Stop the Library of Congress from Pandering to Pro-Amnesty Groups

FAIR Action AlertLast week, at the behest of pro-amnesty groups, the Library of Congress announced that “the heading ‘Illegal aliens’ will therefore be canceled and replaced by two headings, Noncitizens and unauthorized immigration, which may be assigned together to describe resources about people who illegally reside in the country.”

The Library of Congress’s decision is blatant capitulation to political correctness — replacing the correct term “illegal alien” with terms that are both factually and legally incorrect. The term “noncitizen” is overly broad and encompasses individuals who are legally entitled to be in the country, including legal permanent residents (green card holders) and guest workers. By contrast, illegal aliens have disregarded our immigration laws and reside in the country unlawfully.

Call Your Representative NOW!

The term “illegal alien” is the most legally precise, descriptive term in the lexicon. It delineates between one of only two possible categories; one either has legal status to be on U.S. soil or one is residing here illegally. “Illegal” means prohibited by law. Yes, entry without inspection into the U.S. is prohibited. And “alien” is a term that refers to a person who is not a citizen of the country. The term is well defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101. It is used by legal professionals across the board including the United States Supreme Court.

Despite what the pro-amnesty groups claimed to the Library of Congress, there is nothing insulting or dehumanizing about using the term alien to indicate an individual is a non-citizen. Likewise, it is perfectly fitting to acknowledge that an alien who is residing illegally in the United States has broken the law. To identify someone as an “illegal alien” does not imply a value statement about the person’s humanity; it merely identifies the individual’s immigration status.

Simply, it is inappropriate for the Library of Congress to unilaterally replace accurate, legal terms with inaccurate, generalized terms in the name of political correctness. Therefore, FAIR is encouraging all of its members and activists to urge their representatives to co-sponsor Congresswoman Diane Black’s bill to stop this absurd decision and ensure the integrity of terminology used by the Library of Congress. The bill, H.R. 4926, explicitly requires the Library of Congress to continue using the terms “alien” and “illegal alien.”

Call Your Representative NOW!

Tell him or her:

  • You OPPOSE the Library of Congress’ decision to replace correct legal terms at the request of pro-amnesty groups.
  • You expect them to CO-SPONSOR H.R. 4926, which mandates continued use of “alien” and “illegal alien.”

Make your voice heard! To find your Representative, click here.



After Years of Federal Abuse, the National Border Patrol Council Has Had Enough

US-Mexico_border_fenceWhen a union endorses a candidate for the first time in its 59-year existence, the move is notable. When an AFL-CIO-affiliated union casts that first endorsement for a Republican, the move is unheard of. But that’s exactly what happened on Wednesday when the National Border Patrol Council took this unprecedented step and endorsed real-estate mogul Donald Trump for president.

In a statement announcing the endorsement, the union detailed their reasoning. “We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.”

Questions immediately arise in the wake of this unanticipated endorsement: Why Donald Trump? Why now? Why did the council remain out of the political fray for so many years? The answer is frustrating, but simple. Border Patrol agents are fighting a two-front war: one on our borders, and another against an oppressive federal government.

Not only has the Obama administration’s policy of non-enforcement made it difficult for agents to protect our nation’s borders, they have also made that task much more dangerous. Throughout the past seven years, non-enforcement and other scandals have weakened our borders and even resulted in the death of border patrol agents.

In December of 2010, gang members gunned down Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in a violent shootout near the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona. A number of the weapons found at the scene were part of the Obama administration’s infamous Fast and Furious operation that allowed Mexican cartel members to purchase firearms in order to trace their movements. The administration failed in this mission, and as many as 1,300 of the approximately 2,000 monitored firearms were lost. Adding insult to injury, federal prosecutors successfully campaigned to minimize the sentences handed down to agent Terry’s murderers.

In March of this year, the federal government issued a veiled threat to Border Patrol agents when they released a report demanding the agency dedicate more time to investigating officers concerning the use of force in handling violent situations on the border. This included a suggestion that hundreds of border patrol agents be assigned to internal investigative duty. The ominous warning came soon after the administration reinstated a controversial “catch-and-release” policy for illegal aliens that has already generated troubling results. The program mandates that law enforcement and border agents only focus on illegal aliens who have entered the nation after the beginning of 2014. Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, recently testified before Congress that Illegal aliens are catching wind of this directive, and understand that if they claim to have lived in the United States prior to 2014, they will most likely be released immediately without having to show any proof.

Judd also testified that the catch and release program has forced agents to let potentially dangerous illegal aliens go free, including a man apprehended near the northern border who was accused of felony domestic violence, but had not yet faced trial. “Under the law, he should have been set up for removal proceedings,” Judd testified. “But under the policy, he was let go. And he was let go even though he first proved that he cared so little about our laws that he entered the United States illegally, and once here, he proved further disdain by getting arrested for a serious violent act against another,” he continued.

These are only a few of the policies and directives enacted by the current administration that tie the hands of Border Patrol, increases the risks associated with their work and also encourages more illegal aliens to attempt the now low-risk journey into the United States. Our agents are working overtime to stop illegal immigration and other border crimes, but their bosses in Washington, DC poke holes in the border faster than they can be sealed.

Not everyone trusts or supports Donald Trump when it comes to immigration, and there are other candidates in the race who have made strong commitments on immigration as well. (Read FAIR’s analysis of Donald Trump’s immigration plan here) But it is unsurprising that the Border Patrol Union feels desperate enough to get involved in a political primary for the first time, risking their AFL-CIO affiliation by backing a Republican who is outspoken on an issue like Immigration. Because, for America’s Border Patrol agents, a candidate’s policy on border security can truly be a life or death issue. 

VIDEO: Examining How Far Left Hillary Clinton Has Shifted on Immigration

Real Time with Bill Maher is not typically a show where one expects to hear honest facts on an issue like immigration. However, during an episode of the HBO program last Friday, Maher brought up Hillary Clinton’s record while several of his pro-amnesty guests gushed over the presidential candidate’s lenient immigration policies.

After several minutes discussing the history of Republican opinions on immigration, the host chimed in, “Did you see the Democratic debate on Univision about a week ago?” he asked. “Because there has been a real change with the Democrats, too. Mission creep, I would call it. I understand their position was comprehensive immigration reform,” he said. “Now, in front of Univision, it seems to have morphed into, ‘you get across that river, you’re here to stay.”

But amnesty advocate Sister Simone Campbell objected: “I don’t think that’s really what was said.” Maher responded by quoting a past statement by Clinton on the matter, “Well, it certainly wasn’t what Hillary said two years ago, which was ‘we have to send a clear message. Just because your child gets across the border that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,’” he quoted. Maher finished by pointing out, “She’s changed her tune a lot from that.”

There’s no doubt that Clinton has shifted her stance away from enforcing existing immigration laws toward what’s essentially an open border policy. On January 6, 2016, she went so far as to say “I’ll defend President Obama’s executive action [on immigration]—and I’ll go even further to keep families together.” She continued by promising to “end family detention, close private [illegal] immigrant detention centers and help more eligible people become naturalized.”

Compare this to her stance as a New York Senator in 2003, when Clinton told a talk show host “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” She continued by calling for a solution to the problem, saying, “We’ve got to do more at our borders, and people have to stop employing the illegal immigrants.”

As illegal immigration continues to cost law-abiding citizens their lives, Hillary Clinton is allowing the pressure of a vicious election cycle to drag her further left on the issue instead of returning to a policy stance that promotes the protection of American lives and the enforcement of our laws. 

Read FAIR’s analysis of Hillary Clinton’s official immigration platform at

The Republican Elites: “They Had it Coming”

protestersWherever you stand on the presidential campaign one thing is clear.  Donald Trump has defined the immigration issue in an way that resonates with many Americans.  In doing so, he has unleashed the wrath of the far left, so dominant in immigration policy debates since 2008.  This radical fringe now openly asserts that mass immigration flows must grow ever larger in order to consolidate a political dominance.  Nothing will be allowed to stand in its way, not even our most sacred democratic processes.

What happened last weekend in Chicago was typical of what America’s true immigration reformers have experienced on a regular basis lately.  Donald Trump had to contend with professional harassers occupying seats at his own rally for the purpose of shutting down his event. allies along with infamous amnesty anarchist Luis Gutierrez have a long track record of seeking to disrupt political speech in order to intimidate opposition.  All of us have experienced it over many years. The media don’t usually report it, sadly, or if mentioned at all, it is a wild distortion of reality. In truth, this extremist fringe out of Chicago is a bunch of intolerable bigots.

How the media have reported the events in Chicago is telling:  Trump is routinely blamed for using rhetoric that supposedly justifies reactionary violence.  This is typical, and over the years, the “establishment wing” of the Republican Party has lost its footing in caving to the unreasoning demands of the radical border anarchists.  Now the backlash is upon us.

In election after election, as one Republican presidential candidate after another has gone down in flames promoting an amnesty agenda, major donors and the party’s business wing have stubbornly refused to accept the national impulse for self-determination and the rule of law — a determination we now see dominating the Trump effort.  Trump — now well on his way to the 2016 Republican nomination — is the ultimate disrupter.

Floating the Kasich or even the Ryan name simply reinforces the frustration. In the words of Chicago’s Cell Block Tango, “they had it coming.”


Sanders and Clinton Discuss Immigration in Latest Debate

During Wednesday night’s Democratic debate ahead of next week’s Florida primary, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had some things to say about immigration.

Let’s start with Sen. Sanders. Back in 2013, when the Gang of Eight comprehensive amnesty and guest worker bill was before the Senate, Sanders expressed grave concerns about the impact of the expanded guest worker provisions of that legislation on American workers. In an interview in the Washington Post, Sanders said, “My concerns are in regards to where we stand in terms of guest workers programs…What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers.”

iStock_000066740733_LargeIn response to a direct question Wednesday from debate moderator Jorge Ramos about whether, as president, he would promise not to deport illegal aliens without criminal records. Sanders’ simple response was, “I can make that promise.”

So, it seems that if people come to the United States illegally and displace American workers and lower their wages, Sen. Sanders has no problem with that. In fact, his position is that they should be rewarded with amnesty. But, if they come here legally through “a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers,” that is a problem for Sanders.

Logically, both should be a problem because the net result for American workers is the same: fewer job opportunities and lower wages. Of course, don’t expect any debate moderator to ask him to reconcile this logical inconsistency.

Then there’s Secretary Clinton who, a dozen years ago was “adamantly against illegal immigrants,” but is now not so adamant about it. Like her opponent, Secretary Clinton is no longer concerned about the impact of illegal immigration on Americans. “I want to prioritize who would be deported: violent criminals, people planning terrorist attacks, anybody who threatens us. That’s a relatively small universe of people,” she told Ramos in response to the same question.

Seemingly as far as Clinton is concerned, if you’re a non-violent criminal, you can stay. If not planning a terrorist attack, you’re good too. And clearly, if you’re just here taking a job that might otherwise have been filled by an American worker at a higher wage, or taking advantage of our public services and benefits, you are most welcome.

On July 3, 1984, the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, proposed a five-word constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.”  After Wednesday’s debate it seems the position of the leading Democratic presidential candidates can be summarize in eleven words: There shall be open borders except for violent criminals and terrorists.”