Archive for the ‘Border controls’ category

Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Israel Is ‘Undoubtedly’ a Model for Securing Our Borders

May 15, 2018

by IAN MASON14 May 2018 Breitbart

Source Link: Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Israel Is ‘Undoubtedly’ a Model for Securing Our Borders

{Every once in a while, Ted Cruz gets it right, sort of like a broken clock that shows the correct time twice a day. – LS}

Israel “undoubtedly” serves as a model for securing America’s borders, said Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) during an interview on Breitbart News Sunday.

“When you are surrounded by enemies who would drive you into the sea, you don’t have the luxury of indulging in nonsense when it comes to national security,” Cruz told host Amanda House on the eve of the U.S. embassy in Israel’s move to Jerusalem. You don’t have the luxury of indulging in political correctness and ignoring the harsh realities of the world we live in.”

“For Israel, borders are life or death,” Cruz continued. “Borders are ensuring that innocent men, women, and children are not murdered by terrorists seeking to destroy them. And so, there is a great deal we can learn on border security from Israel in terms of how to effectively secure a border.”

As one of Congress’s most vocal advocates for the Jewish State, Cruz called the relocationof America’s embassy, as required by a 1995 law, a “momentous occasion.” Both the United States and Israel herself recognize Jerusalem as the capital, but until Monday, the U.S. had kept its embassy with most other countries in Tel Aviv.

Cruz’s comments came in the context of weeks of ongoing Hamas rioting conducted with the explicit aim of breaching Israel’s border, provoking deadly Israeli responses. On Monday, as celebrations were taking place in Jerusalem, roughly 60 miles south, deadly clashes between a Hamas-organized march and the Israeli Defense Force left dozens dead, according to Hamas-controlled medical authorities.

The events of the day gave a new relevance to Cruz’s remarks on Israeli border policy. In the years before this eruption of violence, Israel instituted a strategy of border walls that has proven highly effective in stopping crossings by Palestinian Arabs and have cut backdramatically on the terrorism that was once pervasive in Israeli society.

President Trump, on the campaign trail, made frequent reference to the existence and efficacy of Israel’s extensive, manned walls as he pitched his own plan for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs

June 22, 2017

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs, Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, June 21, 2017

(Please see also, FBI: MS-13 Is Most Violent, Organized Gang in America.– DM)

The Health and Human Services department detains unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally and tries to place them with sponsors, but youths often end up with gangs. (Associated Press/File)

[T]he population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat. . . .

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

**************************

Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.

The Border Patrol identified 160 teens who were known or suspected gang members when they first showed up at the border, but whom the Obama administration said it had to admit under U.S. law.

Meanwhile, a spot check this month of 138 teens being held by the federal Health and Human Services Department identified 39 with gang ties. Four of them were forced into cooperating with the gangs and 35 joined voluntarily, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

“It is well-known that MS-13 actively targets and recruits children as young as 8 years old,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee who called Wednesday’s hearing.

“While their illegal status and Central American heritage are a key factor in MS-13’s targeting, without a doubt the failures of the current system for handling these children is also to blame,” he said. “The current system is fraught with abuse, systematic errors and a lack of effective cooperation.”

He was stunned that no agency could say how many “UAC,” as the government dubs unaccompanied alien children, have been recruited.

The agencies point to one another and to federal laws, saying their hands are tied.

UACs are usually arrested by the Border Patrol, which is required to turn them over to the social workers at HHS within 72 hours, ending the Border Patrol’s involvement. HHS says that under the law it must try to place the children with sponsors. Other than limited circumstances, the department says, its involvement ends soon after it sends the children off.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t get involved until a UAC is ordered deported.

That usually leaves the children with no federal supervisions once they are released to sponsors — where they are often prime recruiting targets.

Scott Lloyd, director of the HHS office that handles UAC, said his team is looking to increase monitoring of the minors and is reviewing Obama administration interpretations of policy.

He also said the population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat, authorities said.

Officials said MS-13 is involved in some drug dealing and does engage in human trafficking, but its real money-making operation is extortion. The gang threatens families — including American citizens — with violence against relatives back in Central America unless those in the U.S. pay them off.

Gang members in the U.S. take directions directly from gang commanders in El Salvador, authorities say.

Kenneth A. Blanco, acting assistant attorney general in the criminal division at the Justice Department, also said immigrants who fail to report crimes to local police are often not afraid of being deported by federal authorities, but rather fear retaliation from the gang members and other criminals who live in their neighborhoods.

He said witnesses’ names become public, making them targets for retribution.

“That really, in my 28 years, has been the fear they have of calling the police. Not so much the other way around,” he said. “They’re really scared of these people.”

That runs counter to the argument made by Democrats and some local police chiefs that illegal immigrants refuse to report crimes because they fear entanglement with federal deportation agents.

Democrats pointed to calculations by some police agencies that crime reporting among Hispanics has dropped dramatically in the months since President Trump took office.

The Democrats say that is one justification for sanctuary city policies — though Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, offered another one Wednesday. He said Chicago, which in 2011 pioneered blanket sanctuary policies, doesn’t want to protect illegal immigrants but is too poor to assist federal agents.

“Come on, Uncle Sam, where’s the money?” Mr. Durbin said.

He said Chicago and Cook County are eager to keep serious criminals and other gang members out of their communities but added that it’s up to the federal government to fund the training he said local authorities need.

“Please help us. Send us some resources,” he said.

Federal officials, though, said they are not looking for locals to do the job, but rather to allow federal officers into their facilities and to share information about releases.

“We’re asking for their cooperation,” said Matthew Albence, executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mr. Albence singled out the Chicago area as one of the most prominent sanctuaries. “Chicago is a large one. We haven’t been able to get into the Cook County Jail for a long time,” he said.

He also named New York City and San Francisco as top sanctuary cities.

The conversation sprang from questioning by Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who asked about MS-13 and other gang members who are nabbed by local authorities in sanctuary cities.

“These are evil people. It’s pretty hard to miss them. There are tattoos all over their body,” Mr. Kennedy said. “If they’re arrested and they’re in a local jail, there are some cities in the United States that would prevent you from coming in and talking to them?”

“Correct,” Mr. Albence replied.

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

Border Patrol union urges Trump to cut Obama’s red tape holding back agents

April 3, 2017

Border Patrol union urges Trump to cut Obama’s red tape holding back agents, Washington Times

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine agent peers out of the open door of a helicopter during a patrol flight over McAllen, Texas, near the U.S.-Mexico border. (Associated Press)

The Homeland Security Department has been reluctant to send helicopters on nighttime missions to aid the Border Patrol, leaving agents to face drug smugglers and illegal immigrants without critical air cover, the chief of the agents’ labor union told Congress late last month.

Brandon Judd, an agent who is also president of the National Border Patrol Council, said that unless President Trump can solve that kind of bureaucratic bungling — and is willing to oust the Obama administration figures who botched the policies — he will struggle to secure the border.

The helicopters are one example of that, Mr. Judd said.

Mr. Judd said that when the Border Patrol controlled its own helicopters, it got the air support it needed. But after the Homeland Security Department was created more than a decade ago, the helicopters were turned over to the Office of Air and Marine, which has been reluctant to fly the nighttime hours the agents need.

“Right now the Office of Air and Marine, they fly very little at night,” he told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “In fact, in [the Rio Grande Valley sector], we had to use Coast Guard to fly sorties in certain areas. And when their apprehensions became so great, it’s my understanding the officer at Air and Marine asked them not to fly anymore at night in RGV because it was making them look bad.”

Officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees both the Border Patrol and the Air and Marine division, declined to comment.

But Mr. Judd said it’s just one example of a bureaucracy erecting hurdles — what he called “kingdom-building” — that he said could stymie Mr. Trump’s immigration goals.

“We talk about securing the border, and the border — we can absolutely secure it, but it cannot be secure if our operations are not sound,” Mr. Judd told The Washington Times.

“What’s very concerning to Border Patrol agents is, to this point, we still have the same people who gave us all of the failed operations, who were the authors of the catch-and-release program. They’re still in charge — even under this current administration,” the union chief said. “That’s head-scratching, especially since the president said we’re going to drain the swamp.”

Mr. Trump’s early changes to enforcement policy, freeing agents to carry out the law enforcement duties they signed up for, has helped boost morale, said Mr. Judd and Chris Crane, the head of the union for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council.

But they said the agencies’ leadership needs attention.

Mr. Crane said “a good ol’ boy network” pervades ICE, which he said is too heavy on managers who get in the way of agents trying to enforce immigration laws in the interior. He said agents are eager to enforce laws against employers who hire illegal immigrants, but their hands are tied.

The complaints of bureaucratic bungling struck home with both Democrats and Republicans on the homeland security committee, who said they are eager to find bipartisan areas where they can help the agents get things going.

One challenge is the polygraph test, which all Border Patrol applicants must pass. The agency’s 75 percent failure rate is higher than that of any other law enforcement department, but the top brass say they are committed to it — even as they prepare to try to hire 5,000 more agents to comply with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.

Even police officers who have passed polygraphs for their current jobs but who are looking to transfer can end up failing, Mr. Judd said.

Both Democrats and Republicans said they are eager to clean up the immigration agencies within the Homeland Security Department and would like to find common ground with the agents and officers.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, said the panelists want to know the names of bureaucrats who are standing in the way of smart enforcement — though she said the ICE and Border Patrol unions, which endorsed Mr. Trump in the election campaign, may have a greater claim to the president’s ear.

Still, one Democrat, Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California, said she worries that the agency is expanding too quickly, without training to protect illegal immigrants from overzealous enforcement. She wanted to make sure agents weren’t going after lesser-priority targets.

“When troops on the ground have not been trained, it leads to dysfunction because there is a lack of consistency and accountability and direction,” she told Mr. Crane, the chief of the union for ICE agents and officers.

Mr. Crane told her she misunderstood how agents in the field carried out their priority targeting.

Mr. Crane and Mr. Judd also said the government needs to be careful about salaries. Because ICE agents have higher pay and often have better living options away from remote border communities, Border Patrol agents may rush to join the other force.

Part of the problem is the complicated bureaucratic web.

ICE and the Border Patrol are separate law enforcement divisions within Homeland Security.

That bureaucratic mess also helps explain the problem with helicopter patrols along the border.

The Border Patrol used to have its own helicopters, but after CBP was created as part of Homeland Security, the Air and Marine division was created as a separate agency within CBP. Now, when agents want the assistance of eyes in the sky, they have to go outside their own chain of command.

Mr. Judd said the helicopters are a perfect illustration: Most illegal crossings are attempted at night, and air support is critical for maintaining visibility.

Just as important, when those attempting to sneak in hear a helicopter overhead, they are less likely to run — making the apprehension easier and less dangerous for agents.

Mr. Judd said the air division has dedicated most of its resources to the Border Patrol, but not at the right times, leaving the agents without night cover.

“We expected to see a huge change in the way CBP operates. There’s been no change to this point,” he said.

CBP has long faced questions about its use of air resources. The Homeland Security inspector general has been particularly withering in its evaluation of the drone program, saying CBP has a tough time keeping its aircraft aloft and in scheduling missions and can’t demonstrate the worth of the program.

CBP officials have said the inspector general is using suspect calculations.

Flights themselves can be dangerous.

In 2015, a helicopter was called in to assist local police who were trying to stop a drug smuggling attempt near Laredo, Texas. As the helicopter was making its second pass, it took fire from the Mexican side — perhaps as many as 15 rounds, two of which struck the aircraft.

CBP officials later said the man who fired on the helicopter was a specialized contractor whom the smugglers used to provide cover for their operations. Mexican authorities caught the man.

But in hopes of sending a message to the cartels, CBP sent to the region several Black Hawk helicopters, which can be armored to withstand enemy fire while continuing to fly.

Why did Obama Shut Down a Successful Aerial Surveillance Program Along the U.S.-Mexican Border?

November 25, 2016

Why did Obama Shut Down a Successful Aerial Surveillance Program Along the U.S.-Mexican Border?, Front Page MagazineAri Lieberman, November 25, 2016

(Please see also, DHS shuts down aerial surveillance on border. — DM)

border_patrol_car_patroling_on_border

Operation Phalanx may have worked too well for the administration’s tastes.

President-elect Donald Trump has made the construction of physical barriers along the border with Mexico, immigration reform and the dissolution of sanctuary cities the cornerstone of his campaign but it appears that in its twilight weeks of office, the Obama administration is intent on making that lofty goal as difficult as possible. According to the government oversight group Watchdog.org, the Department of Homeland Security has recently and inexplicably shut down Operation Phalanx, an aerial surveillance program established in 2010 which aimed to interdict drug trafficking and illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Phalanx authorized the allocation of 1,200 soldiers and airmen from the U.S. Army’s National Guard to assist U.S. customs and border patrol agents along the border. The program also employed advanced UH-72 helicopters to supplement other aerial surveillance platforms.

The move to terminate the project is in line with the Obama administration’s lackadaisical approach to illegal immigration and serves to underscore attempts by the administration to make the transition more difficult for the President-elect. In February 2016, the Obama administration cut funding to Operation Phalanx by 50 percent even though the project had been fully funded by Congress and was by all accounts, demonstrably successful.

But therein lies the problem. Operation Phalanx may have been too successful for the administration’s tastes. According to Watchdog.org, in the Laredo sector alone, “Operation Phalanx accounted for 10,559 apprehensions and 4,007 ‘turnbacks’ from March 2012 to December 2015. Phalanx was credited with seizing 12,851 pounds of narcotics during the period.”

While the Obama administration authorized Operation Phalanx, one cannot discount the possibility that the establishment of Phalanx was designed to placate Congress rather than to address a serious border problem. Once realizing that the project was showing positive results and making a dent, albeit a miniscule one, on illegal activities on the border, the administration decided to terminate Phalanx.

Already, the DHS announcement to terminate Phalanx has been met with fierce bipartisan criticism. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, has promised to challenge the DHS action claiming that the project was “fully funded” for 2017. He plans to enlist the support of other congressional lawmakers including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Reps. Mike McCaul, R-San Antonio, and John Carter, R-Round Rock.

Led by their chief executive, there appears to be a deliberate and concerted effort on the part of most Democratic lawmakers to subvert any attempt to enforce the rule of law along the U.S.-Mexican border and remove sanctuary cities – the asinine practice of shielding undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement. The tragic case of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, murdered by a multiple deportee and illegal immigrant with a lengthy felony rap sheet underscores this point. Following her murder, congressional efforts to redress some of the most absurd and egregious practices adopted by sanctuary cities in shielding felonious illegals have been stymied by the administration’s allies.

Kate’s Law, a bill that would mandate minimum prison sentences for returning deportees and would revoke federal grants to cities that failed to comply with federal law in detaining illegals, failed to garner the requisite 60 Senate votes required to move the bill along for presidential approval. Even if it had garnered the requisite number, it is a virtual certainty that Obama would have vetoed the bill.

The termination of Operation Phalanx and subversion of Kate’s Law must be viewed in the wider context as part of a continuous and concerted effort on the part of the Obama administration to undermine the rule of law. Phalanx was showing results and therefore had to be stopped even though the requisite funds for the project had already been appropriated. Kate’s Law would have brought some order to disorder and was therefore viewed as dangerous by many Democratic lawmakers.

Any serious effort to implement immigration reform must begin with the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexican border. The U.S. can model its effort based on the experience of other nations that faced and rectified similar infiltration problems.

Israel has erected a sophisticated barrier along its border with Egypt to thwart the flow of illegal African infiltrators and drug smugglers. A similar barrier was erected in central Israel to prevent Arab terrorist infiltration. Utilizing a network of concrete walls, razor wire, watchtowers, electrified fencing, electronic sensors and other forms of sophisticated surveillance equipment, the Israelis have managed to completely thwart illegal infiltration and have frustrated efforts by Palestinian terrorists to launch attacks.

The 2,000 mile stretch of border between the U.S. and Mexico is dangerously vulnerable and eight years of deliberate neglect by the Obama administration has not helped matters. If Trump is serious about addressing this clear and present danger – and it appears that he is – he should look to Israel for some advice.

America is addicted, sleepy and becoming comatose.

October 18, 2016

America is addicted, sleepy and becoming comatose, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 18, 2016

(The opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary and her media titillate us with their sexual fantasies and put us to sleep with heroin for the body and heroin for the mind. Trump yells “Wake up and Fix our open borders!” Hillary mumbles “America is already great and that’s not who we are.” Is “H” for Hillary or Heroin?

hillbutton

Sources of America’s Hard Drugs

Most heroin consumed in America enters across our southern border.

According to the DEA, the majority of the heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico (50%) and Colombia (43-45%) via Mexican criminal cartels such as Sinaloa Cartel.[90] However, these statistics may be significantly unreliable, the DEA’s 50/50 split between Colombia and Mexico is contradicted by the amount of hectares cultivated in each country and in 2014, the DEA claimed most of the heroin in the US came from Colombia.[91] As of 2015, the Sinaloa Cartel is the most active drug cartel involved in smuggling illicit drugs such as heroin into the United States and trafficking them throughout the United States.[92]

That’s the border that Trump wants to close and Hillary wants to keep open for the Mexican criminal cartels, rapists, other criminals and potential Democrat voters; U.S. citizen or non-U.S. citizen? What difference it make now? Just play Catch and Release.

Heroin is not the only “recreational” drug transiting our southern border.

Venezuela, Iran, USA and Narco-Terrorism

[D]eeper and more alarming than the Venezuelan homicide toll, there appears to be an imminent threat to the entire Western hemisphere from partnerships between Venezuelan drug traffickers and terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that act a proxies for Iran.

Together, terrorism and illegal drugs represent a significant export for Venezuela. Iran and Venezuela partner together to move terrorist cells and drugs to hubs in the United States and throughout North America.

. . . .

Hezbollah’s annual budget of more than 100 million dollars is provided by the Iranian government directly and through a complex system of finance cells scattered around the world, from Bangkok and Paraguay to Michigan and North Carolina.

Far from being the passive beneficiaries of drug-trafficking expats and sympathizers, Hezbollah has high-level officials directly involved in the South American cocaine trade and its most violent cartels, including the Mexican crime syndicate Los Zetas. Hezbollah’s increasing foothold in the cocaine trade is facilitated by an enormous Lebanese diaspora.

. . . .

Alongside their efforts to battle their own serious homegrown drug problems in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards are also reportedly working to harness the strategic and tactical potential of the international drug trade in order to advance Iran’s expansion. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

At the same time, the U.S. administration continues to purchase 10% of its oil (roughly 300 million barrels per year) from Venezuela, the same entity that it sanctioned in 2011 for shipping gasoline to Iran.

This is all happening while terrorist groups are regularly connecting to drug cartels in the region, and forging a deepening narco-terror machine that in turn is funding terrorist activities. [Emphasis added.]

Miami: Three Hizballah operatives busted for laundering $500,000 of cocaine money for Colombian cartel:

Hizballah is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has repeatedly declared its intention to destroy the United States, as you can read about in detail in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran (Regnery). Hizballah working with the drug cartel kills two birds with one stone: drugs weaken and destroy Americans, and sap American resources in largely futile anti-drug efforts, and the cash Hizballah earns in working with the drug cartel goes for more jihad against the U.S. [Emphasis added.]

How do the drugs get to America and elsewhere?

Drug ‘mule’ aged 12

Police in New York said the boy, a U.S. citizen who had been living with grandparents in Nigeria, is one of the youngest drug ‘mules’ they have ever seen.

He was only caught because his body began to pass the condoms the drug was hidden in while he was in a taxi.

Doctors who removed the remaining ‘packages’ from his colon said he would have died if one had burst. [Emphasis added.]

Police said the boy, Prince Nnaedozie Umegbolu, made the dangerous journey because he wanted to see his mother, who lives in Atlanta, Georgia. He was to be paid £1,200.

His father, Chukwunwieke Umegbolu, is in prison in Virginia for drugsmuggling.

The boy’s journey began in Nigeria where drug smugglers gave him the condoms to swallow.

He then travelled alone to London by Air Nigeria before flying on to New York by British Airways.

Please see also,  Here’s What It Feels Like to Smuggle 700 Grams of Cocaine in Your Stomach and The Down And Dirty Of Vagina Smuggling.

(Update — This new Project video was just posted. It’s about vote fraud and how to engage in it without being caught.)

(Update — This new Project video was just posted. It’s about vote fraud and how to engage in it without being caught.)

Heroin for the mind

Don’t look behind the curtain; you might see how the witch wizards are feeding us heroin for the mind.

Conclusions

America has a substantial drug problem; most hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, come across our southern border with help from Iran and its proxies. Trump wants to close the border to “undocumented aliens” and Hillary wants to keep it open to all, regardless of why they are coming and regardless of the consequences to Americans (as well as to young drug mules). Trump has the first endorsements ever by the Border Patrol Employees’ Union and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Employees’ Union because they are not being permitted to do their jobs.

Aside from her hopes for votes from new Democrat voters, why does Hillary support open borders? I don’t know because (unlike Abraham Lincon) she often lies about what she thinks and wants. But is it possible that she favors a continuous and copious supply of hard drugs for many of her supporters in large, Democrat controlled, American cities? Because she believes that America should share the disasters the “third world” continues to face? Because has sees no problem with this?

an imminent threat to the entire Western hemisphere from partnerships between Venezuelan drug traffickers and terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that act a proxies for Iran.

Together, terrorism and illegal drugs represent a significant export for Venezuela. Iran and Venezuela partner together to move terrorist cells and drugs to hubs in the United States and throughout North America.

Perhaps she is uncomfortable with the notions that, despite the Iran Scam, Iran continues to be our enemy and that Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations.

If Hillary becomes our next president, will America’s already serious problems with Iran and drugs worsen? I think so.

Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance of Latin American Countries as Aliens Flood into the U.S

August 27, 2016

Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance of Latin American Countries as Aliens Flood into the U.S., Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, August 26, 2016

alien crossing

On August 24, 2016 Reuters published an astonishing headline, “U.S. seeks Latin American help amid rise in Asian, African migrants.”

This is the sort of headline that might be expected on April First — for the April Fool’s edition of the news. Unfortunately, this is not a bogus headline, but it most certainly is a bogus tactic crafted by the Obama administration.

The borders of the United States are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorist organizations and transnational gangs.  However, whenever our government or members of such volunteer organizations as the Minutemen have attempted to stanch the flow of illegal aliens and contraband from Mexico into the United States, the government of Mexico has reacted swiftly and derisively.

Yet Obama is now reportedly seeking assistance from the government of Mexico and has, in the past, sought assistance from Panama and other Latin American countries.

What you need to consider as you read the Reuters account is that the Tri-Border Region of Brazil harbors terror training camps and that members of Hezbollah, Hamas and likely al-Qaeda and ISIS are present in that lawless and dangerous region of the country.

The report claims that illegal aliens from Asia, Africa and the Middle East first head to Brazil to pick up altered or counterfeit passports before heading to the United States.  Whether or not they are getting their passports from the Tri-Border Region of Brazil is open to speculation.  But the dangers that this poses to our national security cannot be over-emphasized.

I delved into the issue of the dangers of the Tri-Border Region of Brazil in a recent FrontPage Magazine article, “Released Gitmo Detainee Goes Missing in Latin America: How Obama’s dash to release terror suspects from Guantanamo threatens U.S. national security.”

The August 24th report published by Reuters begins this way:

Washington is seeking closer coordination with several Latin American countries to tackle a jump in migrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who it believes are trying to reach the United States from the south on an arduous route by plane, boat and through jungle on foot.

U.S. agents deployed to an immigration facility on Mexico’s southern border have vetted the more than 640 migrants from countries outside the Americas who have been detained at the center since October 2015, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents reviewed by Reuters.

The migrants often fly to Brazil, obtain fake passports there, and are smuggled to Panama before heading through Central America to Mexico’s porous southern border, according to transcripts of 14 interviews conducted at the center and other internal briefing documents seen by Reuters.

The U.S. agents’ findings come as Mexican immigration data show 6,342 Asian, African and Middle Eastern migrants were apprehended trying to enter Mexico in the first six months of this year. That was up from 4,261 in all of 2015, and 1,831 in 2014.

U.S. border apprehensions point to the same trend. Between October 2015 and May 2016, U.S. agents apprehended 5,350 African and Asian migrants at the U.S. Southwest border. That’s up from 6,126 in all of fiscal year 2015 and 4,172 in all of fiscal year 2014.

U.S. concerns about potential security risks from migrants using the unusual and circuitous southern route have been growing in recent years, following a string of Islamic State-inspired attacks in the West and the surge in Syrian refugees fleeing that country’s civil war.

Five Syrian nationals detained in Honduras last November were part of a wider group of seven Syrians who acquired forged passports in Brazil and then went by land to Argentina on their way north, a U.S. government source familiar with that case said. There was no evidence to suggest the men were militants.

That last sentence that there is “no evidence to suggest the men were militants” is utterly meaningless.

Terrorists have been naturalized in the United States months before they carried out their deadly attacks.

The Obama administration’s immigration policies and executive orders have created huge incentives for illegal aliens to enter the United States by any means possible.

Surges of “unaccompanied minors” have been welcomed into the United States by the administration that then moved these illegal aliens into communities around the United States, often connecting them with their supposed illegal alien parents in the United States.  Not surprisingly this has encouraged cyclical surges of still more young illegal aliens to make the dangerous, indeed, often deadly trek through Mexico to the border of the United States.

All too often these illegal aliens are members of gangs who create problems for the schools in which these aliens are enrolled. In one of my recent articles, “The Real Cost of the Administration’s Reckless, Lawless Immigration Policies,” I provided information concerning a hearing on April 19, 2016 conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on the topic, “The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration’s Policies.”

The DACA program (Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals) has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal alien “DREAMers” with lawful status.  In order to be eligible these aliens may be as old as 31 years of age, but claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.

The administration attempted to extend this lunacy to the parents and family members of these aliens with similar lawful status under DAPA, but was, fortunately, stopped as a result of lawsuits filed by several states.

Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, have promised that if elected they would, within 90 days of being sworn in, provide lawful status for the unknown millions of illegal aliens who are present in the United States.

During the Republican primaries, most of the Republican candidates claimed it was impossible to arrest and deport 11 million illegal aliens. Therefore, they “reasoned,” since we cannot deport them that we needed to find a way to deal with those already here.  (Of course there would be no way to know when these aliens actually entered the United States.)

These politicians claimed that they would be “tough” on illegal immigration and while they would not provide millions of illegal aliens with “amnesty,” would be “compassionate” and, provided that these aliens paid fines, learned English and jumped through several other largely symbolic but ultimately meaningless hoops, would be granted lawful status.

Because the numbers of these illegal aliens would be so huge, there would be no interviews and no field investigations conducted to substantiate claims made in their applications.  This would create an open invitation for fraud.

In essence, they have all fired the starter’s pistol for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world and for these foreign nationals the border of the United States is the finish line.

It has been said that the prospect of employment by unscrupulous employers that powers the magnet that draws most illegal aliens to the United States.  Today that magnet is powered by the leadership of both political parties.

The official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.and carry out an attack.  The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” 

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel. 

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

It is stupefying to imagine that the United States would, as the Reuters report noted, send U.S. Border Patrol agents to the southern border of Mexico to seek to work with the Mexican government to address the illegal aliens flowing into Mexico, apparently destined to ultimately enter the United States.

Mexico’s primary industries include petroleum and narcotics smuggling. Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations essentially control the Mexican side of the U.S./Mexican border and Mexico has become addicted to the drug money flowing into Mexico from the United States as well as the remittances wired back to Mexico from their citizens working illegally in the United States.

Apparently the government of Mexico and the administration have now become “Partners in Crime” and the security of America and Americans hang in the balance.

Border Control vs. Gun Control

June 18, 2016

Border Control vs. Gun Control, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 17, 2016

The Pulse night club massacre was the latest in a series of Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, quite a few of which have succeeded, while others have been foiled. These attacks have used a variety of weapons: box cutters, knives, pistols, pressure cookers and rifles. There is a sharp partisan divide with respect to how such terrorist attacks should be viewed.

Republicans say that we should try harder to keep potential terrorists out of the country. Since we have no practical way to vet immigrants, and, in any event, Islamic extremists tend to be second generation Muslims like Omar Mateen, the only realistic way to do this is by reducing, or suspending altogether, immigration from Muslim-dominated countries. This is Donald Trump’s proposal.

That would be a radical departure from present practice. Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate subcommittee has released this chart, which shows that the Obama administration will soon have issued one million green cards to immigrants from Islamic countries. Click to enlarge:

Green cards

Sessions’ office adds this explanation:

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Notably, the 832,014 figure does not include temporary, nonimmigrant visas issued to migrants who come to the United States simply to work, nor does it include those who have come to the United States on temporary visas and overstayed their authorized period of admission.

Among those receiving green cards are individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, who are required to apply for adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (green card) status within 1 year of admission. A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?

There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.

No doubt the majority of these million-plus Muslims are good people. But no one questions that some percentage of them will turn out to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Or their sons and daughters will be. No one knows what that proportion is, but even if it is small, the risk is large. Why are we taking it?

Democrats don’t think this way at all. They say it is impossible to know who will turn out to be a terrorist, and therefore, the best we can do is to make sure that would-be terrorists don’t have guns. The solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism (not that any Democrat admits that Islamic terrorism is a problem) is gun control.

To support this interpretation of events, Democrats portray Islamic terrorists as indistinguishable from crazy people who commit similar outrages–people like Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Charles Whitman. Islamic terror, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us, has nothing to do with Islam. It is just random insanity. On that theory, it is pointless to keep out any category of immigrants, and preventing future terrorist attacks mass murder incidents is pretty much hopeless. All we can do is try to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms (or certain firearms, anyway) so that their victims might be fewer in number.

And yet…there does seem to be something going on here. David French reminds us of what has happened, just during the last two years:

* From April to June, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown killed four Americans on a “mission of vengeance” against the United States.

* On September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen beheaded an Oklahoma woman with a knife. His social media pages were covered with evidence of jihadist leanings and motivations.

* On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked an exhibit of Mohammed images in Garland, Texas. They wounded a security officer, but police killed them before they were able to carry out mass murder.

* On July 16, 2015, Mohammad Abdulazeez killed five people at two Chattanooga recruiting stations. FBI director James Comey declared that Abdulazeez was “inspired/motivated” by terrorist propaganda.

* On November 4, 2015, Faisal Mohammed went on an ISIS-inspired stabbing spree — wounding four — before he was killed by campus police.

* On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS then killed 14 people and wounded 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.

* On January 8, 2015, Edward Archer pledged himself to ISIS and attempted to assassinate a Philadelphia police officer. The wounded officer chased down and apprehended Archer before he could commit any other acts of violence.

* On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen pledged himself to ISIS and killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The Europeans could add many more to that list. Somehow, the random insanity theory doesn’t seem to fit.

Moreover, we now know that Omar Mateen’s wife–who, like so many Islamic radicals, grew up wealthy–knew about his plans for mass murder in the name of Allah, accompanied him when he scoped out murder venues and bought ammunition, and exchanged texts with him as he carried out his “mission.” And it came out today that Mateen’s brother in law refuses to say whether he knew about Mateen’s plan for jihad.

Consider the other mass murderers who, liberals say, were just like Mateen and the many other Islamic terrorists. Did Adam Lanza’s relatives know about his plans? Did they help him carry them out? Of course not. Lanza’s plan included murdering his mother. It is only Islamic terrorists whose cries of “Allahu Akbar!” as they open fire are joined in by accomplices and supporters. This isn’t random insanity, it is a global movement.

Those are arguments for immigration control. How about the Democrats’ arguments for more gun control? Would their proposals do any good?

The Democrats want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but only if they are black. (There is a funny Twitter meme–a picture of an AR-15 that says, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”) This is an amazingly dumb idea. Rifles are the least popular murder weapons, ranking well below blunt objects, knives, shotguns and bare hands. Democrats say: but you can kill so many, so fast, with a rifle! News flash: you can pull the trigger on a pistol just as fast as on a rifle, and, unless you are 50 yards or more distant, which is never the case in a mass murder situation, the pistol is just as lethal.

Democrats also want anyone on the FBI’s no-fly list to be barred from buying guns. Intuitively, that sounds like a good idea. But the first problem is that the no-fly list is a joke. Ted Kennedy was on it, Omar Mateen wasn’t. As far as we know, not a single murderer, terrorist or otherwise, has ever been on the no-fly list. (I assume for this purpose that Kennedy’s grossly negligent drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne was not murder.) So best case, the no-fly ban does no good.

The second problem is that the no-fly list is concocted in secret and there is no way to get off it. This is a significant civil rights issue. The NRA says that the FBI should have to go through a judge, the equivalent of a search warrant, and show probable cause to put someone on the list.

The third problem, and the reason why the FBI opposes the Democrats’ proposal, is that it gives actual terrorists an easy way to find out whether the authorities are on to them: try to buy a gun. So the Democrats’ plan to ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is at best ill-considered.

More broadly, the Democrats’ core idea–go ahead and admit lots of potential terrorists, but don’t let them get their hands on a gun–flies in the face of reality. Convicted criminals are legally prohibited from buying guns. Does that prevent them from being armed? Of course not. Further, has any terrorist attack ever been thwarted because the would-be terrorist couldn’t find a gun? Not that I know of. A fundamental problem with all gun control proposals is that law-abiding citizens will follow them, but criminals (including, above all, terrorists) will not.

As is so often the case, the Democrats’ proposals are intended to gain political advantage, not to produce positive results. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to have succeeded in converting the debate over the terrorist attack in Orlando to one about gun control. This is sad, but but doesn’t change reality: while neither approach is a panacea, it makes much more sense to control our borders than to admit all comers and try to foil terrorists through even more gun control measures than are already in place.