the executive – whose job is to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. If Congress doesn’t like the law THEY created, try to change it to allow immigrants to be “public charges”. (Good luck with that.)

    Liked by 8 people

  25. Your Tour Guide says:

    This is so beyond great.

    Also one to read the tea leaves on. Since YTG
    is around the corner from immigration central
    (Clarkston, GA), I’m going to be reporting back
    down the line about this one.

    Right now Clarkston and other corrupt cities that
    are most likely skimming federal refugee dollars
    are all in on sending MORE! MORE! MORE! here.

    Pretty sure that many of these areas are , basically,
    money laundering operations. Have heard plenty of
    tales about who all get the monies allotted. Very high
    overhead seems to be prevalent among orgs dispensing
    some of the refugee funding.

    So, if the refugee or illegal numbers are curtailed, what
    will happen to the Clarkstons of the country? To Lutheran
    Social Services? To Catholic Charities? And, this is the
    short list.

    Liked by 4 people

  26. Ironclaw says:

    Good, we should never be bringing in people who are certain to end up as public charges and we shouldn’t keep those who have proven to be one. When I brought my wife here, I had to certify under penalty of felony that she would not be receiving any money or benefits from the public purse, and I made sure that never happened.

    Liked by 5 people


    Deport “Public-Charge Illegals”.

    Simply “Follow the MONEY” to snag the people who get it.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. zekness says:


    so very very very sad..

    Contemplate these so-called judges are the interpreters of laws

    LAWS…US LAWS LAWS that was created and exists to protect and to secure CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    2019….and the most fundamental core blood and marrow…and we have 5-4…

    this is shameful.

    Liked by 5 people

  29. Do stop thinking about tomorrow says:

    Just think in 5 or 9 or 13 years from now when some younger version of Bernie convinces The US that all this winning is bad. All of our victories can be lost over night. Just look at VA every one knew what those bast@rds would do if elected. They no longer care to hide their hatred for our country.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Do stop thinking about tomorrow says:

      Look no further than impeachment for hatred.


    • Dutchman says:

      I LOOK to Virginia, and WHAT do I see?
      The State, attempting a massive Conmunist overreach,….
      And over 100 municipalities declaring “No” (2A,sanctuaries).
      And 20,000+ showing up at the Capital, armed to the teeth, men, women, black, white, hispanic to say “NO”.

      Politely, but firmly saying “Come and TAKE it, from my cold, dead hands, m’fers!”

      So, I see Virginia as a WIN, is what I see.
      Even as P.R., it was a Victory.

      What do YOU see.

      As for a younger Bernie, in so many years; whether Bernie gets the nomination or not doesn’t MATTER.

      All the Candidates, including Joe have adopted his POLICY positions, so ANY Dem candidate in 2020 is,a Bernie clone.

      And his policies are going to be so thouroughly discredited and rejected, as will the party, that NO ONE is going to be advocating “Open Borders”, Universal government run health care, etc. for at least a generation.

      I see winning, not dead people, lol.
      WHAT do YOU see?

      Liked by 2 people

      • tucker7518 says:

        Virginia is going to be sorry for electing so many Democrats. Look what a mess the Democrats made of Baltimore City. Mayor Pete Buttigieg town, West Bend Indiana is a big mess too. Crime is up and both black and white people are moving out.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          You can tell if a town or city is Dem run or not, its distinctive from coast to coast.
          Virginia, like the rest of the country, has had to learn.
          Sometimes a kid has to jump off the roof, and break a leg,….in order to LEARN, not to do it, again.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Your Tour Guide says:

          “Crime is up and both black and white people are moving out”.

          Crime and democrats go hand in hand. That’s their peeps,
          just on a lower social strata. Felons are felons. Whether in
          the municipal building, the state house, congress, or on the

          Look at Chicago. Sky high crime? Always. Off the chart
          corruption? Over a century , and counting.


        • Linda K. says:

          There are conservatives here in California, but we have no voice. Virginia, beware.


  30. THIS, in My world, means alot as I see & notice , Hispanics overwhelming Social services & the ER rooms (over something as the common cold).

    TANF/Medicare/EBT & HUD Housing, Hopefully this Will stem the tide AND, force those too Go BACK HOME , the USA is no longer a “free ride”..

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Matthew LeBlanc says:

    Definitely winning

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Hebo Sabe says:

    “The ruling blocks a nation-wide injunction put into place by a single activist judge.”

    Four of them on the SCOTUS. If they had one more…


  33. wodiej says:

    President Trump is on a mission from God. There is no other explanation.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. hawkins6 says:

    Professor Dershowitz made me laugh a few times during his brilliant and historic presentation.
    ie. When he turned around and looked at Justice Roberts and pointed to him in reference to the “unbiased court.”

    Some “scholars,” especially TDS ones, will disagree with some of his opinions but Alan made a historic speech on the Constitution that will be an informative video for a long time. High schools should include it for example.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. hawkins6 says:

    :”……a massive win for American taxpayers, American workers, and the American Constitution.” And these words are only a fraction of POTUS’s accomplishments.

    Meanwhile, the foolish sore loser Dem House managers are tying up the Senate and distracting the successful President on a contrived political dirty trick. The loyal appreciative crowds that turn out in massive numbers to be with him at his rallies are a significant part of his reward.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Conservative_302 says:

    I thank the good Lord today for Trump and his administration, conservative supreme court justices, and God’s favor on us. May he protect, watch over, and favor Trump to continue his work.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Right to reply says:

    Its quite frightening to see the amount of judges, secret service, teachers, and armed forces who are American destroying Marxists/Socialists, and Communists.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. thedoc00 says:

    The Supreme Court needs to find a way to rule that “District” Federal Courts are just as their titles suggest “District” Courts responsible for adjudicating Federal Cases within their allocated territorial districts. The DoJ needs to add this to one of their upcoming cases to have it stated as a matter of “law” by the Supreme Court.

    If one wants a nation wide ruling there are two choices; go each district court or follow remedies to the Supreme Court. This is a ruling that actually aligns with Justice Roberts’ views on properly following full remedies through the court (legal) system.

    Liked by 3 people

  39. Ploni says:


    Liked by 1 person

  40. Marcia says:

    Retired Magistrate here: When you are sworn in as a Judge or Magistrate, you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution; not try to implement your own social agenda.

    Unfortunately, too many Judges and Magistrates have chosen to follow their own social agenda rather than do what they were sworn in to do.

    Also, when Judges run for election it is very difficult to find out what their course of action will be because judicial ethics rules prevent a candidate from stating how they might rule on a certain case. The only way you can determine how a Judge or Magistrate might rule is to look at prior decisions; however, the average voter does not know where to look and does not have the time to do a thorough investigation. In addition, this only applies to incumbent Judges/Magistrates. Candidates running for the first time are truly an unknown.

    Quite frankly, I am sickened by all the activist Judges/Magistrates currently on the bench!

    Liked by 3 people

    • X XYZ says:

      “When you are sworn in as a Judge or Magistrate, you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution; not try to implement your own social agenda.”

      Unfortunately, that illustrates what an oath is worth.

      I’ve often seen elections for judges where they are running on all party lines, Democrat, Republican, Conservative and Liberal. I don’t vote for judges like that.


  41. Mike in a Truck says:

    Something seriously efen wrong in this country when Veterans like me have to pay out of pocket for routine medical care but these border jumpers are given the whole enchilada on a silver platter. They get the best medical care the taxpayers can provide- just like a congressman or senator.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Bendix says:

      I know an immigrant woman, a refugee herself. She was so fed up, at the time she was expecting her third child, that she was considering showing up at the hospital in labor, having the baby, and walking away from the bill.
      The NYC area hospitals charged maybe 10 grand for childbirth, and she saw scores of immigrants dropping in for free, and not only that, they got the added benefit, if they were illegal, of CITIZENSHIP for their kids.
      This woman had to go through a process, and her parents spent money, and as adults she and her husband worked, worked, worked, and they had to pay through the nose for medical care others got for free.


  42. Rj says:

    What about the provision that says a new citizen can not apply or take or seek any assistance ? Does this mean ALL illegals can now have their welfare stopped along with their food stamps ? It’s extremely hard to believe these people on the Supreme Court and much of the judicial system call themselves Americans.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. Bogeyfree says:

    Now how do we get others in government to do the same??

    The DC Forest of “Oak Trees” (perpetrators) is littered with acorns (crimes) and yet our government has not found one crime from the following:

    HRC unclassified Server which includes emails from Obama

    HRC 33K “missing” emails to & from that unsecured server that the NSA has had all along

    Uranium One even with 2 WB in hand

    Hammer Program even with 47 hard drives and a WB in hand

    Wiener Laptop & alleged NYPD stand down orders

    Russia Collusion Coup

    Made up Dossier and fraud on FISA Court even with 85% of an audit proving were non compliant

    FIB Contractor Abuse to surveil on millions of Americans

    Alleged DNC hack by Russians where the FIB accepts a written report from a bird party as gospel

    Did the DOJ ever depose Jullian Assange a first hand witness on the DNC emails?

    Seth Rich murder

    Did FIB and thus DOJ know all along Mifsud and Halper were ALWAYS western agents?

    Does the FIB and DOJ know where the money came from when they setup PapaD?

    Why when there is a blatant video of a VP bragging about withholding monies unless a prosecutor is fired there is no investigation?

    Why when there is massive evidence of corruption and money laundering by Americans and Ukraine officials is there no investigation?

    Where is Rudy’s evidence that he gave Pompeo?

    Where are the Ukraine communications from the prior administration back in 2016 that Lindsey requested?

    With the authority to see anything and everything (all email, texts, vm) regarding the FIB’s handling of the Russia Collusion/Dossier/Spygate investigation, to date most is still hidden and not a single arrest.

    Why does blatant and known lying and leaking go unpunished?

    So out of ALL of THIS, there is not one crime, not one person who did anything wrong?

    Is everything just an accident, a miscue, a policy issue? is that even statistically possible?

    It truly is now laughable at just how obvious this obsession to hide the truth and ignore evidence has become many leaders in our government IMO.

    IMO it is time to admit, we have a massive, massive problem within our government when it comes to honesty, integrity and to uphold and apply the law equally to all.

    At this point IMO PT is better off just exposing EVERYTHING directly to the American people and using his legal team to explain the corruption, the crimes and why this has ALWAYS been from the start a coup to take down a sitting President in order to reverse the American people’s vote AND to hide their crimes.

    This IMO is part of the Cold Anger that Sundance speaks about!

    So many IMO have now shown their true colors and it is time Americans take back their country first by exposing these perpetrators and these fraudsters and then ousting and incarcerating these perpetrators once and for all.

    Liked by 3 people

  44. keystonekon says:

    Finally, the blood sucking illegals from ALL countries will come to an end. We simply cannot afford the ones already taking us to the cleaners. Can we next deport all those who never had any intention of working, and pulled behind them a load of siblings, aunts, uncles and grandmas with the same intention? ENOUGH!
    Yes, it’s aggravating that a single judge anywhere can clog the wheels of our Constitution with mud. This must end. Just as the SC was an issue in 2016, we need even more conservative judges there in term 2. I’m still not so convinced about Gorsuch. He’s no Clarence Thomas!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Linda K. says:

      I also have wondered how a single federal judge could keep blocking Trump’s policy’s. This needs to be addressed. Gorsuch and Thomas wrote the critic of nationwide injunctions by a single federal judge to interfere with policy, but how can that be stopped?It seems like a Lawfare ploy to me.

      Liked by 1 person

  45. BigBlockMill says:

    Looks like the court is closing off the automatic path for illegals to become democrat voters and wards of the state.
    If this keeps up, we may become a country of laws and not of men.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Shyster says:

    My understanding is that this ruling is substantially more ground breaking and has far more reaching ramifications on the immigration process than has been casually and on first blush reported. Apparently, the “public charge” rule also applies to both the lottery and chain migration provisions of our immigration law. If correct, boys this is a game changer that will effectively end these two disgusting loop holes. You apply to have grandpa enter the U.S. under chain migration – oh wait, he can’t support himself at the ripe old age of 76. Sorry, but application denied. You win the immigration lottery in Gianna but can’t demonstrate you can support yourself or afford health insurance, sorry application denied. If correct, this ruling might be the answer to a large part of our broken immigration policies and the beginning of the end of the unbridled immigration of the uneducated and poor into our great country.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. golfmann says:

    There has GOT to be a price to pay for these single, unelected, activist, political judges trying to run the country. Some kind of sanction or rising score that cost them materially, pensions, salary or some such. Too many and impeachment is triggered.

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Bendix says:

    Millions of immigrants have come here and obeyed every single existing law.
    The waiving of the law requiring proof you would not become a public charge seemed to be based on race, creed, color, or national origin.

    I personally know a woman who came here from Columbia, now has her Green Card, and along the way of the process, did not touch one penny of public money. She was not a wealthy woman when she came here, quite the contrary. If she could do it the right way, so can anyone else.
    We have Americans who have it just as rough, in the economy our government engineered for them. Why should any government official’s heart bleed over people who chose to come here, not having nice housing and free stuff given to them?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s