Stephen Miller Uses Textbook Definition of Immigration to Call for “Massive” Deportations

Stephen Miller claimed Wednesday that the United States is being overrun by immigrants and can only be saved by “massive” deportations.

The white nationalist and former Trump White House adviser was backing up chilling comments from his old boss, who over the weekend echoed Adolf Hitler by accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

“We are being conquered,” Miller said to Fox News’s Jesse Watters. “This is a complete resettlement of America in real time. It took hundreds of years, going back long even before our founding, going back all the way to the earliest days of the colonies in America to slowly build everything that we have.

“And now we have millions of people coming in from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems. They’re going to take those belief systems with them to America,” he continued. “So, a generation from now, I am telling you Jesse, people will not know the country that they are living in. These consequences are permanent. Unless there’s massive large-scale deportations by the millions, it will be irrevocable.”

Stripped of the incendiary rhetoric, this is really just a definition of how immigration works: People move to another country, bringing the culture of their homeland. In fact, Miller implicitly acknowledges that America was colonized by white people who emigrated from England—with “belief systems” that were, needless to say, different from those of the people already living in North America.

Of course, countless millions of others have since come to America “from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems,” but Miller isn’t one to let a few basic historical facts get in the way of his narrative. He’s simply opposed to the nonwhite people immigrating to America today.

Miller is reportedly on the short list for attorney general if Trump is elected in 2024. If Miller returns to power, he could help implement those “massive large-scale deportations” he called for. He was already the mastermind behind some of Trump’s worst immigration policies, including separating families at the southern border and banning Muslims from entering the country.

And Trump is likely to go along with Miller’s suggestions. The former president appears to be making the Hitler parallels a major part of his 2024 campaign persona.

Miller also claimed Wednesday that the Colorado Supreme Court banning Trump from the state presidential ballot was part of the “great replacement theory,” the far-right theory that white people are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants. This conspiracy theory is growing increasingly popular among Republicans.

“You see a two-front attack on democracy,” he said. “They are saying to American citizens, ‘You can’t vote. You don’t have a voice. You can’t be heard.’ And they’re also saying, ‘We’re bringing in new people that we think will agree with us and support us, and their families will vote for us, and they are going to be the new base of power in this country.’”

Republicans are up in arms over Donald Trump getting banned from the Colorado presidential ballot, a sign of how much power he still has in the party.

The Colorado Supreme Court issued a historic decision late Tuesday, ruling 4–3 that Trump had engaged in the January 6 insurrection and was therefore disqualified from running for office again. Republicans have, predictably, fallen in line behind him.

Multiple lawmakers accused the state’s Supreme Court of election interference and voter suppression—which is pretty ironic given that the GOP opposes laws that would expand voter rights and 147 of its members in Congress voted to overturn the 2020 election results.

House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the ruling as “nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack,” while Representative Elise Stefanik predicted the decision will “backfire and further strengthen President Trump’s winning campaign to Save America.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is not-so-secretly gunning to be Trump’s vice presidential pick, demanded the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case.

“The Democrats and 4 Colorado judges just stole the election away from the people of Colorado and robbed them of their right to vote for President Trump,” she said on X, formerly Twitter.

“This is an unprecedented First amendment violation that must be struck down by the SCOTUS.”

Senator Mike Lee called the ruling “lawless thuggery masquerading as jurisprudence” and then shared a very strange animation of dancing bananas, implying the U.S. is a “banana republic.”

“This irresponsible ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and our legal team looks forward to helping fight for a victory,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel wrote on X.

Trump’s Republican primary opponents also slammed the ruling, instead of viewing it as an opportunity to actually beat the current front-runner. Nikki Haley said the decision should have been left to the voters instead of the judicial system, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis accused Democrats of “abusing judicial power.”

Even Chris Christie, whose campaign platform is basically that he’s a Trump hater, said the ruling was “premature” because Trump hasn’t yet been tried for inciting insurrection. He also said the voters, not the courts, should decide whether Trump becomes president.

Vivek Ramaswamy, whose campaign is but a series of trolly stunts, pledged in a social media screed to withdraw his name from the Colorado ballot if Trump isn’t on it, which sounds more like a massive self-own than a measured protest.

Donald Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that his anti-immigrant rhetoric is being compared to Hitler’s—and then he showed how little that bothered him, repeating much of the same vile language.

“They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country,” said Trump during a campaign rally in Iowa, echoing language from Hitler’s Nazi manifesto. “They don’t like it when I said that—and I never read Mein Kampf.”

“They could be healthy, they could be very unhealthy, they could bring in disease that’s going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world,” the GOP front-runner continued. “And they’re destroying the blood of our country. They’re destroying the fabric of our country.”

Trump has been dipping his toe into fascist rhetoric for years, but in a couple of Veteran’s Day speeches and same-day posts on TruthSocial, he described his Democratic rivals as “vermin”—a word Hitler regularly used to dehumanize his political enemies and the Jewish people.

Then, during rallies last weekend, Trump told supporters that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country” and described it as “an invasion ... like a military invasion. Drugs, criminals, gang members, and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities.”

The former president has outright admitted that he would abuse his powers if reinstated to the White House. During a Fox News–hosted town hall earlier this month, Trump said that he wouldn’t be a dictator “except for day one.”

And yet, Republicans seem to like this authoritarian lean. According to a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom Iowa poll, nearly half of surveyed Republicans noted that Trump’s recent caustic language would make them more likely to back him in the upcoming election.

According to the poll, 42 percent of likely GOP caucusgoers said that Trump’s “poisoning the blood” comment made them more likely to support him, while a hair more—43 percent—said that his references to “vermin” made them feel just as supportive.

One of the respondents, 71-year-old June Koelker, told the Des Moines Register that Trump’s immigration plan made her more likely to back him, although she disagreed with his “poisoning” comment.

“The ones who are coming in now, with no children, no wife, no family, dressed fine as wine, we’re handing them money and giving them air traffic anyplace in the country,” Koelker told the paper. “And don’t you wonder—they’re all military age—what they’re here for? Our country is not safe now.”

Opponents both domestic and abroad have come out in full force against Texas’s latest immigration law, which gives local judges the authority to deport immigrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

The law, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott on Monday, is the amalgamation of Texas Senate Bill 3 and Texas Senate Bill 4. The first-of-its-kind policy appropriates $1.5 billion in border funding and effectively makes crossing the Texas-Mexico border a state crime, creating a new state misdemeanor for immigrants who enter or reenter the state illegally, with violations of the new crimes punishable by up to two years. The law also gives local and state police the authority to arrest immigrants whom they suspect of having unlawfully crossed into the state, as opposed to federal agencies.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the state in an effort to block the state-specific anti-immigration effort, arguing that the bill is unconstitutional and defies federal immigration law, according to the lawsuit.

“Governor Abbott’s efforts to circumvent the federal immigration system and deny people the right to due process is not only unconstitutional but also dangerously prone to error, and will disproportionately harm Black and Brown people regardless of their immigration status,” Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said in a statement.

Abbott has responded that the state is willing to take that lawsuit all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, reported Politico.

But they weren’t the only ones angered by the state’s creeping regulations. The nation’s southern neighbor also came out in fierce opposition to the newly minted law, promising to file a formal challenge.

“The foreign ministry is already working on the process to challenge this law,” Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

Senator Tommy Tuberville on Tuesday criticized Donald Trump’s comments about migrants—for not being cruel enough.

Trump dived deeper into fascism over the weekend, saying Saturday that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” When asked about Trump paraphrasing Adolf Hitler, Tuberville merely backed him up.

“I’m mad he wasn’t tougher than that,” Tuberville told reporters. “Because have you seen what’s happening at the border? We’re being overrun. They’re taking us over. So a little bit disappointed it wasn’t tougher.”

In addition to being incredibly xenophobic and factually inaccurate, Tuberville’s response is deeply ironic. Complaints about not having strong enough protections for the country are pretty rich coming from the man who spent the past year single-handedly wrecking U.S. military readiness.

Trump also said over the weekend that he would use federal law enforcement funds to combat a “military invasion” at the southern border.

“Drugs, criminals, gang members, and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities,” Trump said Sunday.

He then promised to “shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement, including parts of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and DHS.”

Tuberville, unfortunately, is the only Republican senator so far to take an explicit stance on Trump’s comments. His fellow GOP senators have opted instead for lukewarm rebukes. Senator Roger Wicker said he “certainly wouldn’t have said that,” and Senator Thom Tillis called Trump’s words “unhelpful.”

Congress had a no-good, very bad year.

As the 118th Congress winds down the first of its two-year session, it’s abundantly clear that this latest iteration has come up shockingly short, passing just 20 bills through both chambers, according to Quorum legislative data analyzed by Axios. Four additional bills are currently waiting Biden’s signature.

That’s drastically lower than previous congresses, which tallied far above 50 bills in their first year and typically passed between 300 and 450 laws.

This year’s congressional report card sank below even some of Congress’s most unproductive years, reported Axios, including the 104th, 112th, and 11th Congresses, which saw Republicans controlling the House or Senate during Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidencies. Still, those sessions managed to pass between 70 and 73 laws.

The abysmal productivity is thanks, in large part, to historic divisions and tensions among Republicans, who are still holding onto a slim majority, effectively necessitating unanimous consent to pass sections of their agenda.

The House has also failed to come up with budgetary solutions as the government stares down another looming government shutdown just weeks after it comes back from Christmas break.

The majority of bills that were able to slip through the cracks this year were unsurprisingly uncontroversial. Those included measures to rename Veterans Affairs clinics and to mint a coin commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Marine Corps, noted Axios.

Republicans also managed to waste the better part of two months over the last year, unable to pick a leader. Given the upcoming election, it’s unlikely that next year will prove more productive.

The GOP also chose to waste time on the impeachment of President Joe Biden, which even Republican lawmakers admitted failed to tie the president to any wrongdoing, let alone illegal activity.

Donald Trump wants someone to challenge Texas Representative Chip Roy in the primary.

Although Roy sits comfortably in the House of Representatives’ far-right wing, the Freedom Caucus member and Trump have locked horns a few times before. Trump took aim at Roy on Monday in a classic late-night social media post.

“Has any smart and energetic Republican in the Great State of Texas decided to run in the Primary against RINO Congressman Chip Roy. For the right person, he is very beatable,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If interested, let me know!!!”

Roy is currently running unopposed in the Republican primary. And since the deadline to file candidacy was last week, it looks likely to stay that way.

Trump and Roy have bumped heads a few times since the latter took office in 2019. Roy voted against overturning the 2020 election results. A year later, when Roy ran for GOP conference chair, Trump endorsed Representative Elise Stefanik. Stefanik was elected.

Roy was also one of the first backers of Trump’s 2024 primary opponent, Ron DeSantis. Roy first endorsed DeSantis in March, before the Florida governor had even officially declared his candidacy.

Once touted as Trump’s successor, DeSantis failed to pick up steam and is trailing Trump badly in the polls. But that clearly doesn’t mean Roy’s continued support for DeSantis doesn’t irk Trump. It’s possible that two years from now, the Texas representative will face a challenge from a Trump-backed candidate—and that candidate could dethrone him. But for now, his seat is very safe.

Young voters are proving decidedly less interested in a 2024 Biden win than they were four years ago.

A New York Times/Siena College poll published Tuesday indicates that most young voters are leaning toward voting for Donald Trump, with the indicted former president pulling 49 percent of the vote from constituents aged 18 to 29, with Biden at just 43 percent. That’s a stark contrast from July, when young voters preferred Biden by as much as 10 percentage points.

The difference is likely due to the president’s handling of the conflict in Gaza, in which Biden has been a staunch ally to Israel. That’s resulted in a 72 percent disapproval rating within the same age bracket, according to the poll. However, faced with Trump on the other side of the ballot, those voters say they may be more likely to stay home than turn up to the voting booths.

“I don’t want to vote for someone who is not aligned with my own personal values, as Biden has shown he is not when it comes to Gaza,” Colin Lohner, a 27-year-old software engineer in San Francisco, told The New York Times. “Do I vote for Biden or do I not vote at all? That’s really difficult, because if I don’t vote for Biden, I open up the possibility that Trump will win, and I really do not want that.”

So far, the conflict has killed more than 20,000 Palestinians and displaced 1.9 million people living in the Gaza Strip—roughly 90 percent of its population—since the war began on October 7.

The dwindling poll numbers are an alarming difference for the beleaguered president, who needed the support of young and minority voters to clinch his 2020 bid for the White House. Biden has voiced his own concern, reportedly marking his favorability ratings as a known issue in a closed-door White House meeting with top aides the day before Thanksgiving.

At the time, Biden was neck and neck in general election polls with GOP front-runner Donald Trump, with Trump predicted to win by a hair with 43 percent of the vote against Biden’s 42 percent, according to a Morning Consult poll.

And yet, the president is particularly irked that voters are not rewarding him for low unemployment figures and a humming economy that has defied predictions of a looming recession. As of December 14, Biden trailed eight points behind the oft-indicted former president in a national survey, predicted to gain just 35 percent of the vote against Trump’s 43 percent, according to a HarrisX/Harris poll.

Donald Trump’s lawyers are trying to prevent an expert witness from testifying in his upcoming defamation trial against writer E. Jean Carroll. In a fun twist, the expert witness is the same woman who helped set massive damages for Rudy Giuliani.

A federal judge ruled in September that Trump is liable for defaming Carroll in 2019 and owes her monetary damages. The exact amount will be set during the trial, which will begin in January.

Trump’s lawyers filed a motion on Wednesday asking presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan to bar Ashlee Humphreys, a Northwestern University marketing professor who analyzes social media trends, from testifying against the former president next month.

In the court documents, lawyer Michael Madaio argued that the damages estimates Humphreys had previously submitted were too high.

“The damages estimations in her initial report are egregiously inflated (to the tune of millions of dollars), utilize methods which ascribe harm in an unreliable and incorrect manner; and do not accurately reflect the actual harm to plaintiff’s reputation,” Madaio wrote.

Madaio took particular issue with the fact that Humphreys had initially included estimates for alleged damage caused by three different comments Trump made. Carroll is no longer suing over one of those statements, but Madaio argued Humphreys had not adjusted her estimate accordingly.

Carroll’s lawyer hit back Monday, pointing out that Humphreys had indeed accounted for the change in estimated damages in a supplemental report.

“Trump is understandably desperate to get rid of Professor Humphreys,” Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote in a filing asking to reject Trump’s request. “That Professor Humphreys recently testified in another case that resulted in a $108 million defamation verdict likely adds to Trump’s sense of urgency.”

Kaplan was referring to the defamation case against Giuliani. The former Trump lawyer was found liable in August for defaming Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. On Friday, Giuliani was ordered to pay the women a whopping $148 million in damages.

Humphreys testified against Giuliani on December 13, the same day Trump’s lawyers filed the motion to bar her from appearing at the Carroll trial. Her testimony was pivotal in determining the exact amount of damages he owed.

Humphreys is no stranger to Carroll’s case against Trump. The Northwestern professor already testified in Carroll’s first defamation lawsuit against the former president. In May, a jury unanimously found Trump liable for sexual abuse and battery against Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her in 2022 while denying the assault. He was ordered to pay her $5 million in damages, based on Humphreys’s estimates.

Carroll’s second lawsuit is for comments Trump made in 2019, when he said she made up the rape allegation to promote her memoir. Judge Kaplan ruled that since Trump has already been found liable for sexual abuse, his 2019 comments are by default defamatory. Carroll is now seeking up to $12 million in damages, based on Humphreys’s recommendation.

Clearly $148 million in legal penalties isn’t punishment enough for Rudy Giuliani, who took to Newsmax’s airwaves on Monday to vent even more defamatory lies about Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

“Your initial allegations, do you still believe them to be true?” asked host Rob Schmitt.

“Yeah. Well, of course they’ll sue me again when I say that, but yeah, I do,” Giuliani said. “But they want me to lie. They, basically, they are suing me in order to lie to them.”

“If I showed you the evidence right now, and I think you’ve played it on your air, people would see that what I said was absolutely true,” he said.

Unfortunately for the former federal prosecutor, claiming that people made him lie may not be the concrete defense he hopes it to be.

Before last week’s judgment, Giuliani repeated election lies that he had previously admitted were untrue mere steps outside the courthouse, resulting in a wrist slap by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who warned that it could result in more defamation charges for the broke fixer. And despite repeated promises to provide evidence on his debunked allegations, when the time came to finally take the stand and make “definitively clear” that what he said about the pair of workers was true, Giuliani opted not to.

Freeman and Moss originally sought $24 million each in damages after the former New York City mayor accused them of manipulating ballots—claims that transformed into months of harassment, death threats, and protesters at their doorsteps. Instead, the jury decided they deserve far more. On Friday, a court ruled that the mother-daughter duo would receive $16 million each in damages for defamation, $20 million each for emotional distress, and another $75 million in punitive damages from the former Trump attorney.

On Monday, the pair hit Giuliani with another lawsuit seeking a gag order and to permanently bar America’s disgraced mayor from continuing to trash-talk them. That new suit is based entirely on baseless claims that Giuliani made over the weekend, including some statements allowed to air on Newsmax, according to the legal complaint.

“Are they actually going to put a gag on me while I walk around?” Giuliani joked on air.