No products in the cart.


Leaked Executive Order Reveals Trump Crackdown On Immigrant Welfare

Leaked Executive Order Reveals Trump Crackdown On Immigrant WelfareThis article comes from

Seemingly following the proposals of Bill Clinton (and Ron Paul), The Washington Post reports that a leaked document shows the Trump administration is planning to crackdown on current, and would-be, immigrants who are likely to require public assistance.

After Bill Clinton received a standing ovation for suggesting crackdown on immigrant welfare…

“We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws”

“Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country…

Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers…

That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes…

It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it.”

And following Ron Paul’s advice this week that the solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear:

Remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Read more here.

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. Get rid of the sugar…Get rid of the ants…!!!! I for one am tired of these welfare humping leeches spoiling the picnics of Hard working Americans. How many of these people are males of fighting age..?? I see no need for our Brave young Americans to die for something that these people themselves are not willing to fight for. Lets all go to America and suck the system dry at the expense of the American tax payer….BULL@#$%…GET OUT..!!! STAY OUT..!!

  2. Trump is following the Immigration and Naturalization Act 1952. Also see the Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not empower the United States to detain indefinitely immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept.
    Dissenting opinions
    photograph of Justice Antonin Scalia
    Justice Antonin Scalia, author of one of the dissenting opinions

    Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the majority. Scalia stated that an alien who has no legal right to be in the United States has no right to release into the country that is trying to expel him or her. Scalia quoted Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent, in asserting that “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”[italics in original][2]

    Justice Anthony Kennedy also dissented. Kennedy said that the majority disregarded congressional intent and then rewrote the statute. He posited that Congress gave the Attorney General the express authority to order continued detention, and added that the majority misapplied the concept of statutory construction, noting that the court could only distinguish between plausible interpretations. If there were two or more interpretations, then the court is bound to accept the one that does not create a constitutional issue, but Kennedy states that this was never the situation in this case.

    Trump does have executive authority to enforce immigration laws passed by congress.

Comments are closed.