My daughter and I frequently watch a television program called “Mysteries of the Abandoned”    It occurred to me that this T.V. series reveals the underlying purpose of “Local Redevelopment and Housing Law” in New Jersey.   This law attempts to “redevelop” abandoned, blighted, dilapidated, and unused properties by repurposing the designated areas.  However, the positive reasoning for enactment of this law continues to be shrouded in the dark veil of the eminent domain controversies and litigation (taking of private property by a public entity).  The public continues to be suspicious of the motivation for designating redevelopment areas and blocks the reclaiming of the abandoned.

The governing body of a municipality, by resolution, authorizes the Planning Board to “undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether the proposed area is a redevelopment area according to the criteria set forth in section 5 of P.L. 1992, c. 79 (C.40A:12A-5).”   This “preliminary” study by a NJ licensed professional planner of a “Non-Condemnation Redevelopment Area” should eliminate the public’s fear of eminent domain. Furthermore, the public can hire an attorney to object to the designation by attacking the logical reasoning and application of the “criteria” of the law.  A Planning Board can ultimately deny the recommendation to the governing body of a “Non-Condemnation Redevelopment Area.”  However, in this initial stage, the governing body can overrule this decision by the Planning Board and continue the procedure.

The process for change occurs slowly.  With the threat of litigation, the area can once again be “abandoned” and left vacant.  Nature will then be left to take back the land.  The height of human engineering and power can quickly become devoured by stronger natural forces.  After all, people and society are fragile.  An individual person’s life is temporary.    Control is an illusion.

Sherri Ruggieri is the managing editor of Empire State News. A practicing attorney, Ms. Ruggieri is also chairperson of Edison Township’s Planning Board. Additionally, she has served as a college professor, with nearly a decade of experience in teaching law and political science courses.




Kate Spade



Suicide claims too many creative lives.  The recent death of designed Kate Spade (real name–Katherine Noel Brosnahan) has shaken me.  I feel cheated of her talent.  My battle with breast cancer has forced me to value life.  Nothing can motivate more than being told you will die.  Perhaps there is a power in the choice to exist?

I wish that I could have talked to her before.  Even though she didn’t know me, I felt like I knew her.  One life connects to others in so many hidden ways.

Recently, I had been “watching” a unique Kate Spade handbag in a thrift store.  I was waiting to use my 50% off coupon.  Now, I don’t want it.  I’m too angry.  Suicide has robbed the world of her potential.  Why must the most beautiful life energies self-destruct?

SNOR depression sufferer and world watcher who has more questions than answers.







President Donald Trump is giving a clinic to the former Obama administration and those in the State Department on how to negotiate. The President walked away from the horrendous Iranian nuclear deal, confronted the North Korean regime, and challenged NATO to live up to its commitments. The foreign policy establishment on both sides of the aisle frowned upon all this because they thought they knew better. After all, they’ve been doing this for decades, and nothing has changed, so clearly, they should be listened to. Instead, President Trump ignored the “experts” and applied maximum pressure to U.S. foreign policy issues and is seeing impressive results.

While the mainstream media and former Obama officials were worried about Europe when negotiating the Iran deal, they ignored allies in the region. The U.S. allies in the Middle East were vehemently against the deal because they knew Iran would use the financial windfall to fund the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) actions within their borders. However, U.S. allies in the region were left with little recourse because the previous administration was unlikely to back any action against Iran, militarily or economically.

When President Trump withdrew from the deal, it gave new life to allies in the region. Because of the President’s leadership, Saudi Arabia believes it has an ally in the U.S. in its struggle against Iran and has started to flex its economic muscle. The Saudi Royal Family is extremely upset at Europe over its support of Iran and in particular Germany’s dealings with the Islamic Republic.

Because the IRGC controls the Iranian economy, when Germany does business with Iran, they are filling the coffers of the largest and most dangerous terrorist group in the world.

Now that the kingdom knows it has the support of the U.S., Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has decided to eliminate German companies from the bidding process for contracts in the country. Because of Saudi Arabia’s governing system, the move essentially shuts Germany out of any contract in the oil-rich nation. Germany exports over $7 billion in goods and services to the Kingdom, a large sum of which is now in danger.

The French are also getting the message about Iran. The French were one of the most vociferous proponents of the deal, wanting access to the untapped market. French companies visited the Islamic Republic in droves to sign deals shortly after the deal was signed. Companies are now reversing that action. French carmaker PSA Group has begun to suspend its joint venture with Iran for fear of being targets of sanctions.

During the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump often spoke about NATO, much to the consternation of the foreign policy establishment. The President was upset about the spending arrangement of the 29-member military treaty and felt the U.S. was carrying the lion’s share of the financial burden. The U.S. accounts for over 70 percent of NATO defense expenditures while most member nations fail to meet the 2 percent of GDP spending on defense goal for every NATO member.

The NATO funding issue has been a problem for Presidents since the end of the Cold War. The U.S. has maintained its military spending, while the rest of NATO cut their military, partially because the U.S. was still there protecting them. The President felt like the Europeans were getting a free ride on the back of the U.S. taxpayer.

The President’s harsh tactics seem to have worked, much to the surprise of naysayers. NATO member nations are answering the President’s call and have increased defense spending for the second consecutive year. Even Germany, notoriously stingy, has increased spending with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg remarking, “Germany increased defense spending last year by around 6 percent in real terms. That’s really a big increase and it adds to the European defense spending in a significant way.”

President Trump called out NATO when the “experts” said not to, and he got the increases in spending he wanted. President Trump called out the North Korean regime when the “experts” said don’t do that, and now the Singapore summit is set in a bid to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. And finally, the same “experts” cried when Trump pulled out of the Iran deal saying no one would follow, but recent events have once again proven them wrong. How long before these “experts” admit they were wrong and give President Trump’s maximum pressure policy the credit it deserves?

Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.

Americans for Limited Government is a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties.  For more information on ALG please visit the website at  You can also read more articles at






While the daily media frenzies bombard the public, President Trump signed S. 292, the Childhood Cancer STAR Act into law.  This law provides: “$30 million a year through FY 2023 for grants to support the National Childhood Cancer Registry; the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to make awards to support childhood cancer biorepositories available to health care professionals and scientific researchers; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to award grants to state cancer registries to enhance and expand infrastructure to track the epidemiology of cancer in children, adolescents and young adults; and the [National Institutes of Health] (NIH)’s Director to make grants to entities to conduct or support research relating to pediatric cancer survivors.”  The Childhood Cancer STAR Act reauthorizes and modifies the National Childhood Cancer Registry as well as creating pilot programs for cancer survivors.  By the offer of federal funding, states will have a monetary incentive to enter the battle against childhood cancers.

Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-07) expressed his support for the pediatric cancer community: “It is heartbreaking when a child is stricken with a cancer diagnosis.  We need to improve the federal services . . .  from research and access to treatment and survivorship.  The federal health care and research entities must be doing all they can, and the Childhood Cancer STAR Act delivers more resources and reform to make sure we are winning the fight against pediatric cancer by strengthening grants for promising and expanded programming.  I have met with families who have faced these terrible circumstances and I have been touched by their stories of perseverance and hope.”

Lance received the Congressional Champion Award by One Voice Against Cancer (OVAC), a coalition of national public interest groups of cancer researchers, patients, survivors and their families united in their battle against cancer.

Sherri Ruggieri is the managing editor of Empire State News and a breast cancer survivor.   A practicing attorney for over 20 years, Ms. Ruggieri is also chairperson of Edison Township’s Planning Board. Additionally, she has served as a college professor, with nearly a decade of experience in teaching law and political science courses






Slogans like “Stop Climate Change” reveal a logical fallacy (false logic).  Can we actually control the climate?  Can we stop volcanoes from spewing lava and ash?  Can we interrupt an earthquake by our words and good intentions?  The politics of climate change frustrates me.  We need to admit that we are vulnerable.  Insurance policies won’t cover our losses.  There are and have always been powerful forces.  Perhaps a dose of the truth would be the best medicine rather than to continue to encourage illusions.  Realistically, can we rescue the polar bears trapped on slowly melting blocks of ice?  Can prevent our own extinction?  We are, after all, resourceful and creative creatures.  Will we find a way to survive?  We must adapt to climate change.  We must evolve.

SNOR is a dreamer and world watcher who has more questions than answers.






As Congress and the Executive Branch continue to focus on immigration reform, they must focus on MS-13. Liberal counties would have their residents believe the safety of these gang members must be prioritized over the safety of law-abiding citizens-this mentality has fueled the gang’s growth. In order to end MS-13’s reign of violence, President Donald Trump, his administration, and Congress must stop cities from protecting criminals and return to protecting the American people.

MS-13 is a violent gang that manipulates the U.S. immigration system to recruit new members and expand their presence. Last week, our coverage made it clear these gang members are the animals President Trump has claimed them to be. With the slogan “kill, rape, control,” MS-13 has made it clear they will not stop until they can control vast areas across the country.

We must have an immigration and criminal justice system that takes an equally heavy-handed approach to preventing this gang from being able to kill and rape more Americans as they attempt to control our land.

Sanctuary cities are antithetical to the concept of a free and safe state because they protect these MS-13 members.

The Center for Immigration Studies found in an April 2017 report, over a nine-month period in FY2017, at least 142 gang members that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were trying to deport were released by local law enforcement instead of being reported to ICE.

A vast majority of these releases occurred in counties with strict sanctuary city policies, like Santa Clara County, California. As a result, these counties are putting their citizens at a higher risk of becoming victims of violent crime and theft.

The Mercury News, a Southern California newspaper, reported in February that violent, juvenile crime has been on the rise thanks to these “catch and release” policies.

“Based on Santa Clara County cases filed by the District Attorney’s Office, home burglaries attributed to underage suspects rose by 128 percent, from 81 to 185 between 2016 and 2017… Robberies were up 21 percent in 2017… carjacking rose 250 percent… assaults increased by 59 percent… and car burglaries jumped 51 percent.”

By releasing gang members back into communities instead of reporting them to ICE for deportation, these sanctuary cities are putting more of their residents and officers at risk.

The probation officer’s union president Mark Murray explained, “The county… should send a clear message to our community, both gang members and law-abiding citizens alike, that we take criminal street gang activity seriously.”

Luckily, at a roundtable discussion with members of law enforcement, experts, and elected officials in Long Island, New York, President Trump called for an end to these “catch and release” policies. Unfortunately, since these sanctuary counties are known for defying federal law, it is doubtful they will take the necessary measures to protect their citizens without force.

The Department of Justice has taken steps to equip local law enforcement and border patrol agents with the necessary resources to combat gang violence, but as long as these sanctuary cities are preventing their police officers from following the law, progress will be difficult.

Sanctuary cities must be stopped; they continue to place their citizens in anger to protect the lives of violent gang members. In order to end the terrorizing reign of MS-13 and other gangs, local officials must reject sanctuary city policies, and Congress must take steps to defund these counties. No American should live in fear due to local officials attempting to push a political statement; we must return to prioritizing our safety.

Natalia Castro is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.

Americans for Limited Government is a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties.  For more information on ALG please visit the website at  You can also read more articles at






Government employee unions have enjoyed an absolute boondoggle in recent years, receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds. But the boon could soon be over thanks to a new executive order from President Donald Trump.

Last Friday, the president signed an executive order requiring that federal government employees who work full-time for the public employee unions at taxpayer expense spend at least 75 percent of their paid time on the government’s business. The administration estimates this will save taxpayers $100 million. This measure is one of three executive orders signed by the president. Those orders do not eliminate taxpayer subsidies for public employee unions altogether—that is Congress’s job—but they do end the taxpayer subsidy of travel for union business; mandate that unions be charged fair market value for rents of government office space; streamline the public employee appeals process so that bad apples can be fired more rapidly; and force taxpayer-funded union workers to spend at least three-quarters of their time doing the people’s business.

Most people are shocked to learn that taxpayers have been footing the bill for public employee union salaries, but they become incensed when they learn that in 2016, union employees were paid $177 million by the federal government, not counting office space and travel expenses.

A 2013 Freedom of Information Act request by Americans for Limited Government discovered that the Department of Veterans Affairs alone had over 250 employees working full-time for unions in 2011. The Transportation Department had 35 employees on full-time “official time,” many of whom had salaries in excess of $170,000 per year. And in 2012, when the IRS was busy playing politics by delaying and denying Tea Party group applications for non-profit status, the Washington Times reported that more than 200 full-time IRS employees were engaged in nothing but union activity. The same report added that taxpayers picked up the bill for another $687,400 in union travel at the IRS alone.

It’s bad enough that the federal government spent between $150 and 200 million a year on union salaries and travel, but what’s worse is that this indirectly subsidized unions’ political activity. Because money is fungible, the money that public employee unions didn’t have to spend on personnel could then be turned around and spent on politics.

Public employee unions are among the biggest donors in politics, with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ranked the 15th largest contributor so far in 2018, according to Open Secrets. And this group, in particular, has overwhelmingly favored Democrats over Republicans.

Of the $4,843,291 that this group has poured into politics this year, exactly $6,000 of it went to groups, causes, or politicians considered to be Republican or conservative. In 2016, they spent almost $16 million on politics with under $8,000 going to Republican or conservative groups. In that same election cycle, their political action committee could not find a single Republican to support, giving 100 percent of their money to Democrats.

This is just one case out of many. For years, taxpayers have subsidized public unions that pursue political activities and overwhelmingly donate to Democrats. Their donations are designed to grow government, and consequently their own membership.

Public employee unions don’t even pretend to be anything but big government advocates. The president’s executive order forcing taxpayer-funded union employees to spend 75 percent of their time doing their federal job is a good first step in reigning in this far-left government funding stream.

Trump deserves kudos for recognizing the absurdity of taxpayer funding of the left, and in particular, he deserves credit for hiring people like Russ Vought and James Sherk for the Office of Management and Budget and White House staff, respectively, and Nathan Mehrens into the Labor Department. By hiring people who have studied and understand how the current federal civil service system perpetuates the administrative state, Trump set himself up for success when it comes to dealing with the wash, rinse, repeat swamp cycle that the public employee unions perpetuate.

Recently, much of the discussion about public employee unions in politics has been focused upon the upcoming Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which could allow public employees at all levels of government to opt-out of paying dues as a First Amendment right. But these new executive orders will have a much greater impact on  the federal bureaucracy, since federal employees already have the right to not join the union.

This executive order will shift about $100 million in union employee costs back onto the unions. This will force them to prioritize which cases should be fought and which one’s should be settled, injecting some rationality and perhaps greater speed into the federal government firing process.

Now, the president needs to take the next step: Force the public employee unions to compete for their members through an opt-in process, where the employee would have to actively decide to be a member of the union rather than being assumed to be a member unless they fill out the proper paperwork.

If the president takes this next bold step, the public employee union stranglehold on the federal government will be broken, giving Congress a chance to pass full-blown civil service.

You can almost hear the swamp draining.

As originally published in the Daily Signal.

The author is the president of Americans for Limited Government, and served on President Trump’s Labor Department transition team. 

Americans for Limited Government is a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties.  For more information on ALG please visit the website at  You can also read more articles at






New Jersey’s new law entitled “The Out-of-network Consumer Protection, Transparency, Cost Containment and Accountability Act” (A-2039/S-485) was enacted by the legislature and signed by Governor Murphy.  Specifically, the law protects insureds from unanticipated bills after medically necessary emergency or inadvertent out-of-network services. As explained by Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex), “Far too many New Jersey families found themselves slammed by outrageous out-of-network health care bills they neither agreed to nor had a chance to even review. We have put patients first. We have made clear that New Jersey stands for transparency when it comes to health care. We are putting families first and foremost.”

Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee Chair Joseph F. Vitale (D-Middlesex) added that “This law empowers the insured as consumers with the right to have the details of in-network and out-of-network services and fees clearly spelled out from the onset of coverage, not once they’re in the emergency room or a hospital bed.  Protecting people at their most vulnerable is government at its very best.  Today, we are at our very best and New Jersey has a lot to celebrate.”

There will be oversight of this new law, and within one year of enactment, the state must report its findings to the Governor and Legislature.  However, it should be noted that health insurance established by the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA) would not be subject to the law unless the decision has been made to opt-in. Assemblyman Coughlin thanked “Governor Murphy for signing this bill and Senator Vitale for his partnership, along with that of Assemblyman Schaer, Senator Singleton and Assemblywoman Lampitt. This bill has been too long in the works, but we finally got it done – and that’s to the benefit of all New Jersey families.”

Sherri Ruggieri is the managing editor of Empire State News. A practicing attorney for over 20 years, Ms. Ruggieri is also chairperson of Edison Township’s Planning Board. Additionally, she has served as a college professor, with nearly a decade of experience in teaching law and political science courses.




pic - Roseanne Barr



Let’s take the 800-pound mouse out of the room. Roseanne Barr’s joke about Valerie Jarrett was distasteful and insensitive. Even she said so.

It’s a free marketplace and ABC had the right to fire Barr.

It’s also a free marketplace where some other network may decide to forgive her, and hire her – and her 200+ crew – for a new show. Obviously, the American audience, in mass numbers, likes her comedy, in general. But the market shall decide such…

In the meantime, why the hell are the mainstream media and special interest groups so transfixed on President Trump’s reaction to Barr’s comments and ABC’s termination of her show? This was Barr’s statement, not Trump’s. But, all know, the mainstream media hardly report the actual story any longer. Instead, they report, with a very biased approach, on the president’s reaction to the story.

Here, there has been no real direct reaction by President Trump. So, the media is now cackling about the following tweet he issued:

“Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that ‘ABC does not tolerate comments like those’ made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call?”

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders thereafter poignantly noted several instances where ABC bosses could equally issue apologies. “Where was Bob Iger’s apology to the White House staff for Jemele Hill calling the president, and anyone associated with him, a white supremacist?” she questioned.

“To Christians around the world for Joy Behar calling Christianity a mental illness?” she further inquired.

“Where was the apology for Kathy Griffin going on a profane rant against the president on ‘The View’ after a photo showed her holding president Trump’s decapitated head? And where was the apology from Bob Iger for ESPN hiring Keith Olbermann after his numerous expletive-laced tweets attacking the president as a Nazi?” Sanders demanded.

But the mainstream media and special interest groups do not care about these very harmful verbal attacks. The hypocrisy is salient.

Also salient is how the press has gone into a frenzy in linking President Trump with Roseanne Barr, as if he is to be blamed for her statements. Of course, on its face, this guilt by association is farcical. President Trump is not at all responsible for distasteful, insensitive, and racist comments  made by others. More so, the president hardly knows Barr.

If the leftists want to go down the guilt by association road, they should revisit a real, super close relationship: the one between former President Barack Obama and the ultra-white-hating racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sat in the pews of Wright’s church for several years, soaking up all of Wright’s vile anti-Caucasian diatribe. And Wright wasn’t just Obama’s pastor. He was his named mentor. He married the Obamas and baptized their children.

The hypocrisy of the left is indeed unabashed, and rich in contemporary accounts.

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors who own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?



pic - illegal immigration TRUMP & FLAG



I was the first Congress candidate in the country to endorse Donald Trump, and I was the chairman of his presidential campaign in New York’s 18th Congressional District and Orange County, NY. I have stood with President Trump on the firm ground of his illegal immigration policies from the get-go, and I stand with him on it today. If you need heart surgery, surely do not see me because you would not do well on the operating table. Similarly, if the engine has failed on your automobile or if you need a house built, it would not be in your best interests to call on me for help as I am not expertised in the required fields. With regard to criminal, constitutional and immigration laws, I am indeed qualified, at the highest level. My qualifications have been provided at the end of this Op Ed, for those whose attention I have sustained.

Following is the only moral, legal, and economically rational plan to cure America’s illegal immigration pandemic:

(1) Break down – and decisively beat – the Fake News outlets, Hollywood boneheads, so-called academic elites, and plastic politicians, and actually educate Americans about the frightening prospects that U.S. citizens will certainly face if we do not eliminate illegal immigration. Simply, we do not have the land, resources or money to pay for illegals’ inhabitation of our nation. We hardly have enough funds to cover the expenses related to our own citizens. The United States will, undoubtedly, be rocked with a cataclysmic economic disaster, in the near future, if illegal entrance is not halted. Such are not the scares of the Boogey Man, but a fiscal reality.

(2) Provide permanent residency – but not citizenship – for the 800,000 DACA group (the “DACAs”). At this stage, it would be immoral to deport these people. They arrived, by no decision of their own, and have since grown families, and developed careers and friendships; many, but not nearly all, have contributed as taxpayers. That said, we cannot reward them with citizenship. And we cannot reward them with the right to vote. Affording the DACAs the aforementioned, in layman’s terms, would send a very bad message…As an aside, I repudiate the notion that they will thank Republicans for the passage of a pro-DACA deal and, my Tarot Cards tell me, that the vast majority of these people will vote Democrat. Every Democrat vote is another ballot cast toward a United States without borders, socialism, and mad redistribution of wealth schemes…As another aside, crafting the term “Dreamers” for these people is condescending and a bit insulting – to U.S. citizens who have “dreams” of the “American Dream” who, in some part, have not reached their “dreams” because of an economy stifled by illegals.

(3) Upon receiving permanent residency, each legal-immigrant-to-be must do the following: pay a $5,000 “permanent residency fee” to the U.S. government to offset the economic costs they have caused (and will continue to cause) American citizens. Given that it is understood that a large portion of the DACAs have no employment or otherwise have very little income, as part of the moral component of this plan, they can pay off the $5,000 over five years. Any who fail to make the $5,000 payment during this term shall be immediately deported; there is a singular exception – the miniscule few who suffer from a physical disability that truly prevents them from working…BTW: $5,000 x 800,000 people = $4 trillion. That’s enough to pay for the Wall and much more (see #5 below).

(4) All DACAs must provide 100 hours of community service yearly (that’s just two hours per week) within the state that they reside—every year, for five years. Any who fail in this regard shall be immediately deported; no exceptions unless a person is in a coma or a paraplegic (and that’s because there are numerous ways to provide community service, even for those physically disabled).

(5) Tie the DACA deal into the building of the Wall. Yes, only provide the DACAs permanent residency if a bill is passed by Congress authorizing the Wall at the Southern border of the U.S. That means one, giant wall along the border, just as President Trump promised during his campaign…Everything in politics – and life – is a weighing process and a balancing test. Will the Democrats hurt the DACAs and refuse to authorize the Wall? I think not.  And not because they are moral champions of these people, but because it is politically necessary for them. Via the balancing test, the DACAs will stay and the Wall be erected. And, thereafter, there will be significantly less illegal immigration.

(6) Other than the DACAs and one other small group of “illegal” immigrants who came here under Temporary Protection Status (people who originally came here legally and have been permitted to remain here far too long too morally deport at this point), all illegal immigrants must be deported. Translation: upon apprehension, they must immediately be deported…Further translation: Deport. Deport. Deport. And then they can try to enter legally…And this goes for any who have visas, which have expired. They must willingly leave upon the expiration of their visas – or be deported at the hands of the U.S. government.

(7) In passing new DACA legislation that will allow the DACAs to permanently reside in America, we are obviously opening the door to a slippery slope. For, what happens when a day after the bill passes, 100 new children illegally enter the U.S.? And what happens to the thousand who enter in the following months? And on and on and on? Will they get the same “amnesty-type” treatment and be given permanent residency like their DACA predecessors? The answer is an affirmative “no”…In the future, under no circumstances, shall there again be a DACA-like group of illegals who gain permanent residency. We have mass communications abilities, at an extraordinary level, in this modern era. Notice shall be hereby provided to all parents from across the world: from this date onward, if you illegally enter the United States with children, of any age, you shall be deported—and your children shall be deported with you. If you pass away and your children are in the U.S. illegally, they shall still be deported, regardless if they have been living in the U.S. for one day or 50 years.

(8) No sanctuary cities…Any city that serves as a sanctuary city shall be cut off from all federal funding. Any elected official who facilitates the perpetuation of a sanctuary city shall be deemed to have committed a felony and immediately removed from his/her office and compelled to serve 500 hours of community service over five years—but not jailed. We do have the 8th Amendment in the U.S., and imprisonment, under this circumstance, would constitutionally constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”

(9) Of course, no freebies of any kind for illegals. No free education, housing, cell phones, transportation or services of any sort for illegals…Back to morals: if they have an emergency, then our hospitals must care for them. Immediately thereafter, they must be deported—and we will bill the illegals for their medical services. If they cannot pay (which, most likely, they can’t), then we shall bill the governments of the countries from which they hail. And if those governments don’t pay, we shall economically sanction those countries. This leads to:

(10) The United States shall bill foreign countries for all the economic costs that their citizens cause us through their illegal entries and inhabitations in our country. And if those governments don’t pay, we shall economically sanction those countries. This should result in nations from all around the globe enacting internal laws that stifle illegal entry into the U.S…Revisiting morals once again: of course, should any country enact legislation that would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” against its citizens for illegally entering America, we shall economically sanction those countries for such atrocious laws. Such “cruel and unusual punishment” sanctions shall be in a monetary amount that is far greater than the sanctions that these governments would endure for their failure to pay the costs that their citizens’ cause the U.S. via their illegal immigration. Accordingly, the following should logically result: (a) these countries will pay up to us for their citizens illegal entry into America.; and (b) they will enact laws that greatly limit future illegal immigration onto U.S. soil – and such laws will be not contain penalties that constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” or any human rights violations.

(11) Limit chain migration to spouses and minor children. This simply means that upon immigrants being given legal status, the only people who can legally join them in the U.S. are their spouses and minor children – and not any other family members.

(12) Disband the visa lottery system. Allowing immigrants to randomly gain entry for residency/citizenship via a lottery is foolhardy. Legal immigration should be performed on a case-by-case basis wherein an active review of applications should be conducted. We want the best here – and the best way to accomplish getting the best is by an actual submission evaluation. Not through a haphazard selection process which, undoubtedly, allows in misfits and criminals along with fine people.

Employing all of the above would substantially curtail illegal immigration and its ills which, in turn, would lead to far greater economic prosperity for America and its taxpayers. But will this happen? With strong, gutsy leadership – and the true will of the masses of U.S. citizens – this dream can come true.

Kenneth Del Vecchio, ESN publisher and editor-in-chief, is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/entertainment attorney for 23 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star 100+ film and TV stars, including several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and E-1 Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years-old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A frequent legal and political  analyst on networks such as Fox News Channel, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper.