Archive for the ‘Obama and illegal immigration’ category

Sessions Calls on Congress to End Abuse of Asylum Process

October 12, 2017

Sessions Calls on Congress to End Abuse of Asylum Process, Washington Free Beacon, October 12, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions / Getty Images

“Individuals who wanted to enter illegally, and individuals who had hired smugglers, were aware of the fact that if they said the words ‘credible fear’ the odds are that they would be released and that they’d be allowed to continue into the United States.”

The result of the Obama administration guidance was a skyrocketing rate of credible fear exception applicants.

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

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday called for Congress to swiftly pass policy proposals from the Trump administration that would help rectify abuses of the asylum process.

Sessions addressed the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the administration of America’s immigration courts.

“The immigration laws that Congress has enacted are some of the most generous in the world,” Sessions said. “Indeed, we will soon reach the highest level of non-native born Americans in our history.”

However, a failure to properly enforce immigration laws has resulted in an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. One of the ways by which said aliens take advantage of the immigration system is through so-called “credible fear” claims for asylum seekers, Sessions said.

The Department of Homeland Security uses a process called “expedited removal” to remove certain immigrants without a full hearing or the laborious process used in more complicated immigration cases. Exceptions are made for illegal immigrants who claim to have a “credible fear” of persecution in his or her country of origin, who are allowed to avoid the expedited removal process and proceed to a full immigration court hearing.

“This is an important exception,” Sessions said. “We have a generous asylum policy that is meant to protect those who, through no fault of their own, cannot co-exist in their home country no matter where they go because of persecution based on fundamental things like their religion or nationality. Unfortunately, this system is currently subject to rampant abuse and fraud.”

Under the credible fear procedure, an asylum seeker has a preliminary interview, which may then make him eligible for a subsequent formal hearing to grant asylum. Historically, the ashylum seeker was detained while awaiting the hearing, unless the would-be asylee explicitly requested parole.

That changed in 2009, when the Obama administration issued new guidance that made the consideration for parole automatic. What that meant in practice is that asylum seekers were no longer detained, but were all-but-automatically released into the population after their interview—meaning they only sometimes showed up to their subsequent formal hearing.

“This is a pretty easy way into the United States,” explained Andrew Arthur, a former federal immigration judge and Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Individuals who wanted to enter illegally, and individuals who had hired smugglers, were aware of the fact that if they said the words ‘credible fear’ the odds are that they would be released and that they’d be allowed to continue into the United States.”

The result of the Obama administration guidance was a skyrocketing rate of credible fear exception applicants.

In 2009, the DHS reported doing around 5,000 credible fear reviews. By 2016, that number reached 94,000. In 2009, around 4,000 asylum seekers were placed in removal proceedings; in 2016, that number is more than 73,000. At the border, some 3,000 people sought credible fear exemptions in 2009; 2016 saw more than 69,000. In all, an illegal alien has an 88 percent chance of avoiding expedited removal by making a credible fear claim.

Even if asylum seekers do show up to court, litigating an asylum claim is relatively low cost, and every asylum case is required to have a full hearing.

“That’s why there’s a common, fatalistic refrain you’ll hear from immigration judges and immigration enforcement that ‘the case isn’t over until the alien wins,'” Sessions said.

The credible fear process also poses a threat to national security: Sessions noted that at least five Somali terrorists had taken advantage of the process to try to gain access to the United States.

“I think the expedited removal/credible fear process has been largely ignored up to this point,” Arthur said, “and I think that it poses a much more serious risk to the national security than even the legal immigration process does.”

Sessions called for Congress to pass President Donald Trump’s new bevy of immigration proposals, released earlier this week. Among those proposals are recommendations to tighten standards in the immigration system, increase the standard of proof in initial interviews, impose penalties for frivolous or fraudulent asylum applications, and tighten the standards for parole.

Trump also pushed for an expansion of the personnel and resources of the immigration court system, the overwhelming backlog in which Sessions has made a priority of reducing.

“The president’s proposals on asylum reform especially are crucial,” Arthur said. “There are many loopholes in the asylum system, and the president appropriately has noted that we need to elevate the threshold standard of proof in credible fear interviews.”

Sessions, for his part, was resolute in supporting the administration’s proposed changes.

“What we cannot do—what we must not do—is continue to let our generosity be abused,” he said. “We cannot capitulate to lawlessness and allow the very foundation of law upon which our country depends to be further undermined.”

Justice Scalia on “The Very Human Realities” in Arpaio’s Arizona

September 1, 2017

Justice Scalia on “The Very Human Realities” in Arpaio’s Arizona, Power Line,  Paul Mirengoff, September 1, 2017

(As I recall, Obama abrogated by executive order many of the immigration laws passed by Congress. — DM)

Scalia concluded with a question:

Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?

 For me, the story here is less about hypocrisy than about realizing what can easily happen when the federal government abrogates its duty to enforce laws that are vital to the safety and well-being of certain communities.

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

Whichever way one comes down regarding President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I think it’s important to recognize the context in which Arpaio took the over-zealous law enforcement actions that led to his conviction. That context was described by Justice Scalia in his opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) in Arizona v. U.S., a decision that struck down in large measure an Arizona immigration enforcement law called S.B. 1070.

Justice Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion, ap­proving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. . . .

Scalia added:

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from en­forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari­zona citizens for employment.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.

(Emphasis added)

Scalia concluded with a question:

Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?

Of course not.

Daniel Horowitz, whose recent article invokes these words by Scalia, writes:

There is something fundamentally wrong when people delegitimize the pardon of one sheriff — whether you agree or disagree with Trump’s decision — but unquestionably support the de facto judicial pardons of millions of illegal aliens, including some of the most violent ones, even though courts manifestly lack such power.

Moreover, Obama illegally “pardoned” (plus gave affirmative benefits to) 900,000 illegal aliens, including the likes of Salvador Diaz-Garcia, who allegedly raped a 19-year old American and broke almost every bone in her face.

Of course, some strong critics of the Arpaio pardon did not support the de facto pardons Horowitz describes. For me, the story here is less about hypocrisy than about realizing what can easily happen when the federal government abrogates its duty to enforce laws that are vital to the safety and well-being of certain communities.

Half of all federal arrests related to immigration

March 23, 2017

Half of all federal arrests related to immigration, Washington TimesStephen Dinan, March 23, 2017

(Obviously, President Trump is prejudiced against honest, law-abiding undocumented citizens who commit only acts of love by coming to America. Wait a minute. That was in 2014, when President Obama was in office. — DM)

In this photo taken Feb. 7, 2017, released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an arrest is made during a targeted enforcement operation conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) aimed at immigration fugitives, re-entrants and at-large criminal aliens

But the arrests were heavily limited to the border area.

Most of the country saw little immigration enforcement, as Mr. Obama’s priorities carved most illegal immigrants out of any danger of deportation.

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

Immigration arrests and border-related cases have swamped the federal government, the Justice Department said Thursday, pointing to new statistics that show half of all arrests made by federal authorities in 2014 were for immigration offenses.

The five judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border also accounted for nearly 40 percent of people given federal sentences that year, the statistics show.

And the Justice Department said repeat offenders were also more likely in those border districts than elsewhere in the country.

 “These statistics make it clear that immigration-related offenses along the United States border with Mexico account for an enormous portion of the federal government’s law enforcement resources and that we must enforce our immigration laws in a way that consistently deters future violations,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.

Overall arrests actually dropped in 2014, as did immigration arrests, as the Obama administration continued to narrow the range of illegal immigrants it deemed targets for enforcement.

But as a percentage of criminal activity, immigration still accounted for 49.7 percent of all arrests, the statistics show.

The five districts along the border — Arizona, New Mexico, southern California, southern Texas and western Texas — combined for 60.9 percent of arrests. Indeed, southern Texas alone accounted for a fifth of all federal arrests that year, while Arizona was just behind at 19.3 percent.

The second-ranking offense behind immigration was drug charges, at 14.4 percent — less than a third of the rate of immigration charges.

Sex offenses, meanwhile, were the fastest-growing segment of arrests for federal agents, rising from about 500 in 2010 to about 3,500 in 2014.

Texas, Arizona, South Dakota, the middle of Florida and the eastern district of Virginia were all at the top of the sex offenders arrest tally in 2014.

The 81,881 immigration arrests does include double-counting. About 9 percent of those nabbed for immigration offenses in 2014 were actually caught at least twice that year — raising questions of why they weren’t deported after the initial offense.

Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, made 64 percent of all immigration arrests, while U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles deportation and interior immigration matters, arrested 30 percent.

But the arrests were heavily limited to the border area.

Most of the country saw little immigration enforcement, as Mr. Obama’s priorities carved most illegal immigrants out of any danger of deportation.

Trump’s Immigration Guidance: The Rule of Law Returns

February 22, 2017

Trump’s Immigration Guidance: The Rule of Law Returns, PJ Media, Andrew C. McCarthy, February 22, 2017

homelandsecheadHomeland Security Secretary John Kelly, right, watches during President Donald Trump’s meeting on cyber security in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2017. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

On Tuesday, John Kelly, President Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security, published a six-page, single-spaced memorandum detailing new guidance on immigration enforcement. Thereupon, I spent about 1,500 words summarizing the guidance in a column at National Review. Brevity being the soul of wit, both the memo and my description of it could have been reduced to a single, easy-to-remember sentence:

Henceforth, the United States shall be governed by the laws of the United States.

That it was necessary for Secretary Kelly to say more than this — and, sadly, that such alarm has greeted a memo that merely announces the return of the rule of law in immigration enforcement — owes to the Obama administration abuses of three legal doctrines: prosecutorial discretion, preemption, and separation of powers (specifically, the executive usurpation of legislative power).

To the extent President Obama declined to enforce immigration law (notwithstanding his constitutional obligation to execute the laws faithfully), he did so under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. In the pre-Obama days, prosecutorial discretion was an unremarkable, uncontroversial resource-allocation doctrine. It simply meant that since resources are finite, and since it would be neither possible nor desirable to prosecute every crime, we target law-enforcement resources to get the most crime-fighting bang for the taxpayer buck. That means prioritizing enforcement action against (a) the worst offenders and (b) the unlawful causes of the activity.

This is easily illustrated by federal drug enforcement. There are comparatively few federal narcotics agents, compared, say, to police in a major city. But while both feds and cops have authority to arrest traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs, only federal jurisdiction is interstate and international. Consequently, the best use of finite federal enforcement resources is to limit them to prosecutions of significant felony importation and distribution offenses, leaving it to the states and municipalities to handle street pushers and misdemeanor violations involving the use of drugs.

Significantly, the fact that federal enforcement policy, which is made by the executive branch, does not target lesser felons or users does not mean this policy effectively repeals federal drug laws, which are written by Congress.

The non-targeted crimes are still crimes, and the feds reserve the right to prosecute them in appropriate cases (e.g., if they encounter these offenses in the course of carrying out other criminal enforcement missions).

In the area of immigration enforcement, Obama contorted this resource allocation doctrine into a de facto immunity scheme. That is, the Obama Homeland Security Department announced what it labeled enforcement “priorities.” If an illegal alien did not fit into the priorities, it was as if the alien were insulated against prosecution — effectively, it was as if there was nothing illegal about being an alien unlawfully present in the United States; it was as if Obama’s policies were a legal defense against Congress’s duly enacted laws.

This was complemented by a second legal distortion: Obama’s mangling of the so-called preemption doctrine. As we’ve noted, there are certain areas of law — like immigration and narcotics enforcement — in which the federal and state governments have concurrent jurisdiction: both are permitted to regulate and prosecute. This can work well (it generally does in drug enforcement); but it can be counterproductive if the dual sovereigns work at cross-purposes.

In some areas, like immigration, the courts have ruled that the federal government is supreme (on the dubious but now well-rooted theory that immigration law enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility). This means that the federal government has the power to preempt state action. Importantly, preemption is a power of Congress. That is, in an area of federal supremacy, states are prohibited to act in a manner that would contravene federal law.

Obama, to the contrary, took the position that states were forbidden to take action that contravened Obama immigration policy.

This was brought into sharp relief by the administration’s conflict with the state of Arizona. Far from seeking to countermand federal law, Arizona sought to enforce Congress’s statutes. Yet, Obama took the position that the state was bound not by Congress’s statutes but by Obama’s proclaimed enforcement policies — even if those amounted to non-enforcement of Congress’s statutes.

This was a perversion of both preemption and prosecutorial discretion. As long as Arizona was taking action consistent with federal law, its enforcement measures could not be preempted. Moreover, even if Arizona’s enforcement policy was broader than Obama’s, that should not have mattered: as we’ve seen, a federal exercise of prosecutorial discretion just means lesser crimes are not targeted, not that they are no longer crimes. If Arizona took action against those lesser crimes, that was completely appropriate; it was filling a gap in federal enforcement, not defying federal law.

The obstacles imposed by Obama’s immigration proclamations bring us to the third legal abuse: the usurpation of legislative authority. In effect, Obama’s announced priorities became not guidelines for immigration enforcement but new federal laws. According to the administration, only those aliens who fit Obama’s guidelines could be prosecuted. The Homeland Security Department was instructed to halt enforcement action at the earliest possible stage — i.e., once it was understood that an illegal alien did not fit a priority category, all investigative activity was to stop, even though it was known that the alien was acting illegally.

In effect, the Obama priorities operated like law. They controlled what federal investigators and prosecutors could do, and they were used to block states from enforcing their own laws. In this, at least for as long as Obama was president, they supplanted Congress’s laws — a clear violation of separation of powers.

All the Trump guidance announced in Secretary Kelly’s memo really does is repeal Obama’s decrees. The memo essentially says: the law of the United States is back to being the law of the United States. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

RIGHT ANGLE: Blame Who’s Responsible

February 2, 2017

RIGHT ANGLE: Blame Who’s Responsible, BillWhittledotcom via YouTube, February 1, 2017

 

Voters Not Fooled by Democrats’ Dangerous Immigration Agenda

December 20, 2016

Voters Not Fooled by Democrats’ Dangerous Immigration Agenda, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, December 16, 2016

border_patrol_car_patroling_on_border-1

A growing majority of Americans have had it with the duplicitous conduct of the political elite of both parties.  There is a new sheriff in town and the Democrats, must accept that Americans are not as dumb as they hoped we are.

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

One of the most treasured hallmarks of America’s democratic electoral process is that following every election the transference of political power is done peacefully.  It is also expected that the candidate that loses an election will concede the results of the election and congratulate his/her opponent and wish that person success.

However, members of the Democratic Party and others, such as Presidential candidate Jill Stein, were so upset with the outcome of the election that they have made a series of false, outrageous accusations.

In so doing they not only attacked Donald Trump but our most prized democratic traditions.

The inflammatory and vitriolic statements made by various Democratic politicians, on all levels of government, were followed by violent demonstrations around the United States and on college campuses spurred on by the false accusations.

FBI Director Comey was blamed for causing Hillary to lose the election because he had made public statements about Hillary’s missing e-mails and illegal use of a private e-mail server to receive and transmit highly classified national security information.

Stein sought a recount of the votes in three key states. This costly effort failed to disclose any voting irregularities committed on behalf of Trump.

Now the most recent claim of the Democrats is that Russia hacked the U.S. electoral process to insure that Trump would win the election.

It is impossible to discuss computer security and not raise the issue of Hillary and her outrageous national security transgressions, through the use of her private and non-secure server as well as her non-secure digital devices, that created huge national security vulnerabilities for the United States.

Our government may not ever fully discover the extent of the damage this may have done to America’s intelligence gathering operations and may well continue to hobble those efforts for years to come.

Nevertheless this fact has been entirely ignored by the mainstream media.

Chuck Schumer, the newly anointed Minority Leader in the Senate, immediately jumped in front of the television cameras (actually he is rarely far from those cameras) and complained bitterly about Trump’s purported connection to Vladimir Putin.  He was almost immediately joined by Republican senators Graham and McCain.

The mainstream media referred to this triumvirate as a “Bipartisan effort,” ignoring the obvious connection that these three have as members of the “Gang of Eight” that attempted to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform” down the threats of Americans.

We will get to the immigration connection momentarily but first it is extremely important to note that on December 14, 2016, Fox News reported that although the House Intelligence Committee had scheduled a hearing on December 15, 2016 to delve into the claims that Russia had hacked into the U.S. elections, incredibly the intelligence agencies have refused to provide any witnesses for this hearing.

It is unfathomable that representatives of our intelligence agencies would refuse to provide testimony or evidence on a matter of such potential seriousness as the alleged interference by Russia in our elections, unless there is no evidence.

Accusations without corroboration is properly called slander.  The accusations about Russian interference into the election of Donald Trump now create the appearance of yet another smear campaign against America’s President-elect.

The conduct of the Democrats is obviously attributable to the outcome of the election.  But adding to the consternation of the Democrats is Trump’s promise to address the immigration crisis that has lit the Democrats’ hair on fire.

Donald Trump made building a wall to secure the U.S./Mexican border the rallying cry of his campaign.  He has also promised to enforce America’s immigration laws to prevent the entry and continued presence of criminal aliens and make certain that American workers get the jobs being taken by foreign workers, including high-tech workers.

This stands in stark contrast with the policies of the Obama administration and promises made by Hillary during her campaign.

For nearly eight years the Obama administration has issued illegal executive orders to gut the enforcement of our immigration laws.  The consequence of the administration’s immigration policies including the release of criminal aliens has resulted in more crimes committed against more victims across the United States.

In fact, at one recent Congressional hearing into the administration’s policies of releasing violent criminal aliens from prison, Congressman Lamar Smith asked the rhetorical question, “President Obama: Accessory To The Crimes Committed By Illegal Aliens?

The Obama administration flooded the United States with thousands of refugees who cannot be vetted, playing “Immigration Roulette” with national security and public safety.  Hillary Clinton promised to admit even more such refugees.

The lack of border security is more than conjecture.  The most reliable metric for determining how secure or insecure our nation’s borders are is the price and availability of heroin and cocaine.  The supply of these poisons has never been more plentiful and the prices have never been lower.  Inasmuch as these substances are not produced in the United States every gram present in the United States was smuggled into our country.

Drug smuggling goes hand-in-glove with alien smuggling.  Transnational drug gangs from around the world set up operations in towns and cities across the United States to control the flow of drugs into the United States and to make certain that all proceeds of this extremely violent criminal enterprise are successfully sent back to their home countries and into the bank accounts of criminal as well as terrorist organizations.

This is not the only “price” America and Americans pay, however.  There is a clear nexus between narcotics and violence.  The drug trade also deals in human suffering and carnage.

Former Speaker of the House Thomas Phillip “Tip” O’Neill Jr. famously stated that “All politics is local.”  In point of fact, all law enforcement is also local.

When the federal government fails to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, the stage is set for massive quantities of narcotics to be smuggled into the United States.

However, the daily enforcement of our criminal laws are not only a vital mission for federal authorities but for local, city and state police departments as well.

The DOJ tracks crime statistics but ultimately murders, rapes and muggings occur on streets in our towns and cities.  So do drug transactions.

“Sanctuary Cities” further encourage massive numbers of illegal aliens to enter the United States who are secure in the knowledge that by setting up shop in such cities, their violations of our borders and immigration laws will go unreported to federal immigration authorities.

Where transnational criminals and international terrorists are concerned, these violations of our borders and our laws are anything but “victimless” crimes.

As I have noted in previous articles, ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

Speaking of local crime and local politics, Donald Trump was not the only Republican to win his election.  Across the United States nearly two-thirds of the governors are now Republicans.

The Republicans control both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Clearly the majority of Americans are not “buying” what the Democrats are peddling.  Yet the Democratic Party refuses to accept these cold hard facts.

At the beginning of the Presidential campaign, on July 2, 2015 a young woman by the name of Kate Steinle was gunned down by an illegal alien, Francisco Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico who had been previously convicted of seven felonies and, as the the Los Angeles Times reported, was previously deported five times.

Reportedly, Sanchez admitted that he lived in San Francisco because of its “sanctuary” policies.

This case ignited a national firestorm highlighting that San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” that had refused to honor an ICE detainer.  Consequently Sanchez was allowed to roam freely when he should never have been released from custody.

Rather than learn from this tragedy, it has been reported that San Francisco City Supervisor David Campos wants millions of dollars to defend illegal aliens from deportation.

To political leaders, such as Campos, the bodies of the victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens are mere “speed bumps” to his political goals.

While the Steinle murder drew national attention, similar crimes are committed every day across the United States, often on multiple occasions.

Abraham Lincoln sagely observed that “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

A growing majority of Americans have had it with the duplicitous conduct of the political elite of both parties.  There is a new sheriff in town and the Democrats, must accept that Americans are not as dumb as they hoped we are.

Obama Steals from Medicare, Curing Cancer for Illegal Aliens

November 30, 2016

Obama Steals from Medicare, Curing Cancer for Illegal Aliens, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, November 30, 2016

(Please see also, Overwhelmed Border Patrol Agents Stuck Serving Burritos to Illegal Immigrants. — DM)

mission-accomplished_3

Every politician rewards his voters. Obama’s just happen to be illegal aliens. It’s why his DOJ spent more time fighting efforts to fight voter fraud… than fighting voter fraud. So Obama is stealing from seniors, from AIDS patients and everyone else… to fund his illegal alien base.

The Department of Health and Human Services is raiding several of its accounts, including money for Medicare, the Ryan White AIDS/HIV program and those for cancer and flu research to cover a shortfall in housing illegal youths pouring over the border at a rate of 255 a day.

Her sources said the following programs are being hit to pay for the illegals, about half of which the government will lose contact with.

— $14 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration, including $4.5 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and $2 million from the Maternal and Child Health program.

Well who needs to help AIDS patients or babies… when we can help illegal aliens invade the country.

$14 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for contagious disease prevention and treatment and other critical public health programs.

Not only do the migrant hordes spread disease, but funding to fight the diseases they cause is being cut.

$72 million from the National Institutes of Health, for research on cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, mental health, infectious diseases and much more.

— $8 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, for treatment and prevention programs.

— $8 million from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

— $39 million from the Children and Families Services Program.

Sorry cancer patients and Medicare patients and children… illegal aliens matter more than you do. To the left.

Forget Obama’s cancer “moonshot”. His real moonshot is the illegal alien invasion of America.