Biden’s border crisis is dangerous enough already, and it may soon get worse.

But his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandra Mayorkas, paints a rosier picture, “We are preparing for the end of Title 42….We continue to enforce the laws of this country.”

Title 42 from the Trump era stipulates that until potential immigrants are tested and shown to not have the virus, they should remain in Mexico.

Title 42 was scheduled to expire 5/23/22. The Center for Immigration Studies notes, “Title 42 is the only thing standing between the current chaos at the Southwest border, and no border there at all.”

Biden has promised repeatedly to lift this provision, abandoning testing and opening the floodgates for illegal immigrants. But for now, his plan to abolish Title 42 has been blocked by a Trump-appointed judge.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) told Maria Bartiromo of Fox News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures on 5/22/22 that the border crisis is acute. Marshall has visited the border and wants the president to do the same. The senator said:

“Maria, this is a human tragedy here…At nighttime, it looks like a war zone. There’s a sea of humanitarian crises here every evening. And every day, it’s lived out as well.”

The numbers of illegal immigrants swarming in is staggering. Writing in the Washington Examiner (5/19/22), Paul Bedard observed: “Last year’s 1.7 million border encounters is expected to reach 2.1 million, according to Princeton Policy Advisors, an economic analysis outfit that has correctly predicted recent border surges.”

The U.S. Constitution says it exists to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Do open borders for any nation help achieve such lofty goals?

On a recent radio segment, I spoke with former Congressman, Allen West, who has seen the border crisis first hand more than ten times. He told me, “Government is supposed to protect people within [our national] borders. That’s their Number 1 duty and responsibility. If we’re not going to follow the rule of law, then what are we supposed to base the Constitutional republic on?”

He added, “America is not just a piece of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Canada and Mexico. It is a sovereign nation, and it should be regarded and treated as such.” How can a nation remain sovereign if it has no borders?

Some open borders advocates imply that it’s the “Christian thing to do” to just let everyone in—yet surely these same people lock their doors at night.

Rev. Erwin Lutzer, the author of We Will Not Be Silenced, recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience: “One of the big mistakes that Christians sometimes make is that they want to apply the ethics of the church to the state. I heard a pastor saying–I’m sure that he was compassionate and meant well–when he said, ‘Of course, we should invite people into America and basically have open borders because after all the gospel is for everyone.’ Yes, of course, the gospel is for everyone, but that’s not the role of the state. The role of the state is to keep order, to punish crime, and to keep its citizens safe. That’s the role of the state.”

Lutzer added, “It is important that the church welcomes everyone. That’s the ministry of the church, but that is not the ministry of the state.”

Meanwhile, critics of Biden’s open border crisis note that known terrorists are sneaking into the country—more than 40 on the terrorist watch list slipped into the U.S. last year alone.

Also, human trafficking is taking place, and drugs are pouring in in record numbers. In fact, Chinese-produced fentanyl and other drugs are being smuggled in through the southern border, and the results are making headlines.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported (2/13/22), “Drug overdoses now kill more than 100,000 Americans a year—more than vehicle crash and gun deaths combined.” The open borders cause this problem, or at least greatly exacerbate it.

Kerby Anderson, the host of the syndicated radio program “Point of View,” recently told our D. James Kennedy Ministries television audience why he thinks the left pushes for open borders: “I think the hope is that these might be future Democratic voters. And so what we’ll do is we’ll just kind of incrementally allow non-citizens to vote.”

Anderson points to the recent move by New York City to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote as an example.

Senator Marshall, who said our border is like a “war zone” right now, noted that the public safety department of Texas is trying to hold the line: “All of those people are doing their best, but they’re just simply overwhelmed. This is an unsustainable crisis.”

This article was originally published by JerryNewcombe.com.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C. has a special holiday treat for the kiddies this year: My Fair Lady. Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family & Human Rights and contributing editor to Crisis Magazine, and his wife Cathy Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, took their 14- and 11-year-old daughters to see it, and here is an excerpt from his review  published in the Washington Examiner:..

read more

Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia said this about the Alabama ban on human slaughter: “[T]hese laws are unconstitutional and they [pro-life advocates] don’t care.”

It’s remarkable that the Founding Fathers managed to make clear to “progressives” that women have a constitutional right to have their offspring offed without ever uttering a single word about it in the U.S. Constitution.

Here are some quotes from liberal scholars and writers on Roe v. Wade collected by Timothy P. Carney, commentary editor at the Washington Examiner and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—quotes that shrieking feminists may find wholly unpalatable:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).

• What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed” (Edward Lazarus).

• “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).

• “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer).

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the U.S. Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking” (John Hart Ely, clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).

• Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” (Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution).

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy…. As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is. If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe, with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers…. “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument…. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist).

• “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy) …. [C]lear governing constitutional principles… are not present” (Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor).

• “In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people…. Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).

• “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited [sic] to the protection of the 14th Amendment…. By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).

• “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).

Roe v. Wade is the SCOTUS decision that “progressives” argue absolute fidelity to precedent demands Justices uphold. If they think “lousy,” “indefensible,” “barely coherent,” unintelligible, a-constitutional non-reasoning must be honored in slavish service to the political end of allowing feticide, I hate to imagine what they would have thought about revisiting Dred Scott.

Save these quotes to show your pro-human slaughter friends next time they claim Roe v. Wade is the unchallengeable law of the land and reflects immutable constitutional truths.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Roe_SCOTUS.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.