Two lower court decisions ruled against Biden holding his termination decision violated the APA and immigration law. President Biden has ignored the court orders to implement the MPP without consequence other than Republicans complaining about it on cable talk programs.

Biden’s policy has created a de facto open southern border that allows millions of immigrants to enter our country illegally, including drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and terrorists.

Since the court is without enforcement authority and Congress is generally unable to take on the Executive, the simple answer may be there will be no political consequence to Biden until the 2024 election. But what about the many Americans injured by the millions of illegal immigrants trespassing on farms causing damage to land and animals, and the assaults and even murders of Americans, not to mention the costs of migrant care imposed on hundreds of small towns?

A similar situation occurred in 1832 when President Andrew Jackson was outraged over a Supreme Court decision striking down a Georgia law regulating the entry of white people on Native American lands. Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made the decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson viewed the Supreme Court’s decision as interfering with his Executive power to remove Indians from their land. Jackson’s contempt for the rule of law eventually led to the horrifying Trail of Tears.

An open southern border seems to be as crucial to President Biden as acquiring Indian lands was to President Jackson. What happens if the Supreme Court orders the Biden administration to enforce the MPP policy and Biden tells the court, “You made the decision; now you enforce it?”

There are very few workable options to make Biden enforce the law.

Congress could appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars to detain the millions of illegal immigrants until their asylum dates. Is it unlikely that Congress would appropriate such amounts since the Biden administration has refused to complete the most straightforward task, building the border wall.

A Republican House of Representatives in 2023 could impeach Biden; however, it is unlikely the Senate will have 67 votes to convict him. Besides being a footnote in history, the impeachment will not result in any serious border enforcement.

Congress could cut off funds to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Still, Biden would veto such an effort, and it is unlikely that Congress can override the President’s veto.

Conversely, one House of Congress could refuse to appropriate any funds for DHS operations. This situation is unlikely since it would eliminate all border protection.

A real politick option would be for one House of Congress to refuse to provide any funding for an agency desperately desired by Biden’s allies, such as the Department of Education. Withholding these funds might bring the Biden administration to the negotiating table to ensure his most significant contributor, the teachers union, continues its control over American education. It is unlikely, however; that the Republicans have the courage to enter such a high-stakes negotiation.

A more practical option might be for citizens injured by the administration’s actions to seek compensation under section 1985 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. They would allege that the president and the Border Patrol conspired to act illegally and such conduct deprived them of their right to equal protection of the law.

Federal immigration law requires the President and the Border Patrol to prevent persons and goods from illegally entering the U.S. and harming the nation’s security. Since the start of the Biden administration, citizens have complained of the harm caused by its failure to secure the border, a violation of Biden’s constitutional duty to  “Take Care” that the laws be faithfully executed.

The federal government’s defenses of sovereign immunity, (the government can do no wrong), and that it operates as one entity so there cannot be a conspiracy, usually prevail. In the civil rights context, the situation is different when the government deprives citizens of their constitutional rights. Simply, the courts have recognized some limits on the immunity given to government corruption.

In a civil rights context, “… when execution of a government’s policy or custom,” is an official policy that inflicts an injury, the government is liable for the harm. If Biden refuses to obey the court’s order, and the Border Patrol follows Biden’s illegal orders the two entities are conspiring to violate U.S. policy.  The conspiracy deprives those harmed of their right to the equal protection of the law; e.g., intentionally allowing into the U.S. drug dealers, sex traffickers, and terrorists who harm Americans.

For far too long, citizens have lacked remedies when injured by the joint illegal conduct of the Executive and the agencies following illegal government orders. Other examples help illustrate this point: the IRS  targeting the tax returns of conservative groups and the FBI filing false FISA applications to spy on citizens.

The general remedy of injunctive relief is usually a day late and of no compensatory value. Federal apologies for violating the civil rights of citizens are cheap. Seeking monetary damages under the Civil Rights laws against the federal agencies that intentionally implement illegal government policy may be the best mechanism for citizens to uncover the scope of any unlawful activity and be compensated for their injury.

Image: TLR compilation. Biden image by Gage Skidmore.

The post Biden v. TX: Will Biden Obey the Supreme Court? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Abandoned 10-Year-Old Migrant Pleads With Border Officials For Help appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The post Border Officials Release Photos And Video Of Migrant Processing Centers appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Following her viral rise, she created a Twitter account to post photos and updates for her followers.

As of Friday November 6th, Kiara has resigned from the Border Patrol citing harassment from within the agency. She took to Twitter stating:

“I have resigned from my duties. Like I said. Don’t stay anywhere you aren’t valued, appreciated, or respected. On to bigger and better things.”

Her resignation letter addressed to the Port Director at the Laredo, Texas Port of Entry reads:

I, Kiara De Leon, have been in Federal service as a Customs and Border protection officer at the Laredo Port of entry for almost 5 years. During my time at the Port of Laredo, I have been sexually and emotionally harassed, demoted from a temporary duty assignment, and cyberbullied. Up to today none of my concerns have been resolved. I have gone through several departments from in house management, JIC, and OIG. My concerns still go unanswered as if I never voiced them or been heard. I am writing this memo to be transparent as to what led me to leave a federal career during a pandemic. I am also writing this memo to advise the port of Laredo in how management failed miserably in addressing all these sensitive and serious issues. I am very disappointed to how these incidents were handled, and wish you all could have handled this in a professional manner and in a fair way regardless of my sex or your own opinion towards myself.

Since 2019, I have felt I have been a target at the Port of Laredo. From management to my fellow coworkers, they have expressed vulgar comments and looked down on me which reflects on my performance by not teaching me or explain my daily duties. From 2019 to the end of 2020, I have experienced the following:

On May of 2019, I was sexually harassed by APD [redacted]. I was assigned [redacted] at Gate Way of the Americas Bridge 1[redacted]. APD [redacted] approached me and asked me in his own words if I had work done and pointed to my chest area. I was in a state of shock when he continued and asked me to stand up and tighten my shirt so he could see, because he couldn’t tell. That same day, I shared my shock and discomfort with a fellow officer which advised me to report it, but I felt mortified and did not report it that same day. Within that same week, I went to my union and told them what happened with APD [redacted]. The Union President advised me to report it but at that point in time I had just returned to full duty and I felt embarrassed in reporting the encounter, being that this individual was high up in management. Once I got the courage to report the incident, management questioned as to why I was reporting at that point in time. Management also suggested if we had a previous friendly relationship that would have led him to feel comfortable in asking. I expressed my concerns to upper management and investigative departments that I did not want this to happen to another female officer and it is hard to come out and voice something that happened in a safe work environment in a male dominant occupation.

On July of 2019, I was stationed in McAllen, TX on a [redacted] to help out Border Patrol with the [redacted]. Vice President Pence was visiting the station and the media filmed the sight. Within the same week, a video clip of me in the background of Vice President Pence went viral on the internet and I was being called “Ice Bae.” My superiors addressed the issue and asked me to sign a cease and desist in which I was to “stop whatever I was doing.” In conclusion, DHS decided to forcibly remove me from my temporary duty assignment against protocol. They gave no explanation and did not take responsibility for their breaking of policy.

On August of 2020, I was being harassed by my fellow officers on social media and at the work place. Two male officers kept on posting “meme” on a social media platform and saying comments out loud in a work environment regarding my business aspect that I approached. Every day or other day they would post derogatory images with phrases that was targeted towards me. After weeks of harassment, I contacted the union regarding these issues but they stated without actually saying my name, it is not a claimed harassment. I was to the point that I broke composure and I responded on one of the images that an officer posted on social media. The male officer complained to management and Work Liaison Unit called me in and told me to cease and desist my actions against him and that I was being investigated for my actions. When I expressed my concerns regarding how the male officers were treating me, WLU stated “you are better than that.” Which made me believe that a male can say whatever they like but when a female voices out, it is called harassment. I attempted to file EEO against my port for gender discrimination but decided it was for my well interest to just remove myself from the situation entirely due to my past experiences and ultimately to resign.

During my line of duty, I have expressed excellence, integrity, and protected the United States from terrorists. I am requesting to leave 1 to 2 years from Custom Border Protection as an officer to re-evaluate my mental and physical health regarding the last two years, from sexual harassment to being cyberbullied by my colleagues. I would also like to request [redacted]. I am grateful this agency has given me an insight of immigration to custom enforcement and I am thankful for the opportunity. I hope if I do decide to return and I am granted the opportunity, that my future years as a Custom and Border protection officer are different.

Best Regards,

CBPO Kiara De Leon

The Libertarian Republic reached out to Kiara regarding her resignation. Due to the sensitive nature of her resignation she cannot elaborate further at this time. However she told The Libertarian Republic:

“The fact I spoke out against all this and they did absolutely nothing upsets me.”

It is indeed difficult to imagine even a friendly relationship being an excuse for a superior to request a visual breast examination of a subordinate.

The business approach she was harassed by officers for, outlined in her resignation letter, appears to be an Only Fans account under the handle icebae. This account began after she went viral.

The subscription to her account is free, and a review of the account reveals a handful of photos and videos free to view, but a number of photo sets require a one time purchase to view. She is also very upfront about her photo sets not containing any nudity.

The post “ICE Bae” Resigns From Border Patrol Citing Harassment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“I … urge you to establish and publicize a process for accepting donations from charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, and [nongovernmental organizations] to aid individuals in [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] custody,” the Republican senator wrote in a letter Monday to acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan.

“Even with the additional supplemental emergency funding, I am confident that DHS and CBP can still use the generosity of the American people to help manage the humanitarian crisis on our border,” Cruz added, referring to the $4.6 billion aid package recently passed by Congress.

Currently, there’s no system in place to allow Border Patrol stations to accept private donations.

“A Customs and Border Protection official told reporters … that officials were working with the agency’s Office of Chief Counsel to determine whether Border Patrol stations can legally accept donations,” NPR reported last week, not naming the official.

When Texas state Rep. Terry Canales, a Democrat, asked Border Patrol how his constituents could help those affected at the border, he “received an email response saying, ‘We don’t accept donations,’” he told NPR.

“It just befuddles me and I think it’s just heartbreaking to know that there’s so many people that want to help, and that help is being denied for no definable reasons that anybody’s been able to communicate,” Canales told CNN late last month.

In his letter to McAleenan, Cruz also wrote:

Many Americans … want to provide more direct and tangible help—they want to donate basic items such as diapers and toothbrushes to children in CBP custody. This desire is laudable, and deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Americans have long banded together to form charities and faith-based organizations to aid those in need. But I understand that many of these organizations are currently having difficulties making donations because DHS and CBP currently lack procedures to accept their donations.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he agreed with Cruz in a tweet:

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on Cruz’s letter in time for publication.

Kaylee Greenlee

Kaylee Greenlee is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

This article is republished with permission from The Daily Signal.

The post Cruz Calls on DHS to Make It Easier for Americans to Donate to Migrants at Border appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jason Hopkinson

President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to give law enforcement officials the authority to conduct interviews with asylum seekers arriving on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Under the upcoming plan, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers would train Border Patrol agents deployed on the southern border on how to perform “credible fear interviews,” according to sources who spoke with the Washington Examiner. A migrant illegally crossing the border would be subjected to an interview by an agent shortly after apprehension and would only be allowed to claim asylum if they pass the interview.

The changes would reduce the number of migrants who are waiting for a decision on their asylum case, alleviating an immigration court system bogged down with some 900,000 pending cases, and more quickly deport foreign nationals who do not qualify.

“If that gets rolled out and we actually start deporting people within a timely manner, you’re going to see the numbers drop exponentially,” an official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said to the Examiner.

The only drawback for the administration would be that agents would be temporarily diverted away from border enforcement duties as they undergo training. However, the plan is expected to result in an overall drop of illegal immigrants entering the interior of the country.

“Theoretically, we could end up deporting them in two weeks, rather than two to five years,” another source stated. Asylum seekers typically wait in the U.S. for years as they wait for their case to be adjudicated.

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) believe they are within their authority to implement this plan because asylum officers are required to be immigration officials, and Border Patrol agents are considered to be immigration officials. For this reason, DHS is not seeking congressional approval.

Nevertheless, the change is expected to be challenged in court.

It’s not yet clear when the Trump administration will begin training agents, but sources said the White House wants to move forward with the plan “ASAP.”

Follow Jason on Twitter. 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Report: Border Agents Will Soon Have Authority To Decide Asylum Claims On The Spot appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Paul Ingrassia on February 14, 2019 

Republican senators were mixed in their opinions on securing border wall funding Thursday, with some calling a national emergency necessary and others saying Congress should just “do its job” to come to a solution.

Florida Sen. Rick Scott said a formal national emergency declaration was a necessary consideration given the reality of congressional gridlock and the growing demands by conservatives to see the wall built.

He also expressed frustration toward his Democratic colleagues.

“I think all of us are frustrated because the Democrats keep saying they care about border security, but they don’t do it,” Scott said. “They don’t care. They don’t care about keeping people safe. They don’t care about Border Patrol agents. They’ve got to go down there and talk to them.”

Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner similarly criticized Democrats on the border issue, saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “said not one dollar would go to border barriers.”

“This deal has money in it for border barriers so she broke her promise to her caucus,” he added.

“I don’t think it’s the right thing — I think Congress should [instead] do its job,” Gardner said when pressed on whether Trump should opt for a national emergency to ensure funding for the border wall.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins took a hardline stance against the White House’s strategy, maintaining that a national emergency “would be a mistake.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also said lawmakers shouldn’t support a national emergency.

“I don’t think we should do it that way,” he said.

Republican senators on the whole stressed the importance of border security, while hedging talk of physical barriers and a national emergency.

When discussing this position with the expectations of conservative voters, many of whom are agitating for a physical barrier, a handful of senators emphasize the positive aspects of the appropriations deal.

“Well if [Trump] signs the bill, he’ll get 55 miles right away, which is a good start,” Ohio Sen. Rob Portman told TheDCNF. “I think he can find funding elsewhere without declaring a national emergency by reprogramming. That’d be better.”

Still, others tried to negotiate a third way, believing the appropriations bill to be an adequate, if incomplete, start in the right direction for eventually securing the border.

Discussing the contents of the appropriations bill, which would allot $1.37 billion to border security — short of the $5.7 billion originally requested by the White House — Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, who was part of the 17-member panel that worked out the compromise, spoke promisingly of the deal, saying it’s the best way forward on border security.

“I talked to the President last night, I talked to the Vice President about two hours ago. He seemed upbeat and lively about everything. I didn’t ask him how he’d do on the bill,” Shelby told us. “I just told him I had signed the conference report and it was a down payment — it was not everything I wanted, and I’m not sure it wasn’t everything he wanted but it was a lot more than we had last week when I walked down.”

“Probably,” he said, responding to a question on whether a national emergency declaration is necessary. “But I’ll have to see what it is [because] I think we have to secure the border.”

Texas Sen. John Cornyn had a more candid response to border security talks.

“This is what you get when you have a dysfunctional negotiations between the executive branch and the legislature.”

Follow Paul Ingrassia on TwitterClick here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Republican Senators Divided On National Emergency, Border Wall appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The partial government shutdown has now gone on for 35 days.

President Donald Trump has said he will not sign any bill that does not contain the $5.7 billion to fund a wall along the U.S southern border. Congressional Democrats have been unwilling to approve any bill that would fund a border wall thus far.

Roughly 800,000 federal workers’ pay has been frozen until the end of the shutdown. These workers include air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and border patrol agents.

On Thursday, the Senate voted down two bills – one from each political party – that would end the shutdown.

This temporary funding measure would include back pay for furloughed workers. The measure would not include funding for the president’s border wall, which Trump said he hoped would be included in any long-term funding plan.

Trump said in the press conference that he had an “alternative” to a deal, but “had decided not to use it at this time,” making reference to an emergency order he had considered declaring if an agreement was not reached.

“Over the next 21 days,” Trump said, “I expect Democrats and Republicans to act in good faith…If we make a fair deal, the American people will be proud of our government for proving that we can put country above party.”

He said that the wall “should not be controversial.”

Trump told reporters that the “walls we are building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls” that are “operationally effective” and equipped with technology. He added that he never proposed or wanted a concrete wall “from sea to shining sea” because natural barriers were already in place. The steel wall, he said, would be in “specific, high risk locations” identified by Customs and Border Protection.

“Over the next 21 days,” Trump said, “I expect Democrats and Republicans to act in good faith…If we make a fair deal, the American people will be proud of our government, for proving that we can put country above party.”

He said that the wall “should not be controversial.”

It should be noted that this plan requires Congressional approval to go into effect.

The post Breaking: Trump Announces Plan to Temporarily End Government Shutdown appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Emily Larsen on November 28, 2018

After U.S. border agents fired tear gas at migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border Sunday, people on Twitter claimed that the Obama administration also used tear gas at the southern border.

“For all the libs and mainstream media liars freaking out about tear gas used at the border… Obama’s border patrol used tear gas too. Where was your outrage then?” Harlan Hill, a member of President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign advisory board, said in a tweet.

“Reminder: The Obama Admin also used force and tear gas in 2013 when a large group of people stormed our border and threw rocks at our agents—at the same exact place,” Brandon Darby, managing director of Breitbart Texas, tweeted.

“Oh, also, Agents used tear gas at the border when Obama was president, but I’m sure you were totally okay with it then for some reason,” Ashe Schow, senior editor at The Daily Wire, wrote in a tweet.

Many other laypeople said that the Obama administration used tear gas at the border.

Verdict: True

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents used tear gas on at least 79 occasions under President Barack Obama. Most of the instances occurred at the southwest border, CBP said.

Fact Check:

U.S. border agents fired tear gas near the San Ysidro port of entry Sunday as hundreds of migrants tried to breach the U.S. border. The incident led CBP to shut down the port’s pedestrian crossings for about four hours and vehicle lanes for about five-and-a-half hours.

“In the course of these events, individuals engaged in active assaults, throwing dozens of projectiles at CBP law enforcement personnel,” CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told members of the media in a phone call Monday. “Our Border Patrol agents were able to counter this activity, address the attempted group entry, and resolve the assaults with presence and less-lethal device deployments.”

Some of the people who said that the Obama administration also used tear gas at the border cited a 2013 San Diego Union-Tribune story that said Border Patrol used “pepper spray and other means” to keep about 100 people from illegally crossing the border near the same port of entry that migrants approached Sunday.

The article did not specifically mention tear gas, but San Diego news station KPBS reported that the Border Patrol used tear gas and rubber bullets during the 2013 incident.

CBP provided The Daily Caller News Foundation with figures on the number of incidents involving 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, commonly called tear gas or CS gas, in each fiscal year since 2012. From FY 2012 to FY 2016, CBP under the Obama administration used tear gas on 79 occasions.

Use of tear gas dropped after 2013, falling from 27 incidents in FY 2013 to only three in FY 2016. Incidents ticked up to 18 in FY 2017, which included about the last four months of Obama’s presidency and the first eight months of Trump’s.

There were 29 tear gas incidents in FY 2018, which ended in September – more than any year from FY 2012 to FY 2017. Tear gas may have been launched or used multiple times in one incident.

It is unclear exactly how many of these incidents occurred on the border or involved migrants, but CBP told TheDCNF that most incidents were at the southwest border. CPB use of force statistics for FY 2017 and FY 2018 show that the vast majority of uses of less-lethal devices by the Border Patrol, which include tear gas and pepper spray, were in sectors near the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Texas Tribune reported another incident involving tear gas at the border in 2013, but not by CBP agents. Texas Rangers fired tear gas across the border at alleged shooters on the Mexico side while assisting Border Patrol.

Other news reports document tear gas incidents at the border separating San Diego from Tijuana during President George W. Bush’s administration. The New York Times reported that Border Patrol agents also fired tear gas and pepper spray across the border in 2007 to repel people throwing stones, bottles and bricks. A San Diego NBC News affiliate reported that Border Patrol fired tear gas into Mexico in 2008.

Some tear gas affected people living in Tijuana. One woman in Tijuana told The Associated Press in 2007 that she was startled by tear gas fired by Border Patrol agents four times from Aug. 7 to mid-December that year.

CBP also uses Pava Capsaicin, a pepper spray compound, to saturate areas. Under the Obama administration, CBP used Pava Capsaicin in 434 incidents from FY 2012 to FY 2016. It was deployed in 56 incidents during FY 2017, split between the Obama and Trump administrations, and in 43 incidents during FY 2018 under Trump.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council and a 21-year Border Patrol veteran, told Fox News Monday that he has used pepper ball launchers in the past. “We have what we call PLS, or pepper ball launchers, that we – we use to saturate areas. Yes, I have had to use that in – in Naco, Arizona,” he said. “There’s been situations that we’ve had to do these – these things.”

Mexico’s foreign ministry on Monday called for a “full investigation” into the use of non-lethal weapons directed toward Mexican territory during Sunday’s incident. CBP’s use of force policy handbook states that “any use of less-lethal force must be both objectively reasonable and necessary in order to carry out the Authorized Officer’s/Agent’s law enforcement duties.”

“CBP takes Sunday’s employment of use-of-force very seriously,” a department spokesperson told TheDCNF in an email Monday. “CBP reviews and evaluates all uses of force incidents to ensure compliance with policy.”

Follow Emily on Twitter

Have a fact check suggestion? Send ideas to emily@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post FACT CHECK: Did The Obama Administration Use Tear Gas At The Border? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Jonah Bennett

GOP California Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote a letter in May to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and head of the EPA Scott Pruitt, urging the two to take action on the sewage spill in Tijuana that is pouring into the U.S. and apparently making Border Patrol agents ill.

Hunter drew attention to the massive sewage spill in the Tijuana River that is still moving through San Diego County, and in the letter sent May 9, he noted that it’s important to bring attention to the affects on Border Patrol agents and Navy SEAL members, not just the environmental impact of the spill.

“Compounding the environmental, economic and public health ramifications, it is imperative to highlight the negative impact this situation is having on our military and border enforcement personnel,” Hunter wrote in a letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Individuals with the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Navy SEAL teams perform their responsibilities throughout this area on a daily basis. The current spill, as indicated in the pictures I’ve enclosed, is significant and has increased their risk for exposure to a multitude of diseases and pollutants.”

“I have personally received reports of Border Patrol agents falling ill, being forced to leave their shifts and seek medical attention, possibly even putting their families at risk when these agents return home following events of exposure,” Hunter continued. “Additionally, I am aware of critical military operations and exercises in the area being suspended because of the harmful conditions and risk the current spill poses.”

For Hunter, the sewage seeping into the U.S. represents a drop in national security because of suspended military exercises.

The February sewage incident in Mexico occurred because of the collapse of a major sewage trunk line, and Hunter claims that Mexico is barely doing anything to clean up the mess in the aftermath. Moreover, Mexican officials never even informed the U.S. of the spill. At least 28 million gallons of raw sewage flowed into the Tijuana River earlier this year, but in actuality, that amount could be as high as 256 million gallons.

As such, Hunter wants the State Department and Environmental Protection Agency directly involved in “resolving this situation,” as the International Boundary and Water Commission effort is insufficient.

Follow Jonah Bennett on Twitter

Send tips to jonah@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Rep. Hunter: Sewage Spilling Into The US From Mexico Is Making Our Border Patrol Agents Sick appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.