This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Biden-Harris administration has orchestrated its open border practices to set up circumstances that are costing American taxpayers in the range of $150 billion to help aliens, millions of them illegally in America.

Per year.

And that's left coffers dry when citizens, facing the loss of everything because of Hurricane Helene, need a hand up.

The anger over the decisions at the executive level in the federal government that allowed that situation to develop is more than simmering: Sometimes it's erupting in outright rage.

It was Newsweek only months ago that estimated the "ongoing border crisis" under the Biden-Harris mismanagement was seeing 5,000 illegals released into the U.S. per day.

The costs? Estimated at $150.7 billion for just one year.

Now a member of the Biden-Harris team is pointing out, in a report in the Daily Caller News Foundation, that there's no money left to help Americans hurt by Helene.

Specifically, the report noted Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas now is complaining to the public that the Federal Emergency Management Agency gave more than $1 billion for a special migrant help program over the last two years, and "now it is running out of cash for disaster relief."

The report said Mayorkas' department continues giving "humanitarian services to noncitizen migrants" even though resources are running short for Helene victims.

It was Kamala Harris who has just announced that the government will be coming to victims' aid with checks … for $750.

Meanwhile, FEMA's disbursements through a "Shelter and Services Program" show it is dishing out cash for "shelter, food, transportation, acute medical care and personal hygiene supplies" for illegals.

"Let's go and point out the obvious which is that FEMA had utilized a large majority of the personnel who should be here taking care of this to be replaced or repurposed for immigration resettlement when we need to be focusing on Americans whether it be in Maui, Palestine, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, or Tennessee," Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills said.

That report charged that FEMA alone actually spent more than $363 million on migrants in just 2023.

But from Helene, so far, there have been reports of 191 fatalities and entire communities wiped out because of the destruction from the category 4 hurricane that came ashore just a week ago.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A legal team from the ADF is asking a federal court in California to put an immediate halt to a ban in the state on political parody.

That was imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom just weeks ago.

"California's war against political memes is censorship, plain and simple. We shouldn't trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed two laws punishing political speech, with one law taking effect immediately, just as the election season heated up – a time when we need more speech, not less," explained Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer with the organization.

"That includes political parody and satire, a type of expression that has been used throughout our nation's history. While lawmakers act as if posting and sharing memes is a threat to democracy, these laws target speech California officials don't like.

"We are urging the court to immediately halt enforcement of the law in effect now and to affirm the right of The Babylon Bee and Ms. Rickert to speak freely about political matters online."

The fight is over a case brought against the state in U.S. District Court there on behalf of the Babylon Bee and others.

The dispute is over the state's demand to censor political memes and satire, a move that has been described as threatening online political speech throughout the state.

WND previously reported as the battle heated up and Newsom, who has faced mockery for his state's high taxes, extremism on social issues like abortion and transgenderism, attempts to interfere with other states and their rights, took chutzpah to a new level.

That, by the way, derives from a Hebrew word meaning "insolence," "cheek" or "audacity."

He signed a law banning parody.

And it took only hours for his actions to limit speech, clearly in violation of the First Amendment, to draw a lawsuit, according to a report from UPI.

The report said video creator Christopher Kohls is charging Newsom with violations of the First and 14th Amendments with Newsom's "anti-deepfake measure" that was signed into law this week.

California's governor was offended by a parody released by "Mr. Reagan" recently:

In it "Kamala Harris" confirms she is the Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden "exposed his senility at the debate."

She confesses she is the "ultimate diversity hire," as a woman and a "person of color."

"So if you criticize anything I say you're both sexist and racist."

The mockery continues.

The video uses AI-generated audio clips, and it was shared by Elon Musk, collecting more than 100 million views.

Newsom responded:

The lawsuit in federal court in California charges that Newsom's scheme is a flagrant use of "state power to force private social media companies to censor private citizens' speech by purging election-related AI-generated content."

Musk's comment? "You're not gonna believe this, but Gavin Newsom, just announced that he signed a LAW to make parody illegal, based on this video."

He concludes California needs "new leadership."

However, taking on Newsom directly was the Babylon Bee, which prominently announced it has "'obtained this exclusive, official, 100% real Gavin Newsom election ad."

In it, "Newsom" states:

This is a message for the people of America, given in my authentically recorded non-AI voice. Thanks to my leadership over the last several years, California has become a world leader in extremist left-wing governance. My policies were so effective that almost 1 million people are now fleeing the state every year. We even ran out of U-Hauls.

During the COVID pandemic, I locked everyone in their homes and shut down businesses for months. Not the French Laundry, though. That's my favorite restaurant. Last year, I cleaned up the dangerous, messy streets of San Francisco. You know, because Chinese Communist President Xi was coming. And I really wanted to impress him. He's my boss, after all.

This year, I signed legislation that allows me to take custody of your kid if you refuse to give him artificial hormones and chop off his genitals. Because if you don't do that, you're a bigot. And bigots shouldn't be allowed to have kids. I've also led the way in green energy by banning all cars that don't run on electricity. Then I banned almost all the electricity. This is smart leadership.

On my watch, the cost of living and homelessness have skyrocketed. Schools are failing. Drug dealers and human traffickers are pouring across the border. And poop has covered the sidewalks of San Francisco. This is the positive, joyful vision we offer as Democrats.

That's why I'm enthusiastically endorsing Kamala Harris for president in 2024. She'll do to the country everything I did in California. Anyway, I'm California Governor Gavin Newsom, and I approve this 100% real message, which is a recording of my voice without the assistance of any AI whatsoever.

This isn't a deepfake. And you can rest assured that it isn't, because I just signed an unconstitutional law outlawing deepfakes. No one would dare violate it. Thank you, and science bless America.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Reporting in 2024 isn't what it was in 1974. Or even 1994.

Now the megacorporations that run networks and publications mostly are partisan – endorsing and promoting one side, the leftist side, of the news.

Some journalism teachers at universities have even said there's no need to report on "both sides" of an issue and ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently presumptuously instructed a network on what it should and should not be covering.

That often has left the reporting to online websites, citizen reporters and more.

And that faction just won a court victory.

The Institute for Justice explains a Texas court has ruled that a Fort Bend citizen journalist's First Amendment rights were violated by the county sheriff.

A federal court for the Southern District in the state found that the sheriff in Fort Bend County violated Justin Pulliam's rights by excluding him from a news conference in a public park that he was trying to record for his YouTube channel.

It was Judge George C. Hanks Jr. who adopted in full a recommendation from Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison.

His decision pointedly noted, "On July 12, 2021, the FBCSO closed Jones Creek Ranch Park to the public after a corpse was discovered. Pulliam had been filming FBCSO activity in the park before the decision to close the park was announced. After being told the FBCSO had closed the park, Pulliam complained to the FBCSO officer who announced the decision, and to [Sheriff Eric] Fagan directly. The FBCSO officer told Pulliam to go to the park entrance where a press conference would be held. Fagan then told Pulliam that if Pulliam did not go to the park entrance within five minutes, he would be arrested. Pulliam again protested, but eventually walked to his truck and drove to the park entrance where reporters were gathered. Pulliam parked his truck about 10 parking spaces away from where the reporters had parked their cars. About five minutes later, Fagan arrived at the press conference in a golf cart. Pulliam then walked toward the press conference. As Pulliam approached, Fagan told FBCSO Detective Robert Hartfield ('Hartfield') to remove Pulliam from the area of the press conference. Fagan pointed at Pulliam and told Hartfield: 'If he don't do it, arrest him, 'cause he is not part of the local media, so he have to go back.'"

The conclusion was that not only that Fort Bend County violated Justin's free-speech rights, but that his rights were so clearly established that Sheriff Fagan has no "qualified immunity," which the IJ described as "a dubious doctrine the Supreme Court developed to shield officials from accountability for their constitutional violations."

The IJ said the ruling also lets a separate claim for false arrest while Justin was recording deputies move to trial.

"Today's victory establishes that the government cannot give favorable access to the traditional media by discriminating against social-media journalists," said IJ Attorney Christie Herbert. "To the First Amendment, all speakers are equal, a bedrock principle necessary for twenty-first-century journalism."

A second incident developed months later, when a Fort Bend County sergeant arrested Justin for interfering with police, "even though Justin was far from the active scene and had permission from the property owner to record a welfare check on her property," the IJ reported.

"This victory shows how important the First Amendment is to protect investigative journalists like me who use social media to provide hard-hitting, often critical coverage, of the police and other government officials," said Justin.

IJ officials pointed out that just weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said police cannot arrest people for exercising their right to free speech."

The ruling said, "That Fagan's actions violated Pulliam's First Amendment rights was established by the Supreme Court decades ago: 'Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say.' 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.' 'Where a government restricts the speech of a private person, the state action may be sustained only if the government can show that the regulation is a precisely drawn means of serving a compelling state interest.' 'The First Amendment also protects Pulliam's right to simply listen and observe the press conference. 'The First Amendment protects the right to hear as well as to speak,' so that which 'silences a willing speaker … also works a constitutional injury against the hearer.'"

It found, "There is no question that Fagan violated clearly established law."

A trial still is pending on Pulliam's false arrest charges against authorities.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

America's abortion industry almost always describes itself as a health service, or health care, and claims abortions are a "medical procedure."

It's actually a billion dollar industry, and that now has been confirmed, according to a report from LifeNews, in a lawsuit by an abortion business that sued a pregnancy help center, which is located next door, essentially for stealing customers.

The report, originally from Operation Rescue, said the lawsuit is from Four Women, a Massachusetts abortion supplier against Abundant Hope Pregnancy Center, also known as Attleboro Women's Health Center.

"The abortion business is accusing Abundant Hope of unlawful practices aimed at interfering with women seeking abortions," according to the report.

The lawsuit by FW claims the "center engages in deceptive advertising and uses technologically advanced methods to reach abortion-vulnerable women, preventing moms from obtaining abortions."

The report explains the abortion business is complaining that the pregnancy center promotes "appointments in connection with abortion care," but actually, "It only takes a few seconds of perusing the pregnancy resource center's professional website to see offerings of material resources and emotional and spiritual support."

Specifically, "there are offerings for counseling and Bible-based abortion recovery as well as free pregnancy testing and ultrasound imaging."

The report confirmed, "No indication is given on the website that a woman can schedule an abortion."

The legal filing alleges that the pregnancy center intercepted communications between women and the abortion business and then called them.

However, the action notes that the abortion business turned in no complaints to police.

"There is no way to know whether these alleged electronic communications with patients are true and accurate," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, "or whether patients simply got confused about the contacts they had made as they searched online. Of course, those are not the only two possibilities."

Newman noted, "This legal action is proof that women are changing their minds when receiving hopeful, truthful alternatives. This is an attempt to interfere with the work of Abundant Hope Pregnancy Resource Center as it offers life-giving help to abortion vulnerable women and to women traumatized from past abortions."

Abortion for all, of course, has been one of two key agenda points for the Biden-Harris administration, and Kamala Harris has promised that it will become even more important if she is elected, as she wants to destroy the Senate filibuster process in order to impose her abortion regime on the entire nation.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined, in previous cases, that arbitrary bans on political signs are not constitutional.

So has the Ohio Supreme Court. And the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nevertheless, a town in Ohio adopted an ordinance that imposes severe restrictions on when such a political statement can appear, and now quickly is trying to reverse itself.

It's because of the attention it got from the American Center for Law and Justice, which was contacted by a resident of Carrollton, Ohio, and wrote to town officials.

They now have "agreed to stop enforcing this unconstitutional ordinance and to stop preventing our clients from placing political signs in their yard. This represents a triumph for this family and others affected by this unconstitutional ordinance. The town also agreed to take the ordinance to the Village Council for discussion and direction to take action, which should lead to the ordinance being removed from the books entirely," the ACLJ reported.

The legal team explained the case arose because of a "local ordinance that prohibits citizens from displaying political signs until mere weeks before an election – an egregious violation of their right to free speech."

In fact, Carrollton's rule states: "Political signs may be exhibited not more than thirty days before nor more than seven days after the date of any election."

Many problems are linked, the legal team's report said.

"One of them is that in Ohio, early voting commences on October 8, 2024, and many people plan to vote on days other than Election Day itself. This ordinance will, therefore, ban political signs until almost immediately before the election actually starts."

The clients for the ACLJ are homeowners in Carrollton and "wish to show their support for their preferred candidate for president by placing political signs in their yard. This support is not limited to simply 30 days before an election; they have a fundamental desire to express their political support throughout the year."

Their sign, supporting President Trump, went up. And a policeman knocked on their door.

"He told them that he had been directed to go door to door to families that had political signs in their yards and order them to remove the signs. This order was so egregious that our clients thought it was a joke, but the officer confirmed the order; they had to take down their sign," the report said.

But the Supreme Court has, in fact, determined that basing sign permissions on content is "presumptively unconstitutional."

"We sent a letter on Tuesday to Carrollton, demanding that it immediately cease from applying this unconstitutional ordinance. … A day after receiving our demand letter, the town of Carrollton responded and agreed to stop enforcing this unconstitutional ordinance and to stop preventing our clients from placing political signs in their yard," the ACLJ said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report has been released that documents an argument being described by promoters of the lucrative abortion industry as being about "abortion" actually is more accurately assigned to a completely different dispute: infanticide.

"The abortion industry and its sympathizers want to make this about abortion. It's not. It's about infanticide," explained Carol Tobias of National Right to Life. "It is barbaric that newborns who have the temerity to survive an abortion are considered the 'dreaded complication' by abortionists.'

"The baby who survives an abortion deserves the full protection of the law."

This controversy, pushed into the headlines in previous situations such as when Gov. Ralph Northam several years back confirmed a baby would be born, made comfortable, and then the doctor and mother would decide what to do with it, has returned.

It has resurfaced just as "pro-abortion groups have promoted false narratives about babies who are born alive during abortions. Additionally, vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is under scrutiny and criticism for his actions in reversing state protections for babies born alive following abortions," the report said.

Pending before Congress, in fact, is the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" to require when a baby is born alive following an abortion, health care workers "must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care that would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

WND reported that during a recent presidential debate, when ABC's moderator, Linsey Davis, was helping Democrat candidate Kamala Harris argue with GOP candidate President Donald Trump, Davis claimed, "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born."

But that's not exactly correct. A published report at Live Action News noted, "Colorado, Michigan, and California have all recently enacted laws that include the term 'pregnancy outcomes.' These states have moved to make abortion a 'right' and allow women to make choices about abortion based on undefined 'pregnancy outcomes.' The vague term could encompass situations like birth, miscarriage, abortion, and even death after birth."

The report confirmed, "Since these 'outcomes' are not defined, a post-birth death that is caused deliberately or even by negligence is not excluded."

The new report from National Right to Life cited a Philadelphia Inquirer report that confirmed: "In legalizing abortion in 1973, the Supreme Court said it was reserving the right to protect the life of a viable fetus – that is, one with the potential to survive outside the womb. But the court never directly acknowledged the chance of an aborted fetus being born alive. And it therefore never gave a clear guideline for dealing with what Dr. Thomas Kerenyi, a leading New York expert on abortions, has called 'the dreaded complication.'"

There are estimates that hundreds of children survive abortion each year.

The report explained, "In the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down Nebraska's law banning partial-birth abortions, the Court extended Roe beyond the unborn child and to the child who was partially born and moments from birth. According to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee report (107-186) issued on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001, 'The Carhart Court considered the location of an infant's body at the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion–delivered partly outside the body of the mother–to be of no legal significance in ruling on the constitutionality of the Nebraska law. Instead, implicit in the Carhart decision was the pernicious notion that a partially-born infant's entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent upon whether or not the partially-born child's mother wants him or her. In response, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. While the legislation recognizes that a baby born alive following an abortion is legally a human being, the law does not impose penalties on medical practitioners who violate the law."

The report notes, "While federal law does recognize that a baby born alive following an abortion is a person under the law, there are no requirements to provide care for the baby following a failed abortion. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require that the live baby born after an abortion be treated as a patient and given the same care that would be given to an infant of the same gestational age who was born not following an abortion. This legislation would also allow a mother to sue the abortionist if he or she fails to provide care for the newborn and harm results from a violation of the law. The mother is not penalized for any reason."

Cited in the report is the case of Kermit Gosnell, who ran an abortion business and, when eventually investigated, was confirmed to have "routinely delivered live babies and then ended their lives by severing their spinal cords with scissors."

He was convicted on three counts of murder and remains imprisoned.

Further, in 2019, in the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Kathy Tran sponsored House Bill 2491, a bill that would loosen Virginia's abortion laws and allow abortion for any reason until birth.

Majority Leader Todd Gilbert questioned her, and she openly admitted her bill would allow abortion even when the mother is showing imminent signs of giving birth.

Appropriately, in light of the approaching presidential election, the organization released details about Kamala Harris' perspectives on abortion.

She wants to use tax dollars to kill unborn children, to eliminate all state protections for the unborn and install "unlimited abortion until birth" in federal law. She also endorsed suspending safeguards that had been established for the use of chemicals to cause abortion, has overseen millions of federal dollars going to abortion industry members, has promised, if president, to demand on judicial nominees endorse unlimited abortion, and more.

Her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, aligns with virtually the same agenda.

In his state, he's already worked to call abortion a "fundamental right" which means that that state's protections for abortion patients all were struck down.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a move that could signal the beginning of the end for the expensive and unreliable Biden-Harris green energy ideology, 14 of the world's biggest banks have announced they are lining up behind President Donald Trump's plans for nuclear energy in the world's future.

Online reporting cited documentation of the plans by the Financial Times:

The statement said, "Banks and funds totaling $14 TRILLION in assets have just signed an unprecedented statement in support of nuclear power. They'll be presenting the pledge to support the goal of tripling nuclear THIS MORNING at the Rockefeller Center in New York City to kick off NY Climate Week."

It continued, "A few of the names: Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Brookfield, Citi, Credit Agricole, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Rothschild & Co. The pledge comes after Microsoft signs deal to buy $16 billion in electricity from a revived Three Mile Island nuclear plant alone over 20 years to fuel its AI ambitions."

Trump just weeks ago had chosen his agenda:

He said, "Nuclear now has become very good, very safe, and you build the smaller plants and you attach them… Nuclear is very powerful, very good."

Revolver News said, "It might be time to wave bye-bye to the Marxist 'Green New Deal' and say HELLO to nuclear power. The world's top banks have had enough of the green nightmare and are now pledging their support for nuclear energy. The Harris/Biden regime just took a direct nuclear hit to their tyrannical green agenda, and they may never recover. Actually, to get an idea of how deep this goes, BNP told the 'Financial Times' there's 'no scenario' where the world can hit carbon neutrality by 2050 without nuclear power. In addition, Barclays is also board. They believe that nuclear power could solve the problem of unreliable wind and solar energy. In other words, the global elites' green plan is an epic failure—just like many of us predicted long ago."

"This event is going to be a game-changer," George Borovas, involved in nuclear projects for the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, told the Financial Times. He said until now support for nuclear projects has been difficult because the senior managers would just say they don't understand it and it's controversial.

He said now banks could normalize nuclear energy as "part of the solution for climate change."

Various renewable industries, from solar panels to wind turbines, all have proven to be very expensive. Further, they cannot be considered reliable, as the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – The lid on the pot, which has been covering the simmering tensions between Israel and the Lebanese terrorist group – Hezbollah – since Oct. 8, threatened to come off overnight Saturday and into Sunday morning, as the feared all-out war draws ever closer.

Hezbollah fired approximately 150 missiles at wide swathes of Israel's north – including the country's third-largest city – and one with a largely mixed population of Jews and Arabs – Haifa – purportedly in retaliation for a week of massive losses for Iran's proxy.

Hezbollah's overnight volleys targeted the fertile and agriculturally important Jezreel Valley too, the deepest attempted strikes into Israel since the jihadists began shooting their rockets and missiles almost a year ago.

Incoming rocket alert sirens blared throughout the night, as Hezbollah terrorists fired indiscriminately toward Israeli population centers, including towns such as Afula and Nazareth – the latter being a town with a 70% Muslim, 30% Christian split, and which is famous for being a key locus in Jesus' life.

Iranians hold the blood of Arabs – especially Christian Arabs pretty cheaply – and it means nothing to them if their quest for regional domination targets these people. In an amusing twist, Christian Arabs could be seen posing in Nazareth with a fragment of one of Hezbollah's missiles, following its downing with an Iron Dome interceptor.

In addition to the firing of rockets at population centers, Hezbollah admitted it was aiming to hit the Refael defense firm facility in the Haifa area, as well as the Ramat David (Heights of David) Airforce base, some 30 miles from the Lebanese border. The Islamist organization said it had fired Fadi-1 and Fadi 2 rockets at the base, in retaliation for the civilians killed in Israeli strikes.

It was at this base, home to several air squadrons, as well as an Iron Dome air defense platform and ammunition, at which Israel's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced last week the country's focus of attention was pivoting away from Gaza, to the north. However, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, and a former IDF spokesperson Jonathan Conricus poured scorn on Hezbollah's attempts to justify their indiscriminate missile fire, posting on X, "Many hits in Israel are miles away from alleged targets. Don't be fooled."

Israel did suffer some civilian casualties. A few people were wounded from falling shrapnel in the barrages shot at the north; and a young driver was killed when he lost control of the vehicle he was driving when an incoming rocket alert siren sounded. There was some property damage too in Kiryat Bialik, with one home taking a direct hit, although the residents were in a safe room and emerged unscathed. In a show of defiance, the property in question was later photographed with a large Israeli flag draped over the remains of the building.

Hezbollah was not alone in attacking Israel Sunday. An Iraqi pro-Iranian group admitted to firing two cruise missiles toward Israel, which, according to the IDF, the arrayed incoming missile defense system managed to bring down outside of Israeli territory.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A woman is suing Broward County, Florida, after law enforcement officers there arrested her for something someone else did, refusing to accept her own identification and ignoring the fact that the description of the wanted woman didn't match.

The Institute for Justice reports the complaint against the county is on behalf of Jennifer Heath Box.

She charges authorities violated her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as due process.

The IJ explained the background:

In December 2022, Jennifer went on a cruise with family members to celebrate the news that her younger brother, Mark, had beat cancer for the second time. After a fun week aboard the Harmony of the Seas, the cruise ship returned to Port Everglades on the morning of Christmas Eve, giving Jennifer enough time to spend Christmas with her three adult children. But when Jennifer scanned her ID to get off the ship, police surrounded her and told her there was a warrant for her arrest for child endangerment out of Harris County, Texas.

The IJ reported the warrant did seek a woman named Jennifer, but it wasn't this Jennifer. And she documented that her own children already all were adults.

"It was a really scary and confusing experience, because I've never had run-ins with law enforcement and I have no criminal record," she explained. "I couldn't believe that I could be stopped, arrested, and jailed, just because my name was similar to someone they were looking for."

She knew the officers were wrong, so she cooperated calmly and provided police with her license and date of birth, as well as information about her children.

It didn't matter to officers.

"Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Peter Peraza handcuffed her on the ship and took her to a police car for additional questioning. In the car, Jennifer continued to lay out evidence that Peraza had the wrong person, but he insisted everything on the warrant matched Jennifer's identification. It didn't," the IJ said.

For example, the suspect's name was Jennifer Delcarmen Heath, not Jennifer Heath Box, the suspect was 23 years younger than Jennifer, making her even younger than one of Jennifer's children, the suspect was five inches shorter than Jennifer, the suspect had different color eyes, hair, and skin tone and the suspect had a different home address, driver's license number, social security number, and Harris County System Person Number.

Then, in what would seem to be important, the law enforcement search was for a woman with "five young children."

"Peraza had so much evidence that he had the wrong Jennifer, and he either ignored that evidence or deliberately misled other Broward County officials," said IJ Attorney Jared McClain. "We must be able to hold government officials accountable when they overlook glaring evidence and arrest the wrong person."

When Peraza arrived at the booking station with the wrong woman, the officer there confirmed she had no outstanding warrants, but Peraza didn't believe him.

"Jennifer was then strip searched and booked. Over the next three days, she faced horrible conditions. A male inmate routinely tried to enter Jennifer's cell while she was alone, and officers blasted death metal over the speakers and freezing air into the cell, making it so cold that she had to sleep back-to-back with another inmate just to keep warm," the IJ said.

Her husband, a police officer, told the county to compare her fingerprints, but officers refused.

Finally, family members found that a Harris County employee had damagingly attached Jennifer's driver's license photo to the warrant, instead of the suspect's photo.

IJ litigation lawyer Bobbi Taylor said, "This lawsuit is about making sure what happened to Jennifer doesn't happen to anyone else. This needs to stop."

The "mistake" cost her three days in jail, the holidays with her children, and a meet-up with a son who was being deployed with the Marines.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, are taking credit for the recent drop in encounter numbers at the southern border – after reinstating policies similar to what was enacted by former President Donald Trump.

It's no secret that since taking office, the Biden administration, and particularly his VP Harris who was given the border portfolio and forever became known as the "border czar," did absolutely nothing to stop undocumented migrants from pouring over the border and into the interior of the U.S. over the past three years.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection released its August update on Monday, noting the success Biden's Securing the Border interim final rule has had since it was implemented in June of this year.

Troy A. Miller, a senior official performing the duties of the commissioner, said the number of encounters at the southern border has fallen to levels not seen in years.

"CBP continues to enforce the Securing the Border interim final rule and deliver strong consequences for illegal entry, and encounters between ports of entry remain at their lowest level in years. Through the work of our dedicated personnel, this enhanced enforcement posture is meaningfully disrupting the operations of deadly transnational criminal organizations. In August, CBP's counternarcotics surge efforts also led to the seizure of 30% more dangerous drugs than in July – keeping them out of our communities and enabling further enforcement against these criminal networks," Miller said.

According to the CBP report, since the proclamation has been enforced, encounters between ports of entry have decreased by more than 50%. The report notes the executive action has "led to a significant increase in the percentage of migrants removed from the United States and a decrease in the number of people released pending their removal proceedings."

Furthermore, through June 5, and Sept. 10, the Department of Homeland Security has removed or returned more than 131,000 individuals to over 140 countries. DHS has tripled the amount of noncitizens processed for removal and has decreased the amount of releases pending immigration court, according to the report.

"Total removals and returns over the past year exceed removals and returns in any fiscal year since 2010 and a majority of all southwest border encounters during the past three fiscal years resulted in a removal, return, or expulsion," the report states.

However, despite the rosy picture being painted, the border states continue to struggle with undocumented migrants, and are seeing a growing number of violent gangs coming across.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced on Tuesday his state's plan to target and arrest members of the Tren De Aragua prison gang, which originated in Venezuela, according to the Center Square.

National Border Patrol Council Vice President Chris Cabrera, who was present at the news conference in Houston, said there is no way to vet anyone coming across the southern border, and in some cases, countries like Venezuela have refused to help agents identify people – so those people are let go into the interior of the U.S.

"What people fail to realize is working on the border, we see everything come through, but it doesn't affect us as much as it affects the rest of the United States, especially Houston. Everything that comes through our area just passes through and it ends up as your problem or a problem somewhere up north. If people don't wake up and see it for what it is, we're going to be in a lot of trouble in this country," Cabrera said.

Trump's Remain in Mexico policy and Biden's Interim Final Rule, share many similarities. Both policies made allowances and exemptions for certain aliens, including unaccompanied alien children, lawful permanent residents, noncitizens with a valid visa or any other lawful permission to enter the U.S.

"Under the IFR, aliens arriving in the United States at the southern border during emergency border circumstances who do not fall within the exceptions to the Proclamation's entry restrictions are ineligible for asylum unless they show by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that "exceptionally compelling circumstances exist," Biden's proclamation states.

Trump's Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico) placed migrants into removal proceedings before an immigration judge. These undocumented migrants were to remain in Mexico throughout their removal proceedings.

"With certain exceptions, MPP applies to aliens arriving in the U.S. on land from Mexico (including those apprehended along the border) who are not clearly admissible and who are placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240. This includes aliens who claim a fear of return to Mexico at any point during apprehension, processing, or such proceedings, but who have been assessed not to be more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico. Unaccompanied alien children and aliens in expedited removal proceedings will not be subject to MPP. Other individuals from vulnerable populations may be excluded on a case-by-case basis," Trump's policy states.

While security at any of the U.S. borders is a good thing, there is a stark difference between how Biden's policy has been accepted, and even celebrated, while Trump's Remain in Mexico policy, enacted in 2019, was touted as divisive, and even racist.

Meanwhile, liberal groups are calling out Harris' plan to implement the bipartisan bill she says was nixed by Trump if she becomes president – which includes continuing to build the wall at the southern border, and increasing funding to detain undocumented migrants.

However, despite her policies mirroring Trump's, some insist they still support Harris' campaign, according to Axios.

Kerri Talbot, executive director of the Immigration Hub, told Axios the group "still opposes this bill," and "if you take out the Ukraine aide that was originally part of the compromise, it's just a Republican bill," but added she still supports the Harris campaign.

Gina Cummings of Oxfam America said her group believes the bill "should not be brought to the Senate floor or passed under any current or future administration."

Meanwhile, Sunil Varghese, policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Project, said "anti-immigrant policies rather than reform or modernize the sorely outdated U.S. immigration system."