• Punch Early, Punch Often – Smashing the Far Right

    January 25, 2017

    Tags: , , ,
    Posted in: Democracy

    NOTE: The following is a rebuttal to my own article explaining how stopping speech you disagree with via violence is wrong. I am reprinting the rebuttal in its entirety and with permission. I received a lot of comments on what I wrote, and this one below is pretty typical, albeit without as much profanity and personal threats/insults as the others.

    Jesus H. Jones,this infernal debate continues. Peter Van Buren, possessor of such a nice Aryan name and a defence so strident of Nazis right to free speech that he will probably not be in danger of imprisonment, execution or genocide if they win, has written a piece in The Nation as a riposte to Natasha Lennard’s article in the same publication.

    Van Buren’s argument comes from the standpoint of the first amendment to the constitution of the USA, the one that protects, on paper anyway, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Let’s stop here for a second and consider the words of that amendment. They look very nice, don’t they? But there’s a reason I said “on paper anyway”; Look closely and read between the lines. You’ve noticed haven’t you? First amendment rights have routinely been cast aside when they clash with the interests of the US American ruling class. People who agitated against the first world war were imprisoned for as little as printing pamphlets and newspapers or speaking in public, during the nineteen forties and fifties, people suspected of being communists were brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee, and now Trump wants Muslims to have to sign a register. So much for rights.

    Poor people too have ‘first amendment rights’ but rarely get to use them in the way the Van Buren is advocating for Neo-Nazi mouthpieces. When was the last time you saw someone from the slums of Detroit being interviewed about their political views on national television or publishing pamphlets or writing newspaper opinion pieces? I am reminded of the words of Anatole France in Le Lys Rouge, “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” The first amendment to the US constitution protects the right to free speech for rich and poor alike, but that means nothing to someone living in poverty, or someone being burned out of their home for being the wrong colour or for practicing the wrong religion.

    In the article, Van Buren says that if you condone the act of punching a Nazi then you must condone the act of ripping a hijab off a woman’s head. That he considers these two things equivalent speaks volumes of the ‘moderate’ tendency to empty acts, and indeed words, of their meaning. Ripping a hijab off a woman’s head is an act of oppression. It says that this woman, who has said or done nothing to threaten anyone is a legitimate target for hatred and violence. Punching a Nazi on the other hand, is an act of self defence. Nazi’s are not just using words to get their point across, they are organising physical violence against people of colour, Muslims, LGBT folk and left wing radicals; They are actively threatening the lives of people who are different or who disagree with their world view. Their world view is to eradicate freedom in it’s entirety for the vast majority of human beings. That’s why they should be physically confronted, that’s why their movement must be smashed before it can wreak too much havoc.

    He also reduces the fight against the Nazis in WW2 to a “70 year old struggle between nation states.” No doubt, the entry of various states into war against the Nazis was prompted by threats to their Imperialist hegemony – in particular the USA entered the war because of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour, but people fought in their millions against fascism, from well before the war in Europe broke out, specifically because of what Nazism and Fascism represent – midnight for the human race, the victory of unreason over reason, racial nationalism, anti-communism, or as Orwell put it “a boot stamping on a human face forever.” (Orwell meant authoritarianism in general – both right and nominally left).

    If we don’t want to relive the horrors of Nazism, the racial laws, the genocide, the stamping out of all political freedoms, not to mention the war, that ravaged Europe in the mid 20th century, it is necessary to stamp it out in it’s infancy. It is a threat across the globe, here in Ireland the far right is small, but there is larger minority among us who will flock to them if they feel it is safe to do so. Until now they have feared to raise their heads above the parapet, and this is a good thing. When white nationalist movements have tried to go public, they have been physically beaten back. These actions protect the freedom of the vast majority of humanity. But now, in the wake of Brexit and Trump’s victory, the racists, the authoritarians everywhere are raising their voices. The comment threads in online publications are a cesspool of embryonic fascist thought. It only takes a small breakthrough for a far right organisation to rally these people behind its banner, and the likes of Peter Van Buren, and our own Irish liberal establishment, who enjoy debating fascists to prove their intellectual superiority, make those breakthroughs more likely.

    In Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Greece and the USA, the far right is a tangible threat to the freedom of the vast majority of humanity. Constitutional rights won’t stop them, only an organised anti-fascist movement that is well organised, prepared to take the fight to the fascists, to snuff out their ideas in their infancy and keep fighting until their movement is back in the dustbin of history where it belongs. We will be harshly judged by the future generations if we let them rise again.

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • chuck said...


      I believe I have the right to register as a Muslim. The Far right is Wrong. The NeoCons and NeoLibs are the peoples enemy. Be a warrior for the people. Thank you Peter Van Buren. Wage Peace and Justice…

      01/25/17 9:20 AM | Comment Link

    • chuck said...


      The Dems. have not denounced the punch due to going thru withdrawals from promoting Drones and bombing people to bits of flesh, and profits to the MIC, all for so called Peace. Have a nice day!

      01/25/17 9:31 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Wrong analogy. This ain’t 1930 Germany. It is closer to ancient Roman.

      01/25/17 9:52 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      And when Rome falls:

      The revelations about Thiel’s New Zealand links come days after a New Yorker article named the country as one of the places where rich Americans increasingly look to as a refuge from hypothetical doomsday scenarios in the U.S. Thiel was named as a client of a local real-estate agent catering to the super-rich in that report, though Thiel became a New Zealand citizen in 2011.

      01/25/17 9:55 AM | Comment Link

    • chuck said...


      I can’t remember where W. Bush bought 30000 or so acres years ago and far away. I’m going to Disneyland !

      01/25/17 9:58 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      For a country that elected a lunatic and already allows the killing of its citizens without due process, the issue whether punching someone in the face is debatable is laughable.

      01/25/17 10:37 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Sucker punch

      President Donald Trump is threatening Chicago and its mayor, Emanuel, with martial law, something which could have profound implications for the Windy City.

      On Tuesday morning, Trump sent out the following tweet, threatening to “send in the feds” in response to Chicago’s violence

      If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

      — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

      NB. Peter, the Chicago Metro Police Center is at the corner of Van Buren and State.

      01/25/17 10:49 AM | Comment Link

    • wemeantwell said...


      Hah, it’s all a conspiracy, Van Buren and State.

      01/25/17 11:08 AM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      Bauer…. Said…..
      ” Rich Bauer on January 25, 2017 at 10:49 said:
      Sucker punch
      President Donald Trump is threatening Chicago and its mayor, Emanuel, with martial law, something which could have profound implications for the Windy City.
      On Tuesday morning, Trump sent out the following tweet, threatening to “send in the feds” in response to Chicago’s violence
      If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
      — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017
      NB. Peter, the Chicago Metro Police Center is at the corner of Van Buren and State. ”

      Threatening martial law…. No, Bauer…. That is not what Trump said…. He did say…. He would ” send the feds”….

      After…. Chicago community leaders met with Trump…. ASKING for help.

      And…. Please notice…. Chicago’s response
      ” Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson responded late Tuesday, saying: “The Chicago Police Department is more than willing to work with the federal government to build on our partnerships with DOJ, FBI, DEA and ATF and boost federal prosecution rates for gun crimes in Chicago.” ”

      That would be Chicago BLAMING the fed…. Under OBAMA…. For its problems…

      Lesson for you here, Bauer….

      Murder…. Unless against an elected official… Or… Federal employee…

      Is a state or city crime…

      Not federal jurisdiction.

      Which would go along with the “new white house ” website, stating…

      ” The White House website says, “Our country needs more law enforcement, more community engagement and more effective policing.” “….

      Trump would be directing ” more effective policing ” at places like Chicago.

      Where something like 60% are unsolved.

      Point is…. If you can read….. Trump was ASKED to step in…. By the community.
      And…. Fortunately….. Trump is sick of it…. Too.




      Publishing only part of the information…… Pretty weak.


      01/25/17 11:39 AM | Comment Link

    • jo6pac said...


      01/25/17 11:39 AM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...



      Who wrote the rebuttal?


      01/25/17 11:44 AM | Comment Link

    • b. traven said...


      Peter.. I an surprised that you would get “hate mail” for expressing an opinion.That’s just like a punch in the face. And I am very proud of you for printing a well thought out rebuttal. tha tis “civil discourse” which I believe has been lost in this country. Most of my friends have always been old line conservatives and we could have mind expanding discussions with a give and take. those days seem to be gone. It is up against the wall now if one disagrees with a right winger. One problem is that their are no more “conservatives” only right wingnuts.

      01/25/17 12:10 PM | Comment Link

    • b. traven said...


      A follow up comment: Unfortunately liberals think th eold Marquis de Qeenbury rules still apple and try to play nicey,nicey with the proto fascists.It’s time to take out the bare knuckles.

      01/25/17 12:13 PM | Comment Link

    • b. traven said...


      Chelsea Manning in the Guardian has it right

      The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader. This is what she wrote for the Guardian today.Go girl!

      We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk – especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people. CM

      01/25/17 12:19 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      Yep…. All about “right wingnuts “….

      Anyone ever think…. Just maybe…. That some people just want it to get better????

      But….. Oh LOOK !!!!!

      The left is so…… Stable.

      “. DOUBLING DOWN Handler won’t back off Melania Trump insults
      Jan 25, 2017 12:02 PM EST

      The same day Chelsea Handler received backlash for saying Melania Trump “can barely speak English,” the comedian took to Twitter to mock the First Lady yet again.

      “Blink if you need help @MELANIATRUMP,” HandlertweetedTuesday night.

      Fans did not take well to Handler’s tirade against Melania Trump and shared their distaste for the “Chelsea” host’s comments about the First Lady.

      This is hardly the first time Handler has gone after the First Lady.

      Handler also defended ex-“Saturday Night Live”writer Katie Rich who tweeted that Barron Trump”will be this country’s first homeschool shooter.” Rich has since been suspended from “SNL.”

      “It’s interesting that a writer on SNL is held to a higher standard of language than the man we elected @POTUS @katiemaryrich #stupid,” the 41-year-oldtweetedTuesday. ”

      Attacking kids???? And…. Defending it?????


      01/25/17 12:20 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      B.traven said…

      “. b. traven on January 25, 2017 at 12:19 said:
      Chelsea Manning in the Guardian has it right
      The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader. This is what she wrote for the Guardian today.Go girl!
      We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk – especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people. CM ”

      We currently have that….. Just not “progressive ”


      01/25/17 12:22 PM | Comment Link

    • b. traven said...


      Yes Mitch. And lets learn from that. Obama had the house and the senate when he was elected just like Trump has and he caved rather than acted boldly. We wouldn’t be where we are today if he had taken the bull by the horns. Insread he signed off on extending the riches tax cuts for ten years rather than let thme just phase out. He let Quantanamo go,and wouldn’t let single payer healthcare even on the table. Now it is all on its way out.

      01/25/17 12:51 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...



      That is exactly my point.

      Exactly my point.

      Maybe… The “otherside ” will do what needs to be done.

      Maybe… Hopefully……


      01/25/17 12:54 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      I just cannot wait to see how the tolerant, progressive side of the table justifies this.

      ” Education Department report finds billions spent under Obama had ‘no impact’ on achievement

      Jan 25, 2017

      The Obama administration pumped more than $7 billion into an education program, first authorized under President George W. Bush, that had no impact on student achievement according to a report released by the Department of Education in the final days of the 44th presidents term.

      The Department of Educations findings were contained in its School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness report. The study could energize the debate over national education policy just as the Senate considers President Trumps controversial pick to lead the department, Betsy DeVos, an outspoken school choice advocate who has questioned the way federal education dollars are spent. 

      The timing of this report is so important and so interesting this could have a positive influence on her confirmation, American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Andy Smarick told Fox News.

      The School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, first introduced in 2001 under the Bush administration, was created to fund reforms in the countrys lowest-performing schools with the goal of improving student achievement in test scores and graduation rates. The program directed money to schools with low academic achievement and graduation rates below 60 percent for high schools, among other factors. SIG was canceled under recently passed legislation, though similar funding can still be sought by school districts. 

      SIG was first funded in 2007, receiving $616 million under Bush.

      But it wasnt until 2009, when the Obama administration designated $3.5 billion to the program through the stimulus, that funding soared. The administration continued to pump more than $500 million annually to the program for the rest of his presidency.

      The report, though, focused on data from nearly 500 schools in 22 states that received SIG funding, and concluded the program had no significant impact on reading or math test scores; high school graduation; or college enrollment.

      Overall, we found that the SIG program had no impact on student achievement, co-author of the report Lisa Dragoset told Fox News.

      The authors are non-partisan researchers in the Education Department, according to Tom Wei, project officer from the departments Institute of Education Sciences.

      We focused on districts with larger samples of schools, and so these schools tended to be more urban and more disadvantaged, Wei told Fox News. We looked at the schools that were on the cusp of being eligible to receive SIG funding.

      A department spokesperson not involved in drafting the report told Fox News they are continuing to review the study.

      Smarick said then-Secretary Arne Duncan had approached SIG as a big bet, considering the body of research out there for years that if you put more resources into failing districts and failing schools, youre not going to get better student achievement. In the end, he said, They decided to go ahead and put as much money as possible into the program to make it work, which led us to this dramatic report: what happened was what has always happened in the past.

      Neither Duncan nor previous education secretaries under Obama and Bush responded to requests for comment on the billions spent and the reports findings.

      But Nina Rees, deputy education undersecretary under the Bush administration — and now CEO of the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools — called the results no surprise. 

      Some of these schools received huge injections of cash and had an absent leader who did not know how to leverage the money constructively, and that is not a good recipe for success, Rees told Fox News. The premise of the program was extremely sound, but it is simply human nature to pick things that are easier to implement as opposed to a more aggressive approach.

      Rees, who is a proponent of school choice, also supports Betsy DeVos for education secretary in the Trump administration and believes charter schools need more funding and full autonomy.

      Smarick suggested, in light of the new findings, DeVos approach could be helpful.

      DeVos career has been trying to answer these questions differently than SIG Betsys approach is to empower the low-income families by pumping resources to expand the number of schools available so that the families can have the option of school choice, he said.

      Charter schools, at the heart of the school choice movement, are publicly funded schools run by independent groups. President Trump has suggested pumping an additional $20 billion into school choice — with the funds redirected from existing federal accounts.

      The Trump/DeVos approach faces scrutiny from some Democrats, who chided DeVos during her confirmation hearing and suggested charter schools are held to a different standard.

      “There are times when it appears that charter schools are used as a wedge to attack public education, and the signals of that tend to be that failing charter schools are protected compared to failing public schools,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said in the hearing. “The standards really aren’t there.” 

      Rees told Fox News the federal government has played a crucial role in education since 1965, ensuring the needs of low-income and minority students are met by spending more money to even the playing field.

      Some argue that money isnt enough to make a difference, but I do think that it is important for us to pay attention to the needs of the lowest-performing students and schools and to continue to invest in them, she said, while also stressing the role of parents.

      DeVos, meanwhile, is set for a vote on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Jan. 31.

      It’s no surprise that last week’s report from the Education Department proves that the Washington-knows-best model of No Child Left Behind and the Obama administration waivers didn’t work, a committee aide told Fox News.

      Committee Republicans and DeVos instead are pushing the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which passed in 2015 and effectively replaced No Child Left Behind (also nixing the SIG program). The bipartisan measure preserves standardized testing but eliminates the consequences for states and localities with poor performance.

      The aide said that legislation was in part a response to the heavy-handed approach of the School Improvement Grants, adding: This report is welcome news and proof that Congress was right to change the law. ”


      01/25/17 12:57 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      John Poole.

      Feel free to ask Peter for my email address.


      01/25/17 12:58 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      What a wonderful example of “progressive ”

      And…. We now know who is determining “fake news”

      The very last sentence says everything that should be read.

      ” The crackdown has begun.
      In a blog post by Scott Spencer, director of product management for sustainable ads, posted on Wednesday, Google said it has banned 200 publishers from accessing its Adsense advertising service for posting fake news stories. Google said it had cracked down on sites which contained 1) Ads for illegal products; 2) Misleading ads; 3) Bad ads on mobile; 4) Ads trying to game the system and, 5) Promoting and profiting from bad sites. But the emphasis was on the so-called “fake news” category which has dominated media buzz for the past two months.

      This is how Spencer explained his action:

      In 2016, we saw the rise of tabloid cloakers, a new type of scammer that tries to game our system by pretending to be news. Cloakers often take advantage of timely topics—a government election, a trending news story or a popular celebrity—and their ads can look like headlines on a news website. But when people click on that story about Ellen DeGeneres and aliens, they go to a site selling weight-loss products, not a news story.

      * * *

      We’ve had long-standing policies prohibiting AdSense publishers from running ads on sites that help people deceive others, like a site where you buy fake diplomas or plagiarized term papers. In November, we expanded on these policies, introducing a new AdSense misrepresentative content policy, that helps us to take action against website owners misrepresenting who they are and that deceive people with their content.
      Google has faced criticism over its handling of fake news stories, including allowing a fake news website to rise to the top of its results displaying an incorrect story claiming that President Trump had won the popular vote.

      In his post explaining how Google attempted to crack down on “bad ads, sites and scammers,” Spencer explained that Google had expanded its policies against misleading websites in November, leading to the crackdown.

      From November to December 2016, we reviewed 550 sites that were suspected of misrepresenting content to users, including impersonating news organizations.  We took action against 340 of them for violating our policies, both misrepresentation and other offenses, and nearly 200 publishers were kicked out of our network permanently.
      In total, Google took down 1.7 billion ads that they found in violation of their policies in 2016, more than double the 780 million they removed in 2015.

      It wasn’t just fake news: Google provided the following examples of common policy violations among bad sites in 2016:

      We took action on 47,000 sites for promoting content and products related to weight-loss scams.
      We took action on more than 15,000 sites for unwanted software and disabled 900,000 ads for containing malware.
      And we suspended around 6,000 sites and 6,000 accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods, like imitation designer watches.
      Some of the more conventional bans were the result of Google adding a policy mid-year prohibiting ads for payday loans, considered predatory. Roughly five million payday loan ads were disabled over the latter six months of 2016. Also among those the removed ads were what Google calls “tabloid cloakers.” These advertisers run what look like links to news headlines, but when the user clicks, an ad for a product such as a weight loss supplement pops up. Google suspended 1,300 accounts engaged in tabloid cloaking in 2016.

      Spencer concludes:

      In addition to all the above, we support industry efforts like the Coalition for Better Ads to protect people from bad experiences across the web. While we took down more bad ads in 2016 than ever before, the battle doesn’t end here. As we invest in better detection, the scammers invest in more elaborate attempts to trick our systems. Continuing to find and fight them is essential to protecting people online and ensuring you get the very best from the open web.

      Google has not disclosed the list of 200 sites it had permanently banned. ”


      01/25/17 1:09 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      I can hear the screaming…. And see the riots already….

      Rough translation…… Do bad things….. Get kicked out.



           By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows:

           Section 1.  Purpose.  Interior enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.  Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety.  This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.

           Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.  These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.

           Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation.  Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails.  The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest.

           Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility.  We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.  The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

           Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the executive branch to:

           (a)  Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

           (b)  Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States;

           (c)  Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;

           (d)  Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and

           (e)  Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens.

           Sec. 3.  Definitions.  The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code.

           Sec. 4.  Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United States.  In furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order, I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.

           Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

           (a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

           (b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

           (c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

           (d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

           (e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

           (f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

           (g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

           Sec. 6.  Civil Fines and Penalties.  As soon as practicable, and by no later than one year after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States and from those who facilitate their presence in the United States.

           Sec. 7.  Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers.  The Secretary, through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357).

           Sec. 8.  Federal-State Agreements.  It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.

           (a)  In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).

           (b)  To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary.  Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties. 

           (c)  To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdiction.

           Sec. 9.  Sanctuary Jurisdictions.  It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.

           (a)  In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.  The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.

           (b)  To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.

           (c)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction

           Sec. 10.  Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies.  (a)  The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as “Secure Communities” referenced in that memorandum.

           (b)  The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures for consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and comment proposed regulations rescinding or revising any regulations inconsistent with this order and shall consider whether to withdraw or modify any inconsistent policies and procedures, as appropriate and consistent with the law.

           (c)  To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Secretary shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies.

           Sec. 11.  Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators.  The Attorney General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and implement a program that ensures that adequate resources are devoted to the prosecution of criminal immigration offenses in the United States, and to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent crime and the reach of transnational criminal organizations into the United States.

           Sec. 12.  Recalcitrant Countries.  The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate.  The Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States.

           Sec. 13.  Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens.  The Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims.  This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States.

           Sec. 14.  Privacy Act.  Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information. 

           Sec. 15.  Reporting.  Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order within 90 days of the date of this order and again within 180 days of the date of this order.

           Sec. 16.  Transparency.   To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following:

           (a)  the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;

           (b)  the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and

           (c)  the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.

           Sec. 17.  Personnel Actions.  The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.

           Sec. 18.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

      (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

      (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

           (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

           (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                                   DONALD J. TRUMP

      01/25/17 3:41 PM | Comment Link

    • chuck said...


      Go Girl. May 17th !

      01/25/17 6:28 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Here we go again. The lunatic wants to protect US from Syrians but not Saudis. How many Syrians were on those planes on 9-11? I

      01/25/17 6:39 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      Bauer said…. Crazy shit…. Again…

      ” Rich Bauer on January 25, 2017 at 18:39 said:
      Here we go again. The lunatic wants to protect US from Syrians but not Saudis. How many Syrians were on those planes on 9-11? I ”


      Saudis are in the list too…..


      01/25/17 7:09 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Please provide the list. Have not seen Saudi listed anywhere.

      01/25/17 7:27 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      The sounds of silence….

      01/25/17 8:34 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Reuters: Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders starting on Wednesday that include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries, say congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

      Trump, who tweeted that a “big day” was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place.

      Another order will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

      01/25/17 8:38 PM | Comment Link

    • Mitch said...


      “Donald Trump is expected “…. “expected “….

      Bauer…. What does “expected ” mean???????

      Its means…. Bauer….. Trump hasn’t done anything…yet….

      And…. As Bauer….. Continues… To be the false facts mill.

      Btw…. So sorry…. it was the Middle of the night where I’m at. …. So sorry for not sitting and waiting for Another BS statement. …( the sarcasm to subtle ?)…. Next time I travel…. I will post my schedule….. Not.


      01/26/17 5:01 AM | Comment Link

    • Paul said...


      Peter, thanks for printing this rebuttal in full. I had been firmly of the belief that freedom of speech must protect even odious hatemongers or is worthless. But I think his argument (or at least his rhetoric) is more compelling than most contrary views I’ve read on the subject. Has he overblown the threat of a fascist revival?

      02/8/17 1:42 PM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)