Archive for the ‘Trump and deportation of illegal alien criminals’ category

Congressman Warns of Terrorist Attacks If Trump Signs Sanctuary City Bill

June 30, 2017

Congressman Warns of Terrorist Attacks If Trump Signs Sanctuary City Bill, PJ MediaNicholas Ballasy, June 29, 2017

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly speaks at House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) weekly news conference in the Capitol on June 29, 2017. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

WASHINGTON – Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) warned that the sanctuary city bill passed in the House of Representatives could cause a terrorist attack to occur in New York City.

Espaillat joined other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) to express opposition to the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” (H.R. 3003), which would crack down on localities that do not fully cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and “Kate’s Law” (H.R. 3004), which would penalize migrants who attempt to re-enter the U.S. illegally after being deported with up to 20 years in prison. Both bills passed the House today.

According to the White House, H.R. 3003 would “restrict” the “eligibility to receive certain Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security grants” for cities and states “determined to be in violation of federal law.”

Espaillat predicted that H.R. 3003 would have a “chilling effect” in local communities if it became law.

“People will go into hiding. People will not come forward to report crimes, and if we begin to deny funding to cities across the United States, a city like New York, who experienced 9/11, which has been the safest biggest city in the country since 9/11 because of the federal funding that we got to combat terrorism, providing for training, equipment, overtime pay for law enforcement, we will be allowing terrorists to come in and attack us again,” Espaillat said at a press conference today on Capitol Hill.

“So this is a travesty. This is a lie. We’ve been hijacked and bamboozled by Donald Trump and we should all stand up against this,” he added.

Espaillat described sanctuary cities as places that allow families to stay together regardless of immigration status without “fear” rather than places that harbor illegal immigrants with criminal records.

“It is a safety net for people that are part of our family – they take care of our children, they wash our dishes, they take care of our elderly, they pick our crops,” he said.

Espaillat argued that both bills are an example of the GOP “misguiding” the nation.

“I’m not saying all of his followers are racist, but all of the racists in the country follow him and they have peddled this erroneous vision that immigrants are criminals,” he said. “We all oppose any violent criminals not being arrested. We want them to be arrested and do their time in jail and go back to wherever they came from.”

Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) echoed Espaillat’s comments, arguing that H.R. 3003 would put Americans in danger by stripping federal funding from sanctuary cities like Los Angeles.

“You’re talking about taking away funding from cities that rely on these funds to protect our country from terrorism, and you think about incidents like 9/11,” she said.

“These big cities, like mine in Los Angeles, and New York are targets. Imagine taking away their funding because they don’t want to become immigration officers and what that does – that puts us in a lot more harm than what we are looking at,” she added.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) argued that “Kate’s Law” would have done “absolutely nothing” to prevent the death of Kate Steinle; the man accused of shooting her, who is still awaiting trial, was living illegally in San Francisco after multiple previous deportations. A few months before the shooting, the San Francisco Police Department had released her suspected killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, despite a request from ICE to keep him in custody for re-entering the country illegally.

Gutierrez said he opposes “Kate’s Law” because it would punish migrants who try to cross the border illegally to reunite with family members.

“Hundreds of thousands of moms and dads have been deported and separated from their American citizen children, and now when they come back to their American citizen children and come back after being deported, guess what this bill does? It says send them to jail for 20 years for trying to come back and raise their children,” he said.

Gutierrez also said he advised an 11-year-old student not to open the front door of his family’s home if an ICE officer knocks.

“Last Monday, I was at Nixon Elementary School. This little boy, a fifth-grader, 11 years old, asked, he said, ‘Congressman, if immigration knocks on my door, do I have to open the door because my Dad doesn’t have papers?’ I told him, ‘no, you don’t have to open up the door unless he has a warrant.’ And then I got into a conversation with 11-year-old fifth-graders about what constitutes a warrant – that’s where we’re at in America,” he said at the Hispanic Caucus press conference.

“And what do they want to do today? They want to make sure that my Chicago police, the L.A. police, every police and every jurisdiction that says we don’t want to be immigration agents and we don’t want to be knocking on those doors of fifth-graders across this country to take away their moms and dads and make them into enforcement agents, and it’s wrong,” he added.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (R-Texas) said both bills are “anti-immigrant” measures. He speculated that Republicans are pushing the legislation through Congress to distract from the healthcare and tax reform debates.

“They’ve failed to do healthcare. They’ve failed to do tax reform,” he said.

House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown

June 29, 2017

House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown, Fox News, June 29, 2017

(What’s the problem in the Senate? — DM)

While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.

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

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate’s Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

“He should not have been here, and she should not have died,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday, in a final push for Kate’s Law, an earlier version of which was blocked in the Senate last year.

“Our job here is to make sure that those professionals have the tools that they need and the resources that they need to carry out their work and to protect our communities. That is what these measures are all about,” added Ryan.

The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no.

The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

On Wednesday, President Trump highlighted other cases during a White House meeting with more than a dozen families of people who had been victimized by illegal immigrants, including Jamiel Shaw Sr.

Shaw’s 17-year-old son Jamiel was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in California in March 2008..

“He was living the dream,” Shaw said during the meeting. “That was squashed out.”

The second measure, “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.

“The word ‘sanctuary’ calls to mind someplace safe, but too often for families and victims affected by illegal immigrant crime, sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asserted in the pre-vote press conference.

“It is beyond my comprehension why federal state and local officials … would actively discourage or outright prevent law enforcement agencies from upholding the laws of the United States,” he added.

While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.

Trump called on the House and the Senate to “to honor grieving American families” by approving a “package of truly key immigration enforcement bills” so that he could sign them into law.

“I promise you, it will be done quickly.  You don’t have to wait the mandatory period. It will be very quick,” promised Trump.

Earlier on Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas D. Homan and U.S. Attorney for Utah John W. Huber made their case for the bills during the White House press briefing.

Huber said 40 percent of Utah’s current felony caseload involves criminal alien prosecutions and the number is increasing.

The bills, Huber asserted, would “advance the ball for law enforcement in keeping our communities safe” and “would give officers and prosecutors more tools to protect the public.

Many immigration rights groups have characterized efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities as “anti-immigrant,” but Attorney General Jeff Sessions says it is not sound policy to allow sanctuary cities to flout federal immigration laws.

According to Homan, ICE already has arrested nearly 66,000 individuals this year that were either known or suspected to be in the country illegally. Of those arrested, 48,000 were convicted criminal aliens.

“The practices of these jurisdictions are not only contrary to sound policy; they’re contrary to the law enforcement cooperation that is carried out every day in our country and is essential to public safety,” Sessions wrote in a Fox News op-ed backing the bills.

FULL MEASURE: January 22, 2017 – Sanctuary Cities

January 25, 2017

FULL MEASURE: January 22, 2017 – Sanctuary Cities via YouTube, January 25, 2017

President Trump’s Immigration Challenge

January 4, 2017

President Trump’s Immigration Challenge, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, January 4, 2017

nj

On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.

For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine.  They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored

When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.

Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”

On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”

I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing.  In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.

Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

It was clear that the Bush administration was eager to de-emphasize immigration law enforcement.  What was not noted in the testimony is that most of the management at ICE came from Legacy Customs and not from Legacy INS.

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.

 

How Trump’s Plan to Deport Criminal Illegal Aliens Would Work

November 17, 2016

How Trump’s Plan to Deport Criminal Illegal Aliens Would Work, National ReviewJessica Vaughan, November 17, 2016

Public safety is the obvious but not the only reason for enforcing immigration laws.

Even as immigration-enforcement officers across the country are breathing what one deportation officer described as “a collective sigh of relief” following Donald Trump’s election, the president-elect’s announcement on 60 Minutes that he plans to start with the estimated 2 million criminal aliens has been met with a combination of scorn and skepticism, at least in the mainstream news media and illegal-alien advocacy circles. But Trump’s enforcement approach is not only reasonable, it is very feasible, and will address the most disastrous failings of the Obama administration’s faux-enforcement regime, which brought interior deportations to a ten-year low and caused the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens back to our communities to reoffend, instead of back to their homelands.

Even as immigration-enforcement officers across the country are breathing what one deportation officer described as “a collective sigh of relief” following Donald Trump’s election, the president-elect’s announcement on 60 Minutes that he plans to start with the estimated 2 million criminal aliens has been met with a combination of scorn and skepticism, at least in the mainstream news media and illegal-alien advocacy circles. But Trump’s enforcement approach is not only reasonable, it is very feasible, and will address the most disastrous failings of the Obama administration’s faux-enforcement regime, which brought interior deportations to a ten-year low and caused the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens back to our communities to reoffend, instead of back to their homelands.

Said Trump: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.”

Now, this statement is a significant softening in tone and scale from some of Trump’s campaign statements, in which he suggested that the entire population of nearly 12 million illegal aliens could be subject to deportation. It’s important to affirm that principle — that anyone here illegally is potentially at risk of being sent home — but it makes good sense to start with those who are also breaking other laws.

While some illegal-alien advocates have accused Trump of exaggerating the size of the criminal alien population, he’s quite right on this. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that is responsible for carrying out deportations in the interior, there are approximately 1.9 million deportable criminal aliens in the country. It is able to estimate this because, since 2012, ICE has been receiving the fingerprints of everyone who is arrested or booked into a jail, and because ICE has officers screening inmates in most major correctional systems (except some of the sanctuary cities, where they are denied access to inmates).

ICE’s estimate does not include all of the immigration fugitives who skipped out on their hearings; currently there are more than 940,000 aliens who have been ordered removed but are still here. Nor does it include all those who were kicked out of the country but returned; that figure is unknown. Nor does it include aliens who committed a crime but were never convicted (often because they jumped bail or were released by a sanctuary), or the many illegal-alien gang members who are on the streets in greater numbers, and who were formerly an arrest priority for ICE but are now largely left for local law enforcement to handle.

Come January 21, we can expect that all of these cases will again, appropriately, become a priority for enforcement. There is nowhere to go but up in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration-enforcement agencies.

President Obama made a big show of focusing enforcement on criminal aliens; the targets were “felons, not families,” he said, “the worst of the worst.” He claimed to have achieved “record” deportations. Those “record” deportations were achieved by cooking the books, and the statistics were “a little deceiving,” in the president’s words. In a departure from past practice, ICE under Obama began counting in its annual totals the deportations of aliens arrested by the Border Patrol. That masked a big drop in the number of deportations from the interior, which is where most of the criminal aliens are.

In 2016, interior deportations are about one-fourth of what they were at the peak under Obama, and criminal deportations have declined by more than 50 percent. By every measure, ICE is now doing less enforcement with more resources than ever before. This means that it will be neither hard nor expensive to achieve a significant boost in enforcement and to make a big dent in the target of 2 to 3 million priority deportations, including those of the criminals.

The first step will be to let the career officers and agents of the immigration-enforcement agencies do their job and apply the law. One deportation officer has told me that currently one of the easiest ways to attract negative attention from a supervisor is to be caught putting someone into deportation proceedings who is not a violent felon but “just” a drunk driver or wife-beater.

That will change as soon as President Trump makes good on his promise to cancel improper executive actions, including the directives for ICE officers to refrain from initiating deportation until someone is convicted of a serious felony or several misdemeanors. This means scrapping the disastrous Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which has drawn the ire of the National Sheriffs Association, among others, and forced local ICE offices to release of thousands of deportable criminals, including Eswin Mejia, an illegal alien with prior arrests who killed 21-year old Sarah Root in Omaha, Neb., while drag-racing drunk in January of this year. Like many of the 86,000 convicted criminals released by ICE since 2013, Mejia is now a fugitive but considered a “non-criminal,” because he has yet to be tried and convicted for Root’s death.

Enforcement opponents maintain that even if the Obama prioritization scheme is rescinded, there is no way that 2 to 3 million criminal aliens can possibly be found and processed in just a few years, because the immigration courts are hopelessly backlogged.

True, the courts are backlogged, and that’s another story, but many of the criminal aliens who will be targeted under the Trump administration are not entitled to take advantage of the dysfunctional immigration court. They should be handled through the more accelerated forms of due process that were discontinued by the Obama administration even though they are provided by law and neither require long periods of detention nor lead to endless hearings and appeals. Known as expedited removal, stipulated removal, and judicial orders of removal, these forms of due process operate in a way similar to the way in which plea bargaining operates in the criminal-justice system. They benefit the aliens, the government, and the taxpayers by providing a swift resolution to the case.

In addition, we can expect that the Trump administration will move to rebuild with local law-enforcement agencies the productive partnerships that emerged toward the end of the Bush administration but that Obama stifled. These would include the 287(g) program, which trained and delegated immigration-enforcement authority to state and local officers and was a tremendous force multiplier for ICE — at very little cost to the feds, because the local jurisdictions pay the salaries of local officers who are able to start the deportation process for the criminal aliens they encounter on the job. At its peak, the 287(g) program, used in only a few dozen places, generated between 10 and 20 percent of ICE’s criminal deportations.

It will also help ICE when President-elect Trump gets tough on the sanctuaries that obstruct their work. The stage has already been set for this. Under pressure from Representative John Culberson (R., Texas), who controls the Justice Department’s budget, DOJ has so far identified ten large states and cities that have sanctuary policies that are inconsistent with federal law and that as a result should be ineligible for certain DOJ funding. The new administration could apply this standard to many more sanctuaries and to many more pots of federal funding, thereby making it very expensive to remain a sanctuary. Since some of the die-hard sanctuaries will remain defiant, I hope that the new administration will also consider litigation or even prosecuting them for harboring criminal aliens.

Prioritizing the removal of criminals and the most egregious scofflaws is a no-brainer. But public safety is not the only reason immigration laws should be enforced. We need immigration laws enforced in order to protect job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants, to avoid the fiscal costs of providing welfare to illegal aliens and their children, and to preserve the integrity of our legal-immigration system.

For these reasons, the Trump administration needs to go beyond a narrow focus on criminal aliens to reinstate work-site and payroll records–based enforcement as well as work to deter and remove visa over-stayers. Not to mention, build that wall!