Biden Policy: Force Illegal Aliens to Remain in Texas
Joe Biden has new plan for force illegal immigrants to remain in Texas in order to give aid to Democrat run cities that are struggling due to their own sanctuary policies.
In a move that has ignited outrage across the nation, the Biden administration is reportedly hatching a sinister plan under the guise of addressing the ongoing immigration crisis at the southern border. This proposal, involves the use of GPS monitoring devices, such as ankle bracelets, to track the movement of illegal immigrants while they undergo asylum screenings. The real aim? To force these individuals to remain in Texas and other border states; a decision that reveals a sinister agenda to manipulate demographics and flout the Constitution and the will of the people.
From the very outset of his presidency, the Biden administration’s approach to handling illegal immigration has displayed a blatant disregard for the Constitution and the desires of the American people. The situation at the southern border has been marked by an alarming surge in the number of migrants attempting to enter the United States, fueled by the administration’s reckless policies that encourage illegal immigration.
One of the most glaring violations of the Constitution lies in the Biden administration’s disregard for immigration laws enacted by Congress. The Constitution clearly delineates the separation of powers, with Congress responsible for crafting and passing legislation. Yet, the Biden administration has unilaterally chosen to circumvent the laws on immigration, implementing policies that effectively grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and undermine the rule of law.
According to reports from the Los Angeles Times, the administration’s proposal involves tracking the location of illegal immigrants through GPS monitoring devices while they await asylum screenings. This monitoring extends to imposing a curfew, with one family member required to wear an ankle bracelet to ensure compliance. If families fail the initial asylum screening, they could face deportation. Thus, ensuring that they remain in Texas or another border State.
The program, ominously known as the Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM), is set to be implemented by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE officials claim that the program is aimed at encouraging families to appear for their asylum screenings and, if eligible, to remain in the United States. However, the true intent behind this program is far more insidious: it seeks to engineer demographic changes in the border states, all while disregarding the Constitution.
As part of a broader shift away from detention for illegal immigrants, the Biden administration has increasingly turned to “alternatives to detention” (ATD) methods, which include tracking bracelets, smartphone apps, and telephone reporting. This approach allows migrants to live and work in the United States while awaiting immigration proceedings, all while undermining the Constitution and the will of the American people.
In a recent twist, the administration is now rolling out a pilot program in Houston and Baltimore, placing hundreds of migrants on house arrest with an 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. curfew. The exceptions, for work and other exceptional circumstances, are nothing more than a smokescreen for their true intentions. This move further intensifies the disturbing pattern of deception that characterizes the administration’s immigration policies.
The impact of the immigration crisis is not confined to the southern border; it is a nationwide crisis. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas initiated a program known as “Operation Lone Star,” sending migrants and asylum seekers from the border to northern “sanctuary” cities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. This strategy aims to shift the burden away from Texas, which has been overrun by illegals, taxing the States resources, and onto cities that have declared ‘Sanctuary’ status and naively dismissed its costs. But Abbott’s plan accounts for only about 10% of the influx of aliens into thes cities, the Biden administration is responsible for the remaining 90%.
Biden’s maneuver raises another constitutional concern—interference with States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the States. By using these cities as dumping grounds for migrants, the Biden administration infringes upon the sovereignty of these states and their ability to govern their own affairs.
As a result, northern cities have experienced a significant influx of migrants, stretching their budgets and straining their communities. This crisis has torn at the fabric of these cities and has starkly revealed the administration’s contempt for the Constitution and the interests of the American people. Even once-loyal Democratic allies have joined Republicans in demanding action from President Biden.
Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, has declared that without federal assistance and stricter border controls, the ongoing migration could “destroy New York City.” Los Angeles has pledged to sue Governor Abbott over the influx of migrants, while Chicago’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, has issued a desperate plea for the White House to intervene.
Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts, a liberal Democrat, declared a state of emergency, activated the National Guard, and started petitioning the White House for help in dealing with the challenges posed by the influx of migrants. The crisis is now too dire to ignore, even for those within the Democratic Party who have long supported lax immigration policies.
The immigration crisis has also sparked infighting within the Democratic Party, as some lawmakers recognize the administration’s disregard for the Constitution and the will of the people. Rep. Pat Ryan of New York, once a staunch Democrat, has called for a federal response to the crisis and has even broken ranks with his party to support measures aimed at discouraging schools from sheltering migrants. His message is clear: President Biden must take charge and address the crisis more effectively.
Democratic congressional candidate Josh Riley has condemned President Biden’s aloofness on the issue, branding it as offensive and emphasizing the need for a federal response to the problem. The immigration crisis has placed enormous pressure on the Biden administration, and the American people demand accountability for policies that undermine the Constitution and the nation’s sovereignty.
To address the backlash from his own party, the Biden administration’s proposal is to force illegal aliens to remain in Texas and other border states through GPS monitoring and curfews is a sinister manipulation of demographics that disregards the Constitution and the will of the American people. In this way he can accomplish his goals of demographic shift while maintaining favor with his Democrat supporters in the large Cities. It is imperative that the Biden administration be held accountable for its actions and that a genuine solution be found—one that respects the Constitution, secures the border, and protects the interests of the American people.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem joined national security leaders in a dual-state event to commemorate a historic decline in border crossings, according to an official release from the Department of Homeland Security. The event spanned two locations, Arizona and North Dakota, in a single day, highlighting coordinated efforts to strengthen border security. Noem, alongside other officials, marked the achievement as a significant milestone in national security policy.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a measurable drop in unauthorized border crossings, attributing the success to enhanced enforcement measures and inter-agency collaboration. Specific data on the decline was not detailed in the initial announcement, though officials emphasized the impact of recent policy implementations. The two-state commemoration underscored the geographic breadth of the issue, addressing both southern and northern border concerns.
In Arizona, Noem and security leaders reviewed operations along the southern border, a longstanding focal point for immigration enforcement. Later in the day, the group traveled to North Dakota to assess northern border security, an area often overlooked in national discussions but critical to comprehensive policy. The dual focus aimed to demonstrate a unified approach to protecting all U.S. borders, per the department’s statement.
The official release from Homeland Security included remarks from Noem, who praised the dedication of personnel involved in the effort. “This decline in crossings is a testament to the hard work of our agents and the effectiveness of our strategies,” she said. Her comments were echoed by other leaders present, though no additional direct quotations were provided in the initial report.
Background on the border security initiatives reveals a multi-year push to address vulnerabilities at both entry points. Southern border challenges, particularly in Arizona, have long dominated policy debates due to high volumes of crossings and complex terrain. Meanwhile, northern border issues in states like North Dakota often involve different dynamics, including trade security and seasonal migration patterns. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized resources for both regions, though specific funding allocations remain undisclosed in the latest update.
The cause of the reported decline ties directly to recent enforcement actions, though exact mechanisms were not specified in the announcement. Officials pointed to improved technology, increased staffing, and stronger partnerships with local and state authorities as contributing factors. Further details on these efforts are expected in forthcoming reports from the department, which has committed to transparency on border metrics.
Opinion
The recognition of a decline in border crossings signals a potential turning point in how the nation secures its frontiers. Celebrating this achievement in two distinct regions reinforces the importance of a comprehensive strategy that does not neglect less-discussed areas like the northern border.
Events like these also serve as a reminder that security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental duty of government. Prioritizing resources and personnel to protect sovereignty while maintaining lawful entry processes should remain a core focus, ensuring that progress is sustained through consistent policy and accountability.
CARACAS, VENEZUELA — When President Donald J. Trump dropped the phrase “Discombobulator” in a recent interview, the world sat up and took notice. According to the president, the United States deployed a secret weapon to render Venezuelan military systems useless as U.S. forces executed a daring raid that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
In an interview with the New York Post, Trump stated the device “made the equipment not work,” and that Venezuelan radar, missiles, and defensive systems “never got their rockets off” during the operation. “I’m not allowed to talk about it,” he said, referring to the classified nature of the technology.
The remarks have sparked curiosity, skepticism, and intense speculation about what the “Discombobulator” might actually be — and what its use means for U.S. military capability and foreign policy.
What Happened: The Maduro Raid and the Discombobulator Claim
On January 3, 2026, U.S. special operations forces carried out a rapid, highly coordinated mission in Caracas that culminated in the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, involved aircraft, helicopters, unmanned drones, and elite troops.
Speaking about the raid, Trump took credit for the success, telling the New York Post and others that a classified weapon, the so-called Discombobulator, as he called it, played a decisive role. He claimed that the device disabled Venezuelan military equipment, including systems supplied by Russia and China, before U.S. forces landed.
According to Trump’s account, Venezuelan troops tried to activate their defenses, “pressed buttons,” and found nothing worked. The president’s description suggests a form of electronic or directed-energy warfare — although he offered no detail on mechanism or development.
Context: Military Technology and Secrecy
The U.S. military has long invested in electronic warfare and directed-energy research. Systems that jam radar, disrupt communications, and interfere with electronic signals have been under development for decades. Yet no publicly acknowledged program has been confirmed to match Trump’s description of the Discombobulator.
Wartime secrecy and classification make it entirely plausible that capabilities not widely known could exist. Still, without independent verification or military documentation, journalists and analysts caution against jumping to definitive claims based on the president’s interview alone.
Conservative Commentary and Conclusion (Opinion)
The success of the Maduro raid reflects decisive leadership and a willingness to act where lesser administrations have hesitated. The Discombobulator claim — irrespective of its accuracy — underscores a broader theme: American ingenuity paired with bold strategy is unstoppable.
If such a capability exists and was responsibly employed to save lives and neutralize threats without explosive conflict, it represents a powerful demonstration of military superiority. Critics who mock the name risk missing the larger strategic point.
Whether the Discombobulator ends up in the annals of military history or remains a rhetorical flourish, the episode has already ignited fear in our adversaries about American power, innovation, and military might.
Sources:
- President Trump comments on “Discombobulator,” PBS NewsHour, Jan. 26, 2026.
- AP News reporting on Trump’s interview and weapon description.
- Gulf News analysis of unnamed weapon and its reported effects.
- Axios on use of U.S. drones and technology in operation.
- Wikipedia entry on 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela.
New York, NY – It was a decision guaranteed to ignite outrage, and ProPublica knew it. In the middle of a volatile national debate over immigration enforcement and federal authority, the nonprofit newsroom chose to publicly identify the federal agents involved in a fatal shooting, pouring gasoline on an already raging fire.
On January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti was shot and killed during an anti immigration enforcement protest in Minneapolis. Ten shots were fired in less than five seconds. The shooting occurred amid Operation Metro Surge, a federal deployment of immigration agents to urban areas that has drawn intense public opposition and repeated demonstrations. Days later, ProPublica published a story naming the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents who fired the shots.
We will not repeat those names here. We will not contribute to a situation that places federal agents and their families at heightened risk of harassment, threats, or violence.
The ProPublica story was authored by reporter J. David McSwane (202-556-3836), who, unlike the agents he identified, voluntarily used his own name. He also voluntarily publishes his contact information. ProPublica defended the decision in a public note from its editors, arguing that disclosing the agents’ identities served the public interest and promoted accountability. According to the outlet, officials had not released key information quickly enough, and anonymity, they argued, shielded those involved from scrutiny.
That justification has not satisfied critics across the country, particularly given the timing and political climate surrounding the case. The agents involved were placed on administrative leave, and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the shooting. Those processes were already underway when ProPublica chose to publish the names.
The shooting itself unfolded in the early morning hours on Nicollet Avenue. Pretti, a 37 year old nurse and military veteran, arrived at the protest site as federal agents were conducting immigration related arrests. Video footage shows Pretti holding a phone and recording officers as they interacted with civilians. A confrontation followed.
According to publicly available video timelines, Pretti was pepper sprayed, pulled into the street, and restrained by multiple federal agents. During the struggle, a firearm was present. Moments later, shots were fired. Pretti was struck multiple times and pronounced dead at the scene.
Federal officials stated that Pretti was armed and that agents fired their weapons during a struggle while carrying out their duties. Forensic audio analysis later confirmed that ten shots were discharged in under five seconds. The precise sequence of actions and decisions leading to the shooting remains under investigation by federal authorities.
What is not under investigation is ProPublica’s editorial choice. By naming the agents while emotions were raw and protests ongoing, the outlet ensured that the focus would shift away from institutional review and toward individual targeting. That shift was immediate.
Social media reaction to the story was fierce. Some praised ProPublica for what they described as courageous transparency. Others warned that the publication had effectively doxxed law enforcement officers in the middle of a national political firestorm. One widely shared post accused the reporter of placing “a target” on the agents and their families. The debate quickly devolved into ideological trench warfare.
This is not an abstract concern. In recent years, law enforcement officers across the country have faced harassment, threats, and attacks following the release of personal information online. Families, spouses, and children often bear the brunt of that exposure, despite having no connection to the incidents in question.
ProPublica maintains that accountability requires identification. But accountability in the American system is not crowdsourced outrage. It is established through investigations, evidence, and due process. Those mechanisms were already in motion. Publishing names did nothing to advance the investigations themselves. It did, however, amplify public pressure and personal risk.
This moment underscores a troubling trend in modern journalism. Activist outlets increasingly blur the line between reporting and advocacy, treating exposure as an end in itself. In doing so, they often dismiss the real-world consequences of their choices, particularly when those consequences fall on people deemed politically acceptable targets.
The death of Alex Pretti is serious and tragic. It deserves a full accounting, grounded in facts and resolved through lawful processes. Federal agents, like any other government actors, must be held to the same legal standards. But they are also entitled to due process and basic personal safety.
By choosing to name the agents before investigations are complete, ProPublica did not simply report on the story. It became part of it. And in doing so, the outlet raised a question that now hangs over its own newsroom: when journalism knowingly endangers lives, who holds the journalists accountable?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login