Archive for the ‘Sanctuary cities’ category

Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders

January 25, 2017

Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders, Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, January 25, 2017

trump_homeland_33815-jpg-b0031_c0-324-4014-2664_s885x516President Donald Trump holds up an executive order for border security and immigration enforcement improvements after signing the order during a visit to the Homeland Security Department headquarters in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

With a couple strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his own border wall, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing sanctuary cities who try to thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is the 2012 deportation amnesty for so-called Dreamers.

But most of the other policies, including Mr. Obama’s “priorities” protecting almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are gone. In their place are a series of directives that would free agents to enforce stiff laws well beyond the border, that would encourage Mexico to try to control the flow of people coming through the southwestern border, and would push back on loopholes illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“Federal agencies are going to unapologetically enforce the law, no if’s, ands or buts,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Mr. Trump doesn’t break new legal ground, but instead pushes immigration agents to flex the tools Congress has already given them over the years to enforce existing laws.

Immigrant-rights advocates say those existing laws are broken and can’t be enforced. They’ve pushed for a complete overhaul and a redo that would grant most illegal immigrants already in the U.S. legal status.

In the meantime, the groups have asked the federal government to severely curtail — or in some cases to halt altogether — deportations.

On Wednesday, the groups vowed resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies, urging local officials to brave Mr. Trump’s threat to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities, and calling on immigrants themselves to rally.

“Those who are targeted by Trump and those that love us must protect ourselves and each other in these times,” said Tania Unzueta, policy director at Mijente, an advocacy group.

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.

Cut-off of federal funds to sanctuary cities is possible immediately upon inauguration of President Trump

November 25, 2016

Cut-off of federal funds to sanctuary cities is possible immediately upon inauguration of President Trump, American ThinkerThomas Lifson, November 25, 2016

Thanks to a little-noticed action of Texas Congressman John Culberson taken last July, President-elect Trump will able to cut-off federal law enforcement funding to 9 sanctuary cities, plus the entire state of California, immediately upon taking the oath of office. Brenda Walker of Vdare explains:

Because of the foresight of a Texas Congressman, President Trump will be able to end certain funding to the largest sanctuary cities plus the entire state of California on his first day as President. Working quietly, Culberson convinced the existing Justice Department to certify those cities as non-compliant with federal law, thereby making them vulnerable to loss of money from Washington.

With great foresight, the Congressman, as he explained to Eric Shawn of Fox News (video embedded below):

…using existing law and the power of the purse, I have seen to it that the top 10 sanctuary cities in America have already been certified as violating existing federal law and therefore everything is pre-positioned for these 10 cities — including Chicago, New York, the entire state of California — they will lose all their federal law enforcement money, if President Trump chooses to, the president can cut off their money at noon on January 20th of 2017. If they do not change their sanctuary policies and hand over criminal illegal aliens in their custody to be deported, their days of receiving federal law enforcement money are over.

SHAWN: Obviously this is something that the Obama administration has not agreed with.

CULBERSON: In fact I, as chairman of the subcommittee in charge of all the money for the Department of Justice, I quietly persuaded Attorney General Loretta Lynch to implement this new policy this past July seventh, so it’s already done. I did it as subcommittee chairman using existing law and the influence of the power of the purse that the founding fathers so wisely entrusted to Congress. I did it quietly and and thoughtfully, and I didn’t embarrass anybody so it’s already done, pre-positioned.

SHAWN: I’m sorry — pre-positioned but hasn’t gone into action?

CULBERSON: Attorney General Lynch has already notified every city and state in the country that unless they cooperate 100 percent of the time with requests for immigration information about criminal aliens in local custody, then those local jurisdictions lose all their federal law enforcement money. That’s already up on the Department of Justice website. It has been official policy since July seventh. I just didn’t make any noise about it because the purpose of this election — America wants us to get it done, to get the job done, so I’ve taken care of it the job is done and President Trump can now cut off their money at noon on January 20th because it’s been policy.

You might wonder how Congressman Culberson “persuaded” AG Lynch. Good old arm-twisting, based on the power of the purse:

Citing his committee’s power over the DOJ’s budget, Culberson stated in February:

Any refusal by the Department to comply with these reasonable and timely requests will factor heavily in my consideration of their 2017 budget requests, and whether or not I will include language in the fiscal year 2017 CJS appropriations bill prohibiting the award of law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that harbor illegal aliens. I will include language in this year’s bill requiring the DOJ to amend the application process for Byrne JAG, COPS, and SCAAP grants so that grantees must certify under oath that they are in compliance with section 1373 of title 8 of the United States Code.

Master showman Donald Trump thus has the opportunity for a lot drama upon taking his oath.  Such a dramatic move as announcing the cut-off of law enforcement grants to the ten large jurisdictions would immediately place the Left on defense, for:

 …a November Rasmussen poll found that large majority of voters favors deportation of illegal alien criminals:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 81% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a plan that calls for mandatory deportation of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Just 13% are opposed. These findings are nearly identical to those measured in August of last year.

Stand by. There is going to be a very interesting four years ahead.

 

Sessions will make a fine attorney general

November 22, 2016

Sessions will make a fine attorney general, Washington Examiner, November 21, 2016

agsessions

Whenever there is a chance to publish an inflammatory piece about Alabama Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the New York Times and left-wing politicians make sure to use his full name, filled as it is with references to the Confederacy.

But Sessions, like Barack Hussein Obama and all the rest of us, did not choose his first, middle or last names. And like all of us, he has nothing to be ashamed about.

What he does have is the right experience and temperament to serve as attorney general. Even if we disagree with him on some issues, he represents a reassuring choice by President-elect Trump, who considered others who were less suited for the role.

Sessions served as an Army Reserve captain during the Vietnam War era. He is a former country and city lawyer in private practice. He also served as a U.S. attorney and as Alabama’s attorney general, which means that he understands the obligations that go with the role of a top prosecutor.

He knows that these are distinct from the skill set required to win elections as a vote-hungry politician, which sadly is not a given for all public servants nowadays.

Even as a politician, Sessions is not known as a big self-promoter. He is amicable with reporters, but it’s also safe to stand between him and the nearest camera, which cannot be said of others. And he would be the last person one might expect, in a highly divided and partisan nation where this is an issue, to wield the tools of law enforcement in a petty or vindictive way.

Some will oppose Sessions because they disagree with his conservatism and support of Trump. That’s fair game. But it is deeply unjust that a lame joke he once told about the Ku Klux Klan changed the course of his career, excluding him from the federal bench and tarring him as a racist. People have been prone to hurl that rhetorical grenade at him without checking the origin of the claim.

Sessions quipped to a colleague that he turned against the KKK only because he discovered some of its members smoked pot. His interlocutor understood it was a joke, but Sens. Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, two of the most disingenuous and partisan pols ever to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, seized on it as a pretext for torpedoing his nomination ahead of an anticipated fight over the Supreme Court.

Sessions has been praised by several civil rights leaders. His only known interaction with the Klan was his oversight, as Alabama’s attorney general, of the execution of the KKK boss in the state.

It was the first execution of a white man for murdering a black man in Alabama in more than 80 years, and the only case in the entire nation in which a KKK member was executed for killing a black man in the 20th Century.

We disagree with Sessions for his opposition to sentencing and criminal justice reform, and also to his support of civil asset forfeiture, by which members of the public neither convicted nor even charged with a crime can be deprived of their property.

But Sessions’ opinions on these matters will matter less than those of his new boss, which remain unclear. The senator’s departure from the Senate Judiciary Committee might even expedite some positive reforms.

In terms of experience, fairness, and administrative capability Sessions is a fine candidate for attorney general. He is sure to emphasize workplace enforcement of immigration laws and to enforce the laws on the books against sanctuary cities. These were near to the top the agenda on which Trump was elected, and his voters will get their way.

The Department of Justice’s reputation is in tatters after its embarrassing and deadly Operation Fast and Furious scandal, to say nothing of its gymnastics in protecting Hillary Clinton during the election. Sessions’ leadership can only make things better.

FULL MEASURE Episode 44: July 31, 2016 Parts I and II

August 2, 2016

FULL MEASURE Episode 44: July 31, 2016 via YouTube Parts I and II, August 2, 2016 — Sanctuary for illegal aliens

Part I

 

Part II

According to the blurb beneath both videos,

Hundreds of U.S. cities have laws in place that help shield illegal immigrants from deportation – even after they’ve committed felonies. Full Measure takes an in-depth look at illegal immigrants, the crimes they’re committing and sanctuary cities.

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor

June 27, 2016

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, June 27, 2016

irene-martin

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

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

I have written a follow-up article to my March 18, 2016 piece with the sarcastic title, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS?The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?

I began my original commentary by saying that I was not trying to go “over the top” with the title of my article and that I had not lost my mind but that I was infuriated that a manager of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would block ICE agents from entering that facility.

It is worth noting that both USCIS and ICE are component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

At the time I wrote my original article, the actual identity of the manager who blocked five ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents was not known, however, it has been disclosed that the manager is Irene Martin.

It must be noted that these ICE agents were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the office that they sought to enter was located in San Bernardino, the very same city where less than 24 hours earlier, on December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook carried out a terror attack that resulted in the murder of 14 and the wounding of 22 innocent victims.

Furthermore, Enrique Marquez, the individual the ICE agents were hoping to locate at the office, was believed to have provided the weapons used in carrying out that terrorist attack.  They had discovered that Marquez was scheduled to appear for an interview that day in conjunction with the application he filed for his wife to provide her with lawful immigrant status.

The agents were not only concerned about questioning and arresting Marquez because of the crimes he was alleged to have already committed in providing weapons and possibly other material support to the two terrorists, but the agents were greatly concerned that Marquez may have provided similar assistance to other terrorists who had not yet carried out additional attacks.  Time was obviously extremely critical and potentially innocent lives were hanging in the balance.  The clock was ticking and time was not on the side of the agents — or of possible additional victims, for that matter.

As for the supposed “marriage” between Marquez and his “wife” Chernykh, they have subsequently been charged with conspiracy to commit immigration/marriage fraud.  I addressed this issue in my May 3, 2016 article, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family.”

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,  “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.”

Additionally, it must be pointed out that if ICE agents had information about anyone who was seeking an immigration benefit for an alien, even if terrorism is not a component of the case, the adjudications officers should welcome any information that would provide relevant information about the bona fides of the petition/application that is to be adjudicated.  Immigration fraud is a felony without any other factors being involved.  Furthermore the 9/11 Commission noted that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.

I am intimately familiar with these issues inasmuch as I served as an adjudications officer for one year, many years ago.  I volunteered to be a part of a pilot project that paired adjudications officers with Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to uncover fraud.  During that assignment my colleagues and I collaborated closely with the agents.  When I became an INS Special Agent I worked closely with the adjudications officers who, back then, were referred to as Examiners.

However, in this case, Ms. Martin refused the ICE agents entry into her facility for reasons that have never been made clear.  This is especially insane given the nexus this all has with a terror attack that was conducted in the very same city as her office less than 24 hours earlier.

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

That OIG report noted, in part:

At approximately 12:20 p.m., December 3, 2015, less than 24 hours after the shooting, HSI was notified that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), San Bernardino, CA, had developed information that Mariya Chernykh, a Russian national attempting to adjust her immigration status, was married to EnriqueMarquez, an associate of Syed Rizwan Farook, and that she had an appointment at 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2015, at the USCIS Office, San Bernardino, CA.

The JTTF believed that Marquez might accompany her to the appointment. HSI dispatched a team to go to the USCIS office to prevent any possible further attacks as well as to detain Marquez and Chernykh for questioning.

The OIG report noted that the five ICE agents were wearing tactical gear and that they explained the importance of their mission and that time was critical.  They were delayed by approximately 30 minutes and when they were finally admitted into the offices, they were brought to an interview room.

This is how the GAO report described this meeting:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The OIG report also noted that Ms. Martin made statements that were contradicted by statements made by others — she apparently lied to OIG investigators.  Such lies are felonies and also subject employees to dismissal.

USCIS adjudicates more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. This process has serious national security implications.

Page 47 of “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph that draws a clear nexus between immigration fraud and national security:

“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.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

The administration has apparently decided to take action concerning Ms. Martin, however, it is not the action that would make sense. But then when has this administration taken actions that makes sense especially where immigration and terrorism are concerned?

In my March 18th article I sarcastically suggested that whoever interfered with the ongoing terror investigation should be given the Most Valuable Player Award by ISIS.  So far ISIS has not weighed in, but, unbelievably, on June 23, 2016 Fox News reported, “Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why.”

Here is an excerpt from report about the egregious actions of the administration:

Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, FoxNews.com has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

The Real Flag Issue

May 6, 2016

The Real Flag Issue, Front Page MagazineLloyd Billingsley, May 6, 2016

Mex flag

Last year, South Carolina’s Republican Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill to remove the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state capitol in Columbia. The June 17 massacre of nine African Americans in a Charleston church launched efforts to take down the banner, which evoked racism, segregation and the 1861-1864 war between the states. Last July, when South Carolina lowered the Confederate banner for the last time, the crowd responded with chants of “USA! USA!” During the 2016 presidential campaign, a different flag issue is coming to the fore.

Violent anti-Trump protesters have been waving the flag of Mexico. The Mexican flag was on display in southern California last week, where one protest featured a child holding a sign reading “Make America Mexico Again.” Such fervor prompted a column from Marcos Breton of the Sacramento Bee. He argues that, aside from one public ceremony in Sacramento,  “the Mexican flag has no place in American politics, and it’s disturbing to see it popping up with increasing regularity.” This is hardly a new development.

When Californians vote on issues such as English as the state’s official language (Proposition 63, 1986); benefits for undocumented immigrants (Proposition 187, 1994); racial preferences in college admissions (Proposition 209, 1996) and bilingual education (Proposition 227, 1998) Mexican flags suddenly appeared by the thousands. This reflects the tenaciously held belief that California somehow remains part of Mexico, and that Mexicans are only coming to what amounts to their own country. They are therefore entitled to education, medical care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, and in-state college tuition. Politicians give tacit assent to this package.

Vice President Joe Biden explains that illegal immigrants are “already Americans.” In her recent book Hard Choices, Democratic presidential frontrunner and former First Lady Hillary Clinton helpfully explains, “after all, much of the southwestern part of the United States was part of Mexico.” So little wonder that Mexicans stream across the border, with additional encouragement from “sanctuary cities” such as San Francisco. There Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi welcomed even violent felons such as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and five-time deportee accused of gunning down Kathryn Steinle. In similar style, in 2014 two Sacramento County police officers fell victim to Mexican national and repeat deportee Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes, who said in court, “I killed them cops.”

Instead of restricting sanctuary cities, California politicians are more concerned with driving old Dixie down. A bill by Orinda Democrat Steve Glazer removes the names of Confederates such as Robert E. Lee from schools, public buildings and such. If politicians are in the mood for purges, they can find more fertile ground in Spanish colonialism.

Spanish colonialism was built on the enslavement of the native peoples they conquered. Under the encomienda system, native peoples were part of the land grants the conquistadores gave to Spanish settlers. The native peoples were required to work for the encomenderos, who considered them property. The white Spanish imperialists were also unabashed racists who exploited slaves from western Africa for mining and agriculture.

California’s chain of religious missions is the direct legacy of Spanish colonialism, as are city names such as San Diego, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara and many others. By the standards of the historical purge crew, these are due for some fundamental change. Los Angeles could become Mickey Mouse City and San Diego the Navy Base City. San Francisco could opt for “The City,” as residents call it now, or “Sanctuary City.” In all this fervor, the politically correct have lost sight of some historical realities.

The Confederate States of America lost the war of 1861-1865 to the United States of America, so it seems entirely fitting to take down the Confederate battle flag.  On the other hand, 168 years ago, a full 15 years before the Civil War, when the Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, and Prussia were major players, the United States of America fought a war with Mexico. Whatever the causes of that 1846-1848 conflict, the USA won and Mexico lost. Mexico duly signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Mexican flag no longer flew over California and much of the southwestern United States. The rest should be history, but it isn’t.

“Donald Trump isn’t running for president of Mexico,” cautions Marcos Breton, but that’s how a violent faction of the Left sees it. The Mexican flag is their battle flag, and we will be seeing it more and more as November approaches.

Meanwhile, nobody is waving Prussian flags and yelling for “Prussian Power.” Nobody is posing children with banners reading “Make Italy the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies Again.”  But the Left wants America to be Mexico Again.

Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities

March 31, 2016

Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, March 31, 2016

(Here’s a link to an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson titled The Weirdness of Illegal Immigration. — DM)

sanctuary-cities

In the wake of the terror attacks in Belgium, news reports once again focused on how so-called “No Go Zones” in Europe create neighborhoods where communities develop that, although are geographically located within major cities, insulate themselves from their surroundings, fostering the mindset that cooperating with law enforcement is dangerous and even traitorous.

The residents eye law enforcement officers with great suspicion if not outright animosity. The situation is exacerbated because while they fear law enforcement, they may well also fear their neighbors who may take revenge against them for cooperating with law enforcement.

These neighborhoods become “cultural islands” that eschew the cultures and values of the cities and countries in which they grow — a virtual malignancy that ultimately comes to threaten its host city and country because within this cocoon radical Islamists are shielded from law enforcement, find shelter and support and an ample supply of potential terror recruits.

These communities are inhabited by many Muslim refugees who cannot be effectively screened.

This makes assimilation by the residents of these isolated communities unlikely if not impossible and creates breeding grounds for crime and, in this era and under these circumstances- breeding grounds for terrorism.

While there are no actual “No Go Zones” in the United States, there are neighborhoods scattered around the United States, where the concentration of ethnic immigrant minorities is so great that police find themselves unable to make the sort of inroads that they should be able to make in order to effectively police these communities. Adding to the high density of these aliens in these communities is the issue of foreign languages often being the prevalent language in such “ghettos.” This gives new meaning to the term “Language Barrier.”

Back when I was an INS agent, we had an expression- “Big cases- big problems; Little cases- little problems; No cases- no problems!” That phrase applies to all law enforcement officers.

When police or other law enforcement officers are put into a classic “no win” situation, their commonsense solution is to make their own survival and well-being their priority by minimizing their contacts with such enclaves and taking the fewest actions possible within those communities.

Not unlike the “No Go Zones” of European countries, these communities in the Unites States also tend to shield foreign nationals who may be fugitives from justice both inside the United States and in other countries. Terrorists and their supporters are able to go about their daily lives- undetected by law enforcement agencies.

Implementation of sanctuary policies in such cities greatly exacerbates the threats posed to national security and public safety- turning those cities into magnets that attract still more radicals and fugitives and terrorists who need to “fly under the radar.”

Any community that provides safe haven for illegal aliens willfully endangers the lives of it residents.

Even as concerns about increased threats of terror attacks are the topic of a succession of Congressional hearings, so-called “Sanctuary Cities” continue to flourish- with the tacit approval of the administration even though they are clearly operating in violation of federal law.

Consider these provisions of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses:

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

I focused on this threat to public safety and national security in my article for The Social Contract’s Winter, 2016 Edition, “Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.”

My January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine article, “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat” took a hard look at how failures of the immigration system enable terrorists to enter the United States and, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities across the country.

Incredibly, New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio, not content to simply continue the dangerous- indeed deadly sanctuary policies, has amped up the threats to New York and New Yorkers- and indeed the United States, by issuing “Municipal Identity Documents” to illegal aliens.

Reportedly hundreds of thousands of individuals have been issued these identity documents that provide a host of benefits to those to whom the cards have been issued.

Criminals, fugitives and terrorists use multiple false identities. It is therefore beyond comprehension how any mayor would be willing to provide municipal identity documents to illegal aliens. It is especially confounding that New York City’s mayor would do this, given that New York City suffered the greatest number of fatalities on September 11, 2001.

De Blasio is certainly cognizant that NYC is a major terror target. On February 17, 2016 he joined Senator Chuck Schumer, the architect of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, in preparing a letter in response to the administration’s proposal to cut counter-terrorism funding in half. A copy of the letter was posted on the official NYC website under the title, “Transcript: Mayor de Blasio and U.S. Senator Schumer Call on White House to Fully Restore Critical Anti-Terror Funds.”

The Observer’s March 15, 2016 report, “De Blasio Makes Bipartisan Push to Reverse Obama Terror Cuts” focused on De Blasio’s appearance before a Congressional hearing in which he made an impassioned plea to have the funds reinstated.

If Mr. De Blasio is really that concerned about the threat of terrorism, perhaps he (and Senator Schumer) should read the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, “9/11 and Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.

In their travels, terrorists use evasive methods, such as altered and counterfeit passports and visas, specific travel methods and routes, liaisons with corrupt government officials, human smuggling networks, supportive travel agencies, and immigration and identity fraud.

Page 9 of 9/11 and Terrorist Travel reported:

The 19 hijackers used 364 aliases, including different spellings of their names and noms de guerre.4 As they passed through various countries, their names were recorded by governments and their intelligence and border authorities.”

Providing official identity documents to illegal aliens, whose true identities are unknown and unknowable, enables them to create new false identities and a level of credibility they are easily able to exploit as an embedding tactic. Criminals and terrorists use changes in identity the way that chameleons use changes in coloration- as camouflage that enables them to hide in plain sight, often among their intended victims.

Donald Trump has recommended that the United States, at least temporarily, bar Muslims from entering the United States.

In my judgement this solution is not realistic. While the President can order a ban on the admission of all foreign Muslims, it would be impossible to implement. Terrorists and others who were determined to enter the United States could simply lie about their religious beliefs. Aliens who enter the United States without inspection are not screened. We already have large numbers of Muslims living in the United States.

The First Amendment provides for freedom of religion and understandably, many Americans are repulsed at the thought of making religious distinctions where the admission of aliens is concerned.

A far better solution would be to beef up the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and focus a major component of the enforcement effort on seeking to locate and apprehend illegal aliens, irrespective of religion, from countries associated with terrorism.

My December 20, 2015 article for Californians for Population Stabilization, “Effective Interior Enforcement of Immigration Law Vital to Nat’l Security” expounded on how national security would be greatly enhanced by not only securing our borders but enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

Much has been made of the need to develop effective intelligence. What is seldom, if ever, discussed is the role of informants. In my assignment to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA and then when I was assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force, one of my key responsibilities was to use my authority as an INS agent to cultivate informants.

Aliens who would be arrested would, under certain circumstances, be provided with the opportunity to become informants and cooperating witnesses to identify those aliens who are engaged in terror-related activities, thereby providing invaluable intelligence. Those who cooperated could be permitted to remain in the United States and even possibly, granted lawful status provided that they could be effectively vetted and that their assistance was particularly meritorious and yielded significant results.

Deporting those illegal aliens who could not- or would not cooperate would shrink the size of the haystack in which some very deadly needles are hiding.

Either way, our security would be greatly enhanced.