Kerby Anderson
Donald Trump hasn’t even been sworn into office, and yet governors in blue states and the legacy media are already criticizing a deportation program that hasn’t even begun. Unfortunately, some of the comments aren’t merely hostile but grossly inaccurate. If we are going to have a worthwhile debate about deportation, then let’s get accurate facts on the table.
First, Tom Homan, the newly designated “border czar,” has made his three-step process very clear. The primary focus will be the deportation of national security threats, with a secondary focus on individuals with a criminal record in this country or their country of origin.
Second, there are more than 1.2 million people in this country illegally that have had full legal due process and have received a final deportation order from an immigration judge. Those were the numbers as of September a year ago. The actual number may be close to 1.5 million to 1.6 million.
Byron York points out that in an ironic twist, the Trump administration may end up using the Mayorkas Memorandum created by the current Secretary of Homeland Security in the Biden administration. The memo lays out the rules for deporting illegal immigrants.
It sets as the first priorities the “apprehension and removal of noncitizens who are a threat to our national security, public safety, and border security.” It explains that the first group was terrorists and spies. The second group were criminals. The third group were those who are a threat to border security. Those would be immigrants who were apprehended after November 2020.
Critics are already howling about the possibility of deportations, and the decibels are certain to increase. But Americans need to know that these first deportations will be the removal of people most of us don’t want in this country.

Penna Dexter
Speaking last month before the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned that he intends to submit documents to start the process of expelling Israel from the United Nations. His reason? Israel’s refusal to cede its territory to create a Palestinian state.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, discussing the threat on his podcast Verdict, said if Israel is removed from membership, the United States may, itself, withdraw from the U.N.
Senator Cruz says, “If the U.N. expels Israel, the U.S. should halt all funding from America to the U.N.”
The United States is, by far, the U.N.’s largest benefactor.
In a letter to lawmakers, the senator from Texas wrote, “The effort to diplomatically isolate Israel is aimed at ultimately destroying the Jewish state, which is both obscene and antithetical to American national security interests.”
Now may be a good time to discuss U.S. participation in the United Nations. Israel is not the only point of contention.
We should also oppose the ongoing efforts at the U.N. to make abortion an international human right, and its promotion of protected class status based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
U.N. directives often find themselves being debated in Congress. Last week Congressman Nikema Williams, along with 100 Democrat co-sponsors, introduced a resolution declaring an international right to abortion. According to Stephano Gennarini, Vice President for Legal Studies with the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), “There is no international right to abortion under any treaty ratified by the U.S. government.”
C-Fam’s Friday FAX explains that the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with U.N. civil rights agreements, “routinely goes beyond its mandate calling on governments to decriminalize abortion in all circumstances.”
Mr. Gennarini also says a treaty has been drafted that treats lobbying and political activity opposing pro-trans policies as crimes against humanity.
The U.S. has leverage at the U.N. Will we use it to stop this stuff?