https://www.alainguillot.com/sanctuary-cities/

President Donald Trump has reignited a fierce debate by vowing to end federal funding for sanctuary cities—jurisdictions that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a recent statement, Trump declared, “We’ll end sanctuary cities very shortly,” arguing that these policies shield criminals and drive up crime rates. But what exactly are sanctuary cities, and why is this issue so polarizing? Let’s unpack the arguments, the data, and the human stakes.

There’s no universal definition of a sanctuary city, but the term generally refers to places that don’t fully comply with ICE requests, such as detaining undocumented immigrants for deportation or sharing information about their status. Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco often fall under this umbrella. ICE relies on local police and sheriffs to assist with deportations, especially for large-scale operations, but sanctuary policies prioritize local priorities—like fostering trust with immigrant communities—over federal mandates.

Trump’s stance is clear: sanctuary cities undermine law and order. He claims crime rates soared under the Biden administration, partly because these jurisdictions protect “criminals” from deportation or imprisonment. Border Czar Tom Homan echoes this, arguing that sanctuary policies make deportations “less efficient and more dangerous” for ICE agents and communities alike. During a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on April 9, 2025, Chairman Tom McClintock doubled down, stating that sanctuary cities obstruct Trump’s mass deportation goals, a key pillar of his administration’s first 100 days.

The human toll weighs heavily in this argument. Parents who’ve lost loved ones to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants find little comfort in policy debates. Their grief fuels calls for stricter enforcement and an end to policies they see as enabling tragedy.

On the other side, advocates like Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal argue that sanctuary policies make everyone safer. When undocumented immigrants don’t fear deportation, they’re more likely to report crimes or cooperate as witnesses, strengthening community safety. Some cities also argue that focusing on immigration enforcement diverts police resources from local priorities.

Data from the American Immigration Council suggests immigrants, documented or not, commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Sanctuary city leaders, like Baltimore’s Mayor Neill Franklin, emphasize perception over raw numbers. When asked if Baltimore—a city with a murder rate five times the national average—is safe, Franklin replied, “Definitely, yes… it’s perception.” Critics, however, point to these stark statistics as evidence that sanctuary policies aren’t delivering the promised security.

The subcommittee hearing painted vivid contrasts. In Chicago, witness Danielle Carter-Walters described sanctuary policies as sidelining lifelong residents, leaving neighborhoods struggling with crime and neglect. In Baltimore, Congressman Brandon Gill challenged the city’s safety claims, highlighting the disconnect between official optimism and grim realities. These stories underscore a broader question: Do sanctuary policies protect vulnerable communities or endanger them?

Trump’s threat to pull federal funding puts sanctuary cities in a bind. An executive order could force compliance, but legal battles are likely—cities like San Francisco have fought similar measures before. For now, the pressure is on. Sanctuary jurisdictions must weigh their commitment to inclusivity against the risk of losing critical resources.

For everyday Americans, the debate is personal. It’s about feeling safe in your neighborhood, trusting the system to prioritize justice, and balancing compassion with accountability. There’s no easy answer, but one thing is certain: the sanctuary city showdown will shape the nation’s immigration conversation for years to come.

https://www.alainguillot.com/pro-trans-protestor-arrested-at-riley-gaines-speech-at-san-francisco-state/

This past Tuesday, April 8, conservative women’s rights activist Riley Gaines delivered a talk at San Francisco State University—a visit that was met with both fervent support and aggressive opposition.

Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer, rose to prominence in 2022 after sharing her experience of competing against a biological male in NCAA women’s swimming. Since then, she has become a leading voice advocating for the protection of women’s sports and spaces, arguing that allowing males who identify as female to compete against biological women undermines fairness and safety.

Her speech at SFSU was meant to continue that advocacy. But what was intended to be a discussion about preserving women’s rights quickly turned into a scene of confrontation.

Inside the venue, a male protestor began shouting aggressively, refusing to allow Gaines to speak. Campus police were eventually called in to remove and arrest him. The man demanded that Gaines refer to women as “cis-women”—a term often used to distinguish biological women from transgender women, but one that many critics argue reinforces gender ideology and erodes the definition of womanhood.

Outside, a crowd chanted, “Trans women are real women,” echoing the sentiment of progressive activists who support gender self-identification over biological distinction.

But beyond the chants and terminology, a deeper issue is exposed by this incident. Here was a woman—Riley Gaines—advocating for the rights and dignity of women in sports and private spaces. And yet, she was met not just with disagreement, but with hostility and intimidation from a man. This protestor, under the banner of inclusivity, chose to shout down a woman for defending her sex-based rights.

Isn’t this the very kind of behavior feminism has always sought to challenge?

The irony is stark: a male protestor, advocating for men in women’s sports, harassing a woman who dares to say “no.” That’s not activism—it’s misogyny disguised as progressivism.

Women like Riley Gaines should be able to speak freely about issues that directly affect them—without being silenced, shouted down, or threatened. We must be able to have respectful debates on these sensitive topics without resorting to name-calling, arrests, or intimidation.

In the name of equality, let’s not forget who we’re silencing and who we’re empowering. When the right to speak freely becomes a battlefield, the real casualty is democracy itself.

This past Tuesday, April 8, conservative women’s rights activist Riley Gaines delivered a talk at San Francisco State University—a visit that was met with both fervent support and aggressive opposition.

Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer, rose to prominence in 2022 after sharing her experience of competing against a biological male in NCAA women’s swimming. Since then, she has become a leading voice advocating for the protection of women’s sports and spaces, arguing that allowing males who identify as female to compete against biological women undermines fairness and safety.

Her speech at SFSU was meant to continue that advocacy. But what was intended to be a discussion about preserving women’s rights quickly turned into a scene of confrontation.

Inside the venue, a male protestor began shouting aggressively, refusing to allow Gaines to speak. Campus police were eventually called in to remove and arrest him. The man demanded that Gaines refer to women as “cis-women”—a term often used to distinguish biological women from transgender women, but one that many critics argue reinforces gender ideology and erodes the definition of womanhood.

Outside, a crowd chanted, “Trans women are real women,” echoing the sentiment of progressive activists who support gender self-identification over biological distinction.

https://www.alainguillot.com/mass-self-deportation/

When a person comes to the U.S. illegally, they are aware many risks along the way. There are risks traveling to the border, there are risks crossing the border, and there are risks after they have succeeded. Sometimes those risks pay off, and sometimes they don’t.

During the Biden administration, the risk of crossing the border was low, and the rewards were huge. DOGE found that immigration gave a work authorization document to illegals just five months after they filed for asylum. That document allowed them to work while they waited to hear whether their asylum requests were being accepted or denied. So, they could work as an illegal, knowing it would take YEARS before their case was heard. The immigration department mailed them a social security number. No interview. No proof of identity, just put it in the mail… …DOGE also discovered that 1.3 million aliens are now receiving Medicaid. MILLIONS received drivers licenses, some registered to vote and DOGE said some actually did vote.” an exclusive right of U.S. citizens. Of course, they would vote for the democrat party, which was the party who was letting them in.

Well, Now under president Donald Trump, the odds of getting in the country 90% smaller as illegal crossing has been halted almost completely, and the rewards have turned into penalties. President Trump wants all those illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily or start paying a fine for each day they stay in the country illegally.

The Trump administration has ordered nearly 1 million migrants to self-deport immediately. They are being told to use the newly renamed CBP Home app to arrange their departure, or else face daily fines of $998. These measures are rooted in a 1996 immigration law that Trump previously used during his first term but which Biden later shelved. They are also planning to seize property of Illegal aliens who do not pay the fines. And they will impose a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 if an illegal alien fails to self deport after claiming they would do so.

The benefits of using the CBP Home app and self deporting are:

• You can leave on your own terms, by choosing your own departure flight.
• You can keep any money earned in the U.S. as long as you are a non-criminal.
• You will have a future opportunity to immigrate into the U.S.
• You are eligible for a subsidized flight home, if you don’t have the money.
• 
  

Conclusion
Immigrants have to read the room. During the Biden administration there was an implicit invitation to come in. Now, under the Trump administration there is a loud demand to leave. To fix the immigration problem is one of the things that Trump feels very strongly about, and he is only at the beginning of his term. If you don’t follow the request to leave, chances are that you are going to get caught and the consequences will be worse.

https://www.alainguillot.com/5-million-golden-visas-are-selling-well/

In previous video I spoke about the immigration Gold Card, where for $5 million, people from other countries can become U.S. residents and subsequently apply for U.S. Citizenship.

Well, those golden visas are selling well.

This is a practice used in many countries such as Portugal or the UAE.

From the U.S. perspective, it’s much better to get an immigrant who on day 1 contributes to the U.S. economy $5 million, that another sort of immigrants that on day starts taking advantage of the U.S. social net system.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said:
“You have a green card. This is a gold card… and wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card.”

The plan, according to Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, is to replace the EB-5 visa program, which historically allowed foreigners to invest in job-creating U.S. projects in exchange for a green card. The EB-5 was slower, less direct, and often bogged down by bureaucracy and wait times. The new gold card offers a streamlined alternative: residency within weeks, not months or years.

Lutnick emphasized the vetting process, saying only “wonderful world-class global citizens” would qualify. But the core idea is clear — if you’ve got $5 million to spare, you can skip the line.

The idea reportedly came from billionaire investor John Paulson, who asked Trump: Why give away visas when we can sell them? Trump then called Lutnick, and the gold card was born. It’s not a unique idea — countries like Portugal and the UAE have had similar golden visa programs for years, using them to attract wealthy global citizens, real estate investors, and entrepreneurs.

What’s different here is the unapologetic framing. It’s not about job creation or economic stimulation. It’s about selling access. If you have the cash, you get the key.

From an economic perspective, this makes sense. It’s better to get an immigrant who on day one contributes $5 million to the economy, than someone who might start by using public services.

Let’s be honest — the U.S. immigration system is already a mess. Skilled workers wait years. Refugees and asylum seekers navigate a Kafkaesque maze. But now, if you’re rich enough, you can skip it all.

If you can pay to skip the line in Disneyworld, or in the airport when boarding an airplane, why not when becoming a resident?

It also deepens a broader global trend: Citizenship is becoming a luxury item. And like all luxury items, it’s not for everyone.

The golden visa is both an economic strategy and a political message. It says: We’re open for business — if you can afford the price tag.

For some, it’s a smart move that attracts investment and global talent. For others, it’s yet another reminder that in today’s world, wealth doesn’t just buy privilege — it can buy a passport too.

The Business of BordersFairness or Favoritism?Final Thoughts

https://www.alainguillot.com/womens-pool-competition/

In a world where we champion fairness, inclusion, and equal opportunity, it’s heartbreaking to witness the slow erasure of women from their own spaces—particularly in sports. The recent Ultimate Pool Women’s Pro Series final, where two transgender women—biological men—competed for the women’s title, is not just controversial. It’s a blatant injustice.

This is not a fringe issue or an isolated event—it’s part of a growing trend that undermines the very foundation of women’s sports. Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, both transgender athletes, reached the final of the Ultimate Pool tournament after beating four female-born opponents each. And while some celebrated this as a win for inclusivity, many saw it for what it was: the continued sidelining of biological women.

Imagine training for years, overcoming obstacles, and finally earning a spot in a high-level women’s competition—only to face competitors with inherent biological advantages in size, strength, and endurance. This is what female athletes are up against. It’s not about hate. It’s not about exclusion. It’s about fairness.

Biology matters in sports. That’s why we separate men’s and women’s categories in the first place. The inclusion of biological men in women’s competitions isn’t creating equality—it’s creating an uneven playing field, where women are forced to compete against individuals who went through male puberty and retain physical advantages.

Protesters holding signs reading “Save Women’s Sport” and chanting “He’s a man” were treated as the villains of the event. The irony is painful—women standing up for women are being silenced and shamed.

Let’s be clear: This is not about denying anyone’s right to live as they choose. It’s about recognizing that choices have consequences, and that the pursuit of inclusion cannot come at the expense of fairness and truth. Women’s divisions exist for a reason. When we allow men—regardless of gender identity—to compete in them, we aren’t leveling the field. We’re tipping it.

This isn’t just about pool. From swimming to cycling, weightlifting to running, women are being pushed out of their own categories in the name of progress. But if progress means telling girls and women that their spaces no longer belong to them—then it’s not progress at all. It’s regression.

We must ask ourselves: How many women need to be disqualified, silenced, or erased before we call this what it is—unjust?

The time to speak up is now. Women’s sports matter. Women’s rights matter. And women deserve a level playing field, not one that’s constantly shifting under their feet.

If you believe in fairness, in science, and in the truth—we must all say it loudly and without apology: Women’s sports are for women.

A Stolen StageSilencing DissentWhen Common Sense Becomes “Controversial”The Bigger Picture