Jeffrey Goldberg Says Mike Waltz Lied; Dershowitz Also Weighs In

My biggest point yesterday was that people don't just get on Signal the way they get on Outlook. There has to be a good reason for them even to learn what it is at all, and while I've been out of the business so long that I've never worked with it myself, my instinct is that normally you have to have a tech install it, especially if you're just a suit or a talking head. Thus the most puzzling part of Dershowitz's commentary was at 4:47:

Look, I don't know very much about technology, I'm really a Luddite when it comes to this, but I am on Signal.

That brought me up short. He's a brilliant guy, a celebrity, a retired law professor and appellate attorney, but why does he need high-level commercial grade encryption? Remember that the German Enigma code was basically just a tweak of an earlier commercial-grade product. This is heavyweight stuff. That briefly made me wonder if in fact everyone gets Signal the way they get Outlook. But then I realized he's a friend and adviser to Netanyahu and the Israeli government, and you can bet an Israeli tech installed it on Dershowitz's phone for a very good reason. He goes on,

I use Signal, because it is more confidential, it I think makes the message disappear fairly quickly, but I don't have any secrets -- but I do, I have loyal client secrets, but I don't usually put them online at all.

Yes, exactly, this is why Trump has never used e-mail, and it's why attorneys normally don't, because it's discoverable. As Dershowitz puts it, the real client secrets are just in his head, and he'll take them to the grave. But Netanyahu presumably isn't a client, stricty speaking, as far as I can parse this. I've got to assume he has a separate security category for items that are not ethically flagged as client secrets, but must be communicated securely over the web -- for instance, confidential advice to Netanyahu that is not specifically legal. Signal is adequate for this.

He then raises the same question that puzzles me -- how did a journalist get on the call? Jeffrey Goldberg himself doesn't believe the public explanation:

Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg is accusing Mike Waltz of lying about talking with him — ridiculing on Sunday the claim that his phone number was mysteriously “sucked into” the national security adviser’s cellphone before being included in a Signal group chat about Yemen airstrikes.

“This isn’t ‘The Matrix.’ Phone numbers don’t just get sucked into other phones,” The Atlantic magazine’s editor in chief said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

“I don’t know what he’s talking about there. You know, very frequently in journalism, the most obvious explanation is the explanation. My phone number was in his phone because my phone number is in his phone.”

And a tech had to install Signal on Goldberg's phone and configure it so it could talk to the national security Signal system. And after installation, it had to be tested to be sure it worked. This was all deliberate and fully authorized, at least up to Waltz's level, and several people were involved in setting it up over a period of days, something Goldberg had to have been at least generally aware of, because they were working on his phone. Again, I don't believe someone at the editor-in-chief level would install a phone app himself.

Instructions for installing Signal are on line here. They involve, in part:

• Downloading Signal to the phone and running the install program
• Registering a phone number and waiting for a verification code
• Entering the verification code and finishing the onboarding process
• Editing a user profile and notifying a chat admin of it.

Signal had to have been loaded on Goldberg's phone, a phone number registered to Signal, a profile for Goldberg had to have been created and known to the Signal chat group, and it had to have been added to the chat. There was nothing random, accidental, or inadvertent about the process. Several people working in several different capacities had to have been involved. Goldberg probably didn't load Signal on his phone or set himself up to do it, but he was clearly aware that something had been done, and he implied this in his interview with Welker.

Another tidbit is that according to the Signal site, anyone on the chat can see the user profile of everyone else on the chat. It's entirely credible that nobody on the chat at the Rubio-Hegseth-Gabbard-Vance et al level would understand this, but someone handling call security had to have been fully aware of everyone who was on the call. Nothing just slipped through.

Here's My Puzzle On The Signal Chat Kerfuffle

Feeling more and more like an op by neocons to take out Pete and damage JD. Complete and total BS. Now I’m at the point where, fine, you little twits want to dance, let’s dance: Trump should cut pretty much most of NSA and NSC, from the top down, and install Bridge Colby as NSA.… https://t.co/H5SPoDW79z

— Ned Ryun (@nedryun) March 27, 2025

As I often note here, I spent much of my IT career working the nuts and bolts of computer security in both classified and civilian environments. Security works in basic ways across the board, and once you're used to it, it isn't rocket science. Thus I'm a little puzzled when I see this:

Elon Musk is helping lead the investigation into the Signal chat leak involving top national security leaders and the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, the White House press secretary said Wednesday.

"The National Security Council, the White House Counsel's Office, and also, yes, Elon Musk's team" will be leading the investigation into the Signal leak, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during Wednesday's White House press conference.

You don't need Elon, DOGE, ot any of those others to figure it out. From everything I read, the Signal app was routinely installed on the phones of national security types above a certain level just in the normal course of business. It was authorized for unclassified communications. That doesn't mean just anyone could join in a chat, there waa an authorization list. The question was how Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg got on the authorization list -- but I would add a second question, how Goldberg got a copy of Signal on his phone that just happened to be tuned in to the national security network.

Think about it. I may have gmail or Outlook installed on my phone, but that doesn't mean I just get random messages from General Motors executives every morning when I check my e-mail. And unless I have something very wrong, neither I nor Jeffrey Goldberg have any reason even to have Signal installed on our phones. If it isn't installed and configured to receive messages from the government, even if I mistakenly got such a message, I wouldn't be able to read it.

Remember, Signal is an end-to-end encryption system. That means when you type in a message, it scrambles it and makes it unreadable unless another Signal system on another phone receives it, knows who sent it, and can unscramble it with a key. Somebody had to install it on Jeffrey Goldberg's phone and set it up so it would know Pete Hegseth was sending a message with a key it would recognize and use to unscramble the message.

So for starters. I would want Jeffrey Goldberg's phone. Goldberg didn't just randomly get that chat out of the blue. This all had to be set up by one or more tech guys. I'd want to talk to the tech guys, too, and since they work for the government and have security clearances, I'd want to talk to them fast. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've already been talked to.

Next, someone else, almost certainly not the same tech guy who installed Signal on Goldberg's phone, had to add Goldberg's ID to the chat. Frankly, this had to have been done at someone's instruction. People like Gabbard, Hegseth, and Waltz don't do their own security administration. Somewhere in the natsec apparatus is a Signal administrator who puts together the chat lists. Somebody with the authority to do this had to have told this guy, "OK, add Jeffrey Goldberg -- yeah, that same guy who's editor of The Atlantic and works for lefty Laurene Powell Jobs, yeah, the same guy we set up to use Signal with the ID we gave him last week -- to the chat list for the Houthi chat."

This is another guy who works for the government, has a security clearance, and will need to explain what happened, or he'll wind up in Club Fed at best. I'm sure he's already been talked to, and in fact, I suspect there's just no mystery here. For whatever reason, things are being kept quiet. And for that matter, Jeffrey Goldberg had to have been aware that Signal was being installed on his phone, why, how to use it, and when to dial in for that chat.

Even if nobody talks -- even if all the techs and admins who had to have been involved in this are rubbed out, whacked, terminated with extrreme prejudice -- the system logs will still have records of everything that was done and who did it. This is all kabuki on both sides. Elon and DOGE know there's no need for them to get involved. I think Politico understands this prety well:

On Wednesday evening — following a brutal day of headlines surrounding the now-infamous Signal chat — Vice President JD Vance, chief of staff Susie Wiles and top personnel official Sergio Gor gently offered President Donald Trump some advice in a private meeting.

National security adviser Mike Waltz’s accidental inclusion of a journalist in the chat was creating a major embarrassment for the White House. Perhaps it was time to consider showing him the door, they suggested, according to two people familiar with the conversations who were granted anonymity to discuss them.

. . . Despite simmering anger directed at the national security adviser from inside the White House, Waltz still has his job five days after The Atlantic first published its explosive story on the Signal chat. That doesn’t mean he’s safe yet, according to the two people.

In fact, the two allies have heard some administration officials are just waiting for the right time to let him go, eager to be free of the newscycle before making changes.

Accidental my big toe. Too many people had to be involved, and too many records created on too many system logs. This is all kabuki on both sides.

Amtrak Update

As I mentioned in my post on Amtrak last week, there's a whole sub-sub genre of YouTubers who liveblog their Amtrak trips. They aren't really train buffs like I am; they seem just to enjoy the scenery combined with amenities like eating in the dining car or riding in the sleeping cars or business class. This would be perfectly fine, except that Amtrak travel is predictably nightmarish, with trains regularly canceled or running nine or 12 hours late or even longer, with the diner and snack bar out of food, toilets clogged, heat out, and so forth.

In that post last week, I mentioned one of the best-known Amtrak YouTube channels, Grounded Life Travel, with the charming couple Allie and Rob, who go ga-ga over the Amtrak long distance trains they ride several times a year on crosss-country trips, often between cruises on opposite coasts. Frankly, this sort of Amtrak travel is high-risk activity. Even Allie and Rob mention oh, by the way, Amtrak canceled the Coast Starlight on their Los Angeles-Seattle leg, but no big deal, they just rented a car, drove 18 hours, and got back on the train.

Once almost 20 years ago, I took just such an Amtrak odyssey, booking Grounded Life style sleeping car accommodations between LA and Philadelphia. There were no cancellations, and the toilets mostly worked, but there were numerous problems with the ventilation and drunken, noisy sleeping car passengers. As I changed trains in the early morning of the third day in Pittsburgh, the conductor on the new train, once he looked at my tickets, said only, "I feel your pain." I'd said nothing to him; he simply understood what the Amtrak experience is really like. This will never make it to Allie and Rob's videos.

In this week's news, the Amtrak Eugene, OR-to-Vancouver, BC route, the Cascades, which Allie and Rob pitch in the video above as "Amtrak's Most Underrated Route", has been almost completely eliminated and substituted with charter buses, not because of anything Elon Musk has threatened to do, but because of an entirely forseeable circumstance:

The years-long process to restore regional intercity rail service and build up train ridership in western Washington and Oregon was dealt a major setback this week when Amtrak suddenly withdrew dozens of train cars from service for emergency repairs.

It means the state-supported Amtrak Cascades service is, for now, left with just one working train.

On its website, Amtrak said substitute bus service will be offered to passengers booked on cancelled trains “until further notice.”

Corrosion discovered on Amtrak’s aging Horizon-class railcars caused the trouble. The rail company immediately removed all 70 of its Horizon train cars from the fleet nationwide, including 26 used on the Amtrak Cascades line.

As even Allie and Rob pointed out in the video I linked last week, Amtrak's equipment is old, dirty, and poorly maintained. The Horizon cars were delivered in 1990, making them 35 years old,

In the Pacific Northwest, 26 cars were sidelined, leading to the cancellation of all but one of the seven daily round trips for the Cascades in the Vancouver, British Columbia-Seattle-Portland-Eugene, Ore., corridor. The single round trip continuing to operate will be a Seattle-Eugene, Ore., round trip — trains Nos. 503 and 508 — using the Cascades’ lone operable Talgo trainset; a second such Series 8 train has been sidelined since November after striking a tree during a storm.

Oh, OK. They at least had one spare, or they had it until it hit a tree last fall. But that leaves out an earlier problem that took other Talgo-type equipment out of service:

On December 18, 2017, Amtrak Cascades passenger train 501 derailed near DuPont, Washington, United States. The National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) final report said regional transit authority Sound Transit failed to take steps to mitigate a curve at the accident location, and inadequately trained the train engineer. [However, Amtrak operated this service, the engineer was an Amtrak employee, and Amtrak was responsible for his training.] . . . A number of automobiles on southbound I-5 were crushed, and three people on board the train died. -

. . . [T]he WSDOT owned Talgo Series VI passenger trainset, was also damaged beyond repair. The NTSB later said that the use of these trainsets should be discontinued "as soon as possible," because of their lack of crashworthiness and overaged safety straps used for assembly retention. This led WSDOT and Amtrak to retire and scrap the remaining Talgo VI trainsets. The sets will be replaced with new Siemens Venture train sets.

So let me see. Amtrak put the then-30-year-old Horizon cars in service on the Cascade trains because its Talgo VI cars were unsafe, but that's OK, they'd be replaced with Siemens Venture cars, except the Venture cars, nine years later, still haven't been delivered. But this allowed the Horizon cars to stay in service on the Cascades until someone found they were corroded and unsafe, so they have to be taken our of service now, too. And they'd have an extra Talgo 8 set to use, but it hit a tree. As I say, riding Amtrak is high-risk behavior.

Where are Allie and Rob? This is all beyond them.

Meanwhile, just this past Thursday,

Amtrak President Roger Harris emailed employees that the railroad would consider ways to reduce costs in the coming weeks, including cutting the number of management positions within the company. In a statement provided to Railfan & Railroad, an Amtrak spokesperson confirmed that the railroad was indeed tightening its belt.

“Given the current environment, the Executive Leadership Team and the Board have determined that we must act now,” the statement read. “We will do this by examining our costs, including the size of our management staff, in a proactive and controlled way. In addition, we will be more selective in starting new projects and will look harder for efficiencies and innovative ways to address the problems and opportunities we face.”

The "current environment", of course, is an oblique reference to Elon Musk and his characterization of Amtrak as "kind of embarrassing", which, given the via dolorosa of the nearly decade-long Cascades fiasco, is hard to dispute.

It sounds as if Amtrak has been top-heavy with deputy assistants to the assistant director, but the question that sticks in my mind is that airlines have been familiar with problems of one or another type of plane being temporarily or permanently grounded, or individual planes being hit by helicopters, landing upside down on the runway, or whatever. My impression is that they have contingency plans to reassign equipment in place covering every such eventuality.

All of a sudden, big surprise, Amtrak discovers 70 35-year-old coaches, already characterized by Amtrak's biggest fans as old, dirty, and poorly maintained, are also unsafe, and they have to be taken out of service. Nine years earlier, another type of equipment was declared unsafe and had to be taken out of service -- but apparently nobody at headquarters had the tiniest inkling that such a thing could ever happen, much less happen again.

“Amtrak is determining how to replace the grounded Horizon trains by redistributing other trains in its national fleet,” said Washington State Department of Transportation rail division spokesperson Janet Matkin via email Wednesday. “Amtrak will notify the states of Washington and Oregon as soon as a plan is in place to move replacement trains to the Pacific Northwest.”

They'll be back with a solution just as soon as they can come up with a plan. Doggone, Allie and Rob sure liked those trains. Maybe they can liveblog a ride on the bus replacements, except there's no dining car, no snack bar, no roomettes, just the usual drunks and crazies. I would go a step beyond Musk: don't privatize it, just let Greyhound buy more buses and be done with the whole problem.

Musk's Interview With Bret Baier

In a remarkable interview with Bret Baier on Fox, Elon Musk and members of his DOGE team put on a surprisingly grounded performance. Musk sometimes comes off as having a little too much fun trolling his opponents, but this interview gives a clear idea of why he's gotten so rich -- he actually understands business and IT, something most business and IT people don't.

However, it's difficult to find a single written transcript. The best I can come up with is in this post at Red State, which quotes extensive excerpts, for instance,

MUSK: We're talking about elementary financial controls, that are necessary for any company to function. If a commercial company operated the way the federal government does, then it would immediately go bankrupt, it would be delisted, the officers would be arrested. The changes we're putting in place will enable the federal government to pass an audit, it will enable taxpayers to know where the money is going and know that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent well.

I spent most of my career on the controls side of IT, security, procedures, contingency planning, and related areas. Part of my function was to be audited almost constantly. Internal and external auditors and bank examiners would come in and want to see in detail how the company, for instance, made sure that only the people who were specifically authorized to sign checks outside the computer system were also exclusively permitted to issue equivalent payments through the computer.

Another issue was how the company identified confidential customer and employee data and made sure it was kept confidential. That would include medical and medical insurance data, financial information, social security numbers, personnel actions, legal strategies, and so forth.

Another issue was ensuring that the company could maintain critical operations that relied on the availability of its IT systems and data. Just as an example, several major financial companies had both their executive offices and their IT facilities in the World Trade Center towers that were destroyed on 9/11. How did they react to losing their major officers and their whole IT operation? Recognize that if there were no way quickly to recover customer accounts, hundreds of millions of dollars would be inaccessbile for weeks or months, or possibly just disappear forever.

(As it happened, in that case, the brokers and so forth typically had mirror-image backup operations already running in places like New Jersey, because the auditors had recognized the potential problem for decades and had long since insisted the companies plan for it.)

These are the sorts of things auditors ask about. They report directly to the corporate board of directors, in large part because as Musk puts it, if such controls aren't in place, the company would immediately go bankrupt, it would be delisted, the officers would be arrested. Failing an audit in the private sector is a big deal; it leads high-level managers to get fired.

Via the Red State summary,

Another manipulation of the fraud gap discovered by engineer Steve Davis is over $300 million in Small Business Administration loans had been given out to people under the age of 11 and over $300 million distributed to people over the age of 120. Musk discussed how this gap occurred, lamenting how fraudsters exploit the Social Security numbers of newborn babies.

It had been reported weeks ago that there were people over 200 years old still in the Social Security files who weren't flagged as "deceased". This was pooh-pooed at the time as being unimportant, since it involved relatively few cases, and they weren't actually receiving benefits. But if the numbers are active, people can steal them, whether they're getting benefit checks from that account or not. This was the reason for the large-scale marking of accounts for 120-year-old-plus people as "deceased". Quoted in the Red State piece,

[DOGE member Anthony] ARMSTRONG: The reason this is happening is that the two systems are not talking to each other. Right? So, you don't know at the Small Business Administration that you're giving a loan to a nine-month old, which happened in one case, because you're not cross-referencing that with the Social Security Administration data that has birth dates. So, that very, very simple fix eliminates tremendous fraud. There are multiple systems across the government where the systems are not speaking with one another, and if you just solve that simple problem, you would solve a huge amount of fraud.

The piece quotes another DOGE engineer, Steve Davis:

As an example, there are over 15 million people that are over the age of 120 that are marked as alive in the Social Security system.

BAIER: And that's an accurate figure?

DAVIS: Correct. Correct. This is something that has been identified as a problem, a pre-existing problem since 2008, at least from an IG report. So, there are some great people working at the Social Security Administration that found this, 2008, and nothing was done about it. And so, 15 to 20 million Social Security numbers that were clearly fraudulent were floating around that could be used only for bad intentions, there would be no way to use those for good intentions. So one of the things the DOGE team is doing is carefully, and very methodically, looking at those and making sure that any fraudulent ones are eliminated.

There are other problems that can also grow in private and NGO environments that can easily get out of control, for instance, quoted in a Fox News link:

Davis brought up federal credit cards, which he labeled a "mundane" but "illustrative" example of DOGE's work.

"There are in the federal government around 4.6 million credit cards for around 2.3 to 2.4 million employees. This doesn't make sense. So one of the things all of the teams have worked on is we've worked for the agencies and said, 'Do you need all of these credit cards? Are they being used? Can you tell us physically where they are?'" Davis explained.

Corporate credit cards can be used for all sorts of things, not least motel rooms for office trysts, something I've seen come up in my own experience. There can be no question that this sort of thing is going on -- even if it could be claimed that the amounts are negligible, it shouldn't be allowed, and controls should be in place to eliminate the problem.

My impression of Musk, even though in certain areas he's not a serious guy -- remember the frozen embryos with Amber Heard? -- has gone up. He dresses as badly as Bill Gates, but while Gates is just a flake, Musk is an eccentric with many redeeming features.

Spreading False Narrative

I found a pretty typical legacy media take from CBS Miami this morning, More than half a million Latin American, Haitian immigrants given deadline to self-deport:

The Department of Homeland Security officially posted a notice to end protections for 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to the Federal Register on Tuesday.

This sets up a 30-day deadline, which will fall on April 24, for those affected to self-deport or face the consequences.

"The Department of Homeland Security is warning that if these people do not voluntarily depart the country, they will be found, arrested and deported from the country," CBS News immigration reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez said. "In fact, the administration is saying that the people affected by this policy change should sign up to self-register on a smartphone app provided by the government and tell people that they will be departing the country."

This isn't really news to start with; this step had been expected, and a month ago, the administration froze funding for many of the NGOs that pass money through to the migrants. Nevertheless, CBS maintains the convenient fiction:

Miami immigration attorney Morella Aguado said the new guidelines unfairly target individuals who were legally admitted into the country.

"That's not fair, because people that came in with the parole came in legally through the legal system and they were authorized by the United States authorities to remain legally in the United States," Miami immigration attorney Morella Aguado said. "So, the fact that you're having to leave within 30 days, facing the possibility of being detained is definitely something that's not like it's not due process, like it's just a violation of what they were initially granted."

The CHNV program never granted "legal" status to anyone who came into the country via its provisions; the "immigration attorney" is incorrect. They have been here under "humanitarian parole":

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion to temporarily allow certain noncitizens to physically enter or remain in the United States if they are applying for admission but do not have a legal basis for being admitted. DHS may only grant parole if the agency determines that there are urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons for a person to be in the United States, and that person merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Grants of parole are made for limited periods of time, often to accomplish a discrete purpose, and individuals are typically expected to depart the United States when the authorized period expires unless another form of status or relief is conferred.

There are several iffy questions about the CHNV program. For instance,

To come to the U.S. under CHNV, a person needed a sponsor who could demonstrate they could financially support the person or family who would live here.

Just who the "sponsors" are has never been quite clear. The money for the CHNV program has come from grants to a small number of faith-based NGOs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, which I've discussed in recent posts. These NGOs then identify individual sponsor groups, who apparently receive money from these grants to support the specific migrants, who appear to be purposely settled in specific communities, such as Springfield, OH, Charleroi, PA, or Rockland County, NY, where a group of about 5,000 Haitians had been settled, according to the link.

The sponsor groups, according to the sketchy reports we've had from the communities where the Haitians have been resettled, then work with private real estate managers, grocers, employers, and car dealers to supply the sponsored Haitians with slum housing, sweatshop employment, cars in apparently at least some cases, food, and other goods and services. It appears that these payments are in bulk from the "sponsors" to the private entities, and as a result, they're highly profitable business. But they never reach the Haitians themselves, who in fact appear to be captive to the "sponsors".

However, when the Trump administration froze funding to the NGOs that passed the money for all this through to the sponsors, that simply knocked one key leg off the CHNV stool -- the rent, car payments, grocery bills, and so forth could no longer be paid. The Miami immigration attorney Morella Aguado in the CBS link misrepresents the situation:

Aguado pointed out this brings up other legal challenges: "People have lease agreements, legally speaking, the legal obligations of a lease agreement, or maybe a vehicle, all of these terms and legal contracts that we have now obligation switch, and what are they going to do with those contracts?"

I strongly suspect that the lease agreements and vehicle titles are not in the names of the individual Haitians or families; in the case of rentals, as we saw in Springfield, OH, multiple families occupied single residential units, while titles to Haitians' cars that were abandoned or damaged in wrecks were impossible to trace. The Haitians under the program were being supported by "sponsors"; they weren't self-sufficient and wouldn't normally have qualified for conventional rentals or financing.

In addition, the CHNV program was never indefinite:

CHNV parole status is for two years. During that time, a person can get working papers and seek asylum, which provides a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

That window to apply for a way to stay, though, doesn't match people's experience with the U.S. timetable for approving permissions.

Jean Marie Lauture, who was a high-ranking police official in Haiti, has been in the U.S. since Sept. 13, 2023. He has applied for asylum, but he hasn't been approved by the U.S. He said others who applied last year, like him, also haven't heard back.

So Mr Lauture had two years to formalize his status, but if he isn't successful, he will need to return to Haiti in September of this year no matter what. One can argue that it was never realistic to expect the Haitians to become legal within two years, but this was a problem for the Biden administration, which initiated the program. It simply isn't Trump's problem. As the CBS link put it,

CBS News first reported in early February that the Trump administration was planning to revoke the legal status of individuals who entered the U.S. under the CHNV process.

DHS said many of the people that came through this program were loosely vetted and it undercut American workers.

This would apply, for instance, to the Venezuelans settled in Aurora, CO and El Paso, TX. They were brought in as a group by "sponsors" who somehow didn't check whether some number were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who promptly transferred their criminal activities to the US. It was in fact part of a package deal.

The problem for those who hope to reinstate the CHNV program through the courts is that whether the funding to the NGOs and sponsors can be restored, no one in the country under the program can stay longer than two years. So far, the Trump strategy has been effective, and many Haitians are already starting to self-deport.

Immigration Becomes An Issue In Canada's Election

Via Breitbart:

Canada’s conservative leader wants to win the nation’s April 28 national elections and is hammering Justin Trudeau’s replacement for supporting the massive legal immigration that has caused massive pocketbook damage to ordinary Canadians.

. . . The two parties are close in the polls as Poilievre slams Carney for supporting Trudeau’s very unpopular immigration policy.

n 2015, the investor-led Century Initiative persuaded Trudeau to grow the economy by inflating the nation’s population from 36 million to 100 million by 2100. Since then, Trudeau has imported four million migrants — or 10 percent of the nation’s population, which is the equivalent of 33 million migrants in the United States.

That huge population of legal migrants — which includes many Indians and migrants who are too old to work — inflicted an economic shock and massive economic damage to 30 million ordinary Canadians.

It cut wages, exacerbated healthcare shortages, and spiked housing costs. It dropped workplace productivity and reduced corporate research. It also imported criminals, unexpected sanitary habits, unfamiliar foreign conflicts, and strange ethnic resentments.

. . . However, Canada’s major investors and older citizens gained enormously. Trudeau’s mass migration inflated the stock market by 40 percent with a flood of consumers, renters, and low-wage workers.

In the run-up to the April 28 national election, Poilievre is wrapping the Century Initiative around Carney’s political neck.

The soft Canadian border will become an increasing problem with illegals crossing from the US as pressure rises on them to self-deport. A former officer in the Canadian Border Services Agency who now researches border security at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Kelly Sundberg, said, “Canada can expect a tsunami of illegal immigrants fleeing American authorities and coming into our country.”

Sundberg attributes the change to the Trump administration’s increasing removal of undocumented migrants, particularly actions such as sending alleged Venezuelan gang members to Guantanamo Bay. Canada’s lax border compounds this, Sundberg said.

“I hope I’m wrong, but it would appear that we’re going to be overwhelmed by the illegal immigrants fleeing American authorities coming into our country,” he continued. “And they very well might be bringing guns and drugs with them.”

As a true crime fan, I've been intrigued by the fact that two of Canada's most notorious serial killers had sideline businesses involving smuggling, something we never saw in the US with figures like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy. In fact, psychological profiles of figures like Bundy and Gacy stress their desire to maintain a respectable facade -- they would never dirty their hands with petty crime.

But Gabriel Wortman, who killed 22 and injured three in a 2020 Nova Scotia shooting spree, was alleged earlier to have smuggled guns and drugs into Canada:

On July 27, [2020,] court documents were unsealed, detailing police interviews with witnesses who claimed Wortman was a drug smuggler who provided people in Portapique and nearby unincorporated community of Economy with drugs from Maine. These witnesses alleged Wortman had stockpiles of guns and drugs, along with false walls and hidden compartments, in his properties. The RCMP confirmed three days later that Wortman had kept hidden compartments in buildings, but they were unable to corroborate the drug smuggling claims. . . . Additional witnesses told police that Wortman and an associate tended to travel to the U.S. and smuggle cigarettes, alcohol, and presumably other illegal items from there, using a sailboat the associate owned.

Paul Bernardo, who with Karla Homolka made up the Ontario "Ken and Barbie killers", encountered Leslie Mahaffy, one of their victims, while stealing license plates on a dark street late at night.

After their marriage, Karla and Paul Bernardo lived in their home on Bayview in St. Catharines. Paul had begun augmenting his income by smuggling cigarettes across the border and needed the stolen license plates to disguise his frequent visits across the American-Canadian line. It was the need for a stolen license plate that brought him into contact with his first murder victim, Leslie Mahaffy.

. . . Leslie had actually gone back to her home to see if there was any way to get in without waking her parents. With the worst possible luck imaginable, she encountered Paul Bernardo who was prowling around the neighborhood looking for license plates to steal.

He pulled a knife on Leslie Mahaffy and forced her to go in his car.

So apparently, smuggling guns, drugs, and cigarettes is a common sort of criminal activity in Canada even among respectable, seemingly middle-class people, whereas tbat sort of activity in the US is much more closely acssociated with the habitual criminal underclass.

At the same time, it appears that in the political debate north of the border, there's at least a strain of opinion that says controlling it is exclusively a US issue, for instance:

Let’s be 100% clear. When you cross the border into the USA, you have to go through US customs, not Canadian customs.

If illegals are making it into the USA from Canada, they’re getting there by going through US customs. They drive over and go through US customs or they fly over and go through US customs. So your question should really be “Why can’t US Customs get control of their border?”

I have the impression that many Canadians have so far been unwilling to look at the big picture and perhaps to minimize smuggling from the US into Canada. But think for a moment -- if Canada were in fact part of the US, smuggling guns and cigarettes would simply disappear, the guns especially would be legal.

The USCCB, Catholic Charities, And Refugee Resettlement

I still find myself in a peculiar rabbit hole trying to make sense of the various refugee resettlement programs for which the Trump administration has cut funding, especially those delegated by various departments to the US Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities. No discussion I've seen is especially precise or seems to reflect any real understanding of how these programs work, much less which program is which, especially those under the Catholic umbrella.

Let's start with the USCCB's lawsuit against the Trump administration filed in February:

Catholic bishops sued the Trump administration on Tuesday [February 18] over its abrupt halt to funding of refugee resettlement, calling the action unlawful and harmful to newly arrived refugees and to the nation's largest private resettlement program.

. . . The conference's Migration and Refugee Services has sent layoff notices to 50 workers, more than half its staff, with additional cuts expected in local Catholic Charities offices that partner with the national office, the lawsuit said.

. . . The conference is one of 10 national agencies, most of them faith-based, that serve refugees and that have been sent scrambling since receiving a Jan. 24 State Department letter informing them of an immediate suspension of funding pending a review of foreign-aid programs.

Here's where the murk begins. This lawsuit, as far as I can determine, is over the termination of a single program covered by an agreement or agreements between the US bishops' conference and the State Department, which is actually pretty small as these things go.

The USCCB said it is still awaiting about $13 million in reimbursements for expenses prior to Jan. 24.

As of Jan. 25, it said, there were 6,758 refugees assigned by the government to USCCB's care that had been in the country less than 90 days, the period of time for which they're eligible for resettlement aid.

But as far as I've been able to determine, the number of refugees in Catholic-sponsored programs, and the amounts of money involved, are far larger than this story implies. This particular lawsuit is against only the State Department and the Department of Health, Educstion, and Welfare, but many other agencies fund the whole Catholic refugee resettlement enterprise:

President Joe Biden’s border policies were a boon for private religious charities associated with the Catholic Church, which collectively received billions in grant money while helping house and resettle migrants, while a federal watchdog warned about mismanaged funds and a potential for fraud.

The funding for these humanitarian programs that came through the Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency has come under renewed scrutiny by President Trump and his administration, who seek to reverse years of financial incentives for the crisis of border crossings under their predecessor.

Catholic Charities USA, comprised of 168 local member agencies across the United States, is one of the largest private recipients of government funding under several immigration-related programs that critics have said allowed the Biden administration to relocate and shelter migrants in the United States.

According to data from USAspending.gov, Catholic Charities branches across the United States collected over $2 billion in federal grants over the last four years of the Biden administration, primarily through the Department of Health and Human Services which granted about $1.93 billion for programs. Other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development also doled out significant—if smaller—sums, about $156 million and $138 million, respectively.

This money comes from a wide variety of individual programs and individual grants, and it covers a variety of migrants in the country under different legal conditions. For instance, migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who had been here under the CHNV program are not, strictly speaking, "legal", but were under a condition known as "humanitarian parole" that lasted for a maximum of two years, during which they were expected to find a way to achieve full legal status.

A separate, different quasi-legal status is Temporary Protected Status,

a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program that allows migrants from designated countries to reside legally in the United States for a period of up to eighteen months, which the U.S. government can renew indefinitely. During that period, TPS holders are eligible for employment and travel authorization and are protected from deportation. The program does not include a path to permanent residency or U.S. citizenship, but TPS recipients can apply for those designations separately.

Currently designated countries under the TPS program include Afghanistan, Burma, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, and others. So as one promiiinent example, migrants from Haiti could be here under either humanitarian parole or temporary protected status, under programs with different funding, different conditions, and different lengths, but in general, they have not been "legal".

But the program under which the USCCB is suing the Trump administration is none of these, it's with the State Department:

Nearly 7,000 refugees had been assigned by the government to the bishops' resettlement program, under two contracts, court records said, for the 2025 fiscal year that awarded the conference about $65 million for initial resettlement expenses.

The bishops' conference received a letter on Jan. 24 from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration notifying it that its refugee resettlement contracts were "immediately suspended" pending a review of foreign assistance programs.

I'm somewhat puzzled that the US bishops are suing over only this one, relatively small program, when the programs with Catholic Charities are much larger and cover many more migrants -- and they all do pretty much the same thing. But even this distinction neglects the problem that Catholic Charities USA, the national office, reports financials only for its headquarters operation and not for the 176 Catholic Charities offices in individual dioceses.

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, for example, had $101,010,202 in revenue in its 2024 fiscal year—$82,194,646 of it from government grants.

Just that one diocesan office has received grants equivalent in magnitude to those awarded to national-level non-Catholic faith-based NGOs. In yesterday's post, I mentioned Church World Service. Global Refuge, a Lutheran-affiliated NGO, reported total income of $230,822,000, of which $221,476,000 came from government grants. World Relief, affiliated with the national Association of Evangelicals, reported $163,157,027 total income, of which $126,026,563 came from government grants.

All of these grants expanded enormously under Biden.

Most of these, including individual Catholic Charities offices, now have urgent messages on their websites referring to the financial crises they now have due to the Trump administration's cancellations of these grants. One of my questions is why so few of these NGOs, but especially Catholic Charities, have followed the USCCB's example and filed suit against the deparments that have cut off the funding.

Let's keep in mind that the USCCB is apparently suing over maybe $13 million, maybe $65 million, and layoffs of 50 workers, while Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston alone has lost more like $82 million, and non-Catholic NGOs have lost upwards of $100 million each.

One thing this speaks to, though, is the effectveness of the Trump cuts. In a matter of weeks, they've identified the lifeblood of the repopulation movement, grants to faith-based NGOs, and cut off the flow. I would guess that the turn of the money spigot was so sudden and complete that the NGOs just haven't had the budget to keep staff that could respond, much less hire outside attorneys.