Archive for the ‘Trump and immigration’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

Trump Pulls United States Out of UN Immigration Deal

December 4, 2017

Trump Pulls United States Out of UN Immigration Deal, Washington Free Beacon, , December 4, 2017

President Donald Trump and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley / Getty Images

The GCM would also try to “strengthen the global governance of migration,” specifically by adding the International Organization for Migration to the U.N.’s purview.

All of this, Haley contended, is incompatible with preserving the United States’s sovereignty, and its ability to set its own immigration policy.

“The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty,” Haley said.

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

The United States will no longer participate in the U.N.-organized Global Compact on Migration (GCM), the U.S. Mission to the U.N. informed the secretary-general on Sunday.

That decision was informed by concerns about threats to the United States’s sovereignty, with administration officials citing the need for the country to define its own immigration policy independent of the mandates of the United Nations.

“America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue,” said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country,” Haley said.

The announcement reverses the Obama administration decision to sign on to the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which aims at setting up the GCM by 2018.

The New York Declaration includes a number of commitments for signatories that create expanded expectations for immigrants. These include education for children with “a few months” of arrival, as well as working towards an end of detention for children to determine their immigration status.

The GCM would also try to “strengthen the global governance of migration,” specifically by adding the International Organization for Migration to the U.N.’s purview.

All of this, Haley contended, is incompatible with preserving the United States’s sovereignty, and its ability to set its own immigration policy.

“The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty,” Haley said.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concurred with Haley’s analysis in a separate statement, writing that the New York Declaration, “contains a number of policy goals that are inconsistent with U.S. law and policy.”

“While we will continue to engage on a number of fronts at the United Nations, in this case, we simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders,” Tillerson said.

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” he said.

Miroslav Lajčák, the president of the U.N. General Assembly, expressed his regret at the U.S. departure in a statement of his own.

“The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world. As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome,” he said.

Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, disagreed, saying U.S. immigration policy should be determined by elected officials, not an unelected group of bureaucrats from the U.N.

“The idea that we had unelected officials negotiating some sort of global migration compact is problematic. With respect to refugees and the movement of peoples, the United States needs to play a strong role, we always have. We accept more refugees for permanent resettlement than any other country on the face of the earth,” Arthur said.

“There’s plainly a huge role for the United States to play, as relates to migration. But as relates to migration to the United States, the fact remains that that is an issue for Congress and for the American people to decide, not for unaccountable bureaucrats in Turtle Bay,” he said.

Categories: Nikki Haley, Trump and immigration, U.S. Sovereignty, UN - Global Compact on Migration, UN and global governance
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Accosting Acosta

August 3, 2017

Accosting Acosta, Power Line,  Scott Johnson, August 2, 2017

(Please see also, Trump endorses new immigration bill to cut green-card limits, favor English speakers. I recall a statement by JFK:  “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps those who want to come to America legally should ask, “What can I do for my adopted country, not what she can do for me.” — DM)

CNN reporter Jim Acosta loves the limelight at the White House press briefings and doesn’t particularly mind if he makes a fool of himself in the process. Of course, it helps not to know when you’re making a fool of yourself.

At today’s White House press briefing Acosta sought to debate White House adviser Stephen Miller on the merits of the of the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act (summary here, fact sheet here). Supported by the administration, the bill is intended to create a merit-based immigration system that protects American workers and taxpayers as well as the American economy.

Acosta is somewhat over his head in the exchange with Miller. This is really an amazing display.

Via Conor Beck/Washington Free Beacon.

Categories: RAISE Act, Trump and immigration
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s Message to Smugglers: “The Coast is Clear”

March 28, 2017

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s Message to Smugglers: “The Coast is Clear”, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, March 28, 2017

In addition to ordering that the LAPD will ignore violations of immigration laws, on March 21, 2017 the Los Angeles Times published a report, Port, airport police barred from enforcing immigration laws that must have been “music to the ears” of human traffickers, terrorists and transnational criminals seeking to violate the borders of the United States for malevolent purposes.

Smugglers will find additional encouragement to head for Los Angeles now that Mayor Garcetti has proclaimed that Los Angeles Port Police, who patrol the harbors of Los Angeles will not cooperate with Customs and Border Protection.

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

For years mayors of cities across the United States have declared their cities to be “Sanctuary Cities” that would gladly shield illegal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement officers.

On March 23, 2017 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was quoted as stating:

In Los Angeles, we don’t separate children from their families because it’s inhumane. In Los Angeles, we don’t demonize our hard-working neighbors just because they speak a different language or come from a different country. That’s un-American.

Of course our immigration laws have absolutely nothing to do with deporting (removing) aliens who speak a foreign language.  The reasons that an alien becomes subject to deportation can be found in Title 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – (Deportable aliens).

Garcetti’s lies feed the outrageous false claim that proponents of effective immigration law enforcement are xenophobic racists.

If Garcetti wants to discuss “Un-American” conduct he should consider that our borders, including our nation’s coastline and our immigration laws, are our first and last line of defense.

If he wants to discuss how inhumane it is to “separate children from families” he should consider the plight of families that have lost loved ones, including children, toe crimes of illegal aliens.

On March 25, 2017 Fox News interviewed Don Rosenberg whose 25 year old law student son was killed by an illegal alien in San Francisco.

Garcetti has now promulgated a new set of restrictions on Los Angeles’ port police that exacerbate the immigration crisis for his city and for the entire country.

We will consider this new development shortly but let us first consider that the statements and policies promulgated by Mayor Garcetti and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” has served to entice aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States, by whatever means are most convenient for them, to enter the United States.

This includes entering the United States without inspection by running our northern or southern borders, stowing away on ships or by surreptitiously gaining access, without detection to the United States along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline.

In point of fact, while there has been much attention paid to the lack of security to be found along the U.S./Mexican border, seaports and coastlines have been traditionally, indeed for millennia, vulnerable to smuggling activities.

In March 2016 it was reported that US agents nearly caught $194 million worth of cocaine in a narco submarine.   The drugs were lost when, despite the efforts of Customs and Border Protection personnel, the boat sank in the Pacific Ocean off the California Coast.  The news report claimed:

In 2012, 80% of the illegal drugs smuggled to the US came on maritime routes, and 30% of the illegal drugs delivered to US shores via the sea were carried on narco submarines, according to a 2014 study cited by Vice News.

Back on June 9, 1993 the New York Times reported, “SMUGGLED TO NEW YORK: The Overview — 7 Die as Crowded Immigrant Ship Grounds Off Queens; Chinese Aboard Are Seized for Illegal Entry.”

Often aliens seek the “services” of alien smugglers also known as “Human Traffickers” who may help guide illegal aliens to evade the inspections conducted at ports of entry and the Border Patrol along unprotected sections of our land borders.  They also may arrange for aliens to enter the United States without being inspected by concealing them on ships as stowaways.

Smugglers may work in conjunction with unscrupulous employers and hence coerce smuggled aliens into becoming indentured workers at various employment venues to pay their smuggling fees.

Sometimes this involves coercing young women into becoming prostitutes at brothels.

All too often these hapless aliens find that they can never earn enough money to fully pay off the smugglers.  They become virtual slaves in the United States.

Additionally, often aliens who are smuggled into the United States are forced to become “mules,” becoming human “beasts of burden” carrying large quantities of narcotics on their person as they illegally enter the United States.

Smuggled aliens face extreme violence at the hands of the smugglers.  In fact, because smugglers are so likely to rape young female aliens that many young women, who seek to be smuggled into the United States, take birth control pills beginning months before they make their attempts to run our borders to keep from getting pregnant.

In some instances, the services offered by alien smugglers enable terrorists and transnational criminals to enter the United States and other countries.

Aliens may also enter the United States through ports of entry via the inspections process and gaming the inspections process and/or the visa process and violate the terms of their admission as established by the specific visas they used to enter the United States.

In such instances alien smugglers / human traffickers may pay a critical role of providing documents or reaching out to corrupt government officials to procure documents and visas.

Page 61 of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” contains this excerpt:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist 

groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is 

evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of 

terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

My dad used to say that “Nothing is so good it could not be made better or so bad it could not be made worse.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has found a way to make things worse; far worse and, not just for the beleaguered residents of his city of Los Angeles, but for the security of the United States and for safety of everyone in the United States.

Once aliens enter the United States by any means whatsoever, they are able to easily travel across the United States.  Foreign criminals and terrorists can easily set up shop in any town or city they wish, with Sanctuary Cities being the most advantageous to them.

In addition to ordering that the LAPD will ignore violations of immigration laws, on March 21, 2017 the Los Angeles Times published a report, Port, airport police barred from enforcing immigration laws that must have been “music to the ears” of human traffickers, terrorists and transnational criminals” seeking to violate the borders of the United States for malevolent purposes.

Smugglers will find additional encouragement to head for Los Angeles now that Mayor Garcetti has proclaimed that Los Angeles Port Police, who patrol the harbors of Los Angeles will not cooperate with Customs and Border Protection.

Law enforcement officers who are encumbered by such restrictions prohibiting them from enforcing immigration laws, find themselves in a professional bind.  They are aware of their oaths of office for which they risk their lives every day that they go on duty.  They recognize that our Constitution and our laws are not to be treated as a menu at a restaurant where patrons may opt for the soup but not the salad.

The fact that a law enforcement officer may run afoul of outrageous and, in my judgement, illegal sanctuary policies may decide that the safest way to do their jobs is to minimize the possibilities that they may act in violation of the dictates promulgated by the mayors of Sanctuary Cities.  The best way to accomplish this goal of professional/personal survival is to take the fewest actions while on duty.

This is consistent with the principle of “Big cases- big problems, little cases- little problems:  No cases- No problems!”

As I noted in the conclusion of my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013 on the topic, “Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values,”

I want to make this clear: Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that, if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States. In effect, the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent, I recall that Doris Meissner, who was at the time the Commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be ‘‘customer oriented.’’ Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented, what Ms. Meissner and apparently too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the ‘‘customers’’ of the INS and of our Government in general are the citizens of the United States of America.

Clearly Mayor Garrett and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” need to be reminded who their constituents are and the true meaning of their oaths of office.

Garcetti and his “mayoral partners in crime” should read my previous article, “Opponents Of Border Security And Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.”

Categories: Illegal immigration, Immigration law enforcement, Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Sanctuary cities, Trump and immigration, Trump and sanctuary cities, U.S. Ocean borders, U.S. southern border
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

The curse of criminal illegal aliens

March 9, 2017

The curse of criminal illegal aliens, Washington Times, Tammy Bruce, March 8, 2017

A man passes a section of border fencing that separates Tijuana, Mexico, with San Diego on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017

In November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump said this to CBS’ “60 Minutes”: “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.” Everyone, especially liberals and feminists, should be grateful he’s acting on that promise.

The criminal illegal alien population is destroying lives across the country, especially those of young people in immigrant communities.

Under President Trump’s directive to remove criminal illegals from our streets, we are learning about the vast network of one of the world’s most deadly gangs — MS-13. Originally from El Salvador, it found a foothold in Southern California as refugees fleeing the bloody civil war during the 1980s.

Now, as Fox News reports, “With as many as 10,000 members in 46 states, [MS-13] has expanded beyond its initial and local roots and members have been convicted of crimes ranging from kidnapping and murder to drug smuggling and human trafficking.”

Sounds like a JV team.

And what exactly has MS-13 been doing to the communities it infests? A headline from this newspaper a few days ago reads, “Bodies found in Virginia park latest sign of ‘out of control’ MS-13 gang activity.”

In New York, Fox News reports, “Law enforcement officials have said MS-13 is the largest gang on Long Island with Suffolk County “cliques” concentrated in the villages of Brentwood, Huntington, Copiague, Farmingdale and Islip. The gang has been blamed for 30 other killings on Long Island since 2010.”

Just a week ago the network reported, “Thirteen members of the notorious Salvadoran gang MS-13 were charged Thursday in connection with seven murders including the 2016 killings of high school teenagers on New York’s Long Island. … Four of the suspects were charged directly with the murders of Kayla Cuevas, 16, and Nisa Mickens, 15, close friends who were beaten to death on Sept. 13, 2016.”

The U.S. Attorney says the two girls were targeted because they criticized the gang at school and on social media. Their bodies were unrecognizable after being found bludgeoned and hacked by machetes.

Fox also reports of the 13 MS-13 members arrested in New York in the aftermath of these obscene murders, 10 are illegal aliens, two are U.S. citizens and one is a green card holder.

Last week in Houston, two MS-13 gang members were charged in what’s being called a “satanic” murder, kidnapping and rape. From the Houston Chronicle: “Houston police gave new details Friday morning about a shocking murder case in which prosecutors say two gang members killed a young woman as a satanic sacrifice. … Prosecutors charged yesterday that two alleged members of violent Salvadoran gang MS-13 — identified in court documents as Miguel Alvarez-Flores, 22, and Diego Hernandez-Rivera, 18 — killed the young woman and held a 14-year-old girl against her will.

“The chilling allegation is at the center of a still-unfolding case that includes murder and kidnapping, cocaine dealing and sex trafficking by two members of a street gang that prides itself on violence. … Prosecutors said both men were living in the United States illegally,” noted the newspaper.

The motto of MS-13? “Kill. Rape. Control.”

Teenage girls are “recruited” as prostitutes for the gang. They girls are gang-raped and then sent around the country for other MS-13 hubs to use as sex slaves. The Daily Mail reports, “Many girls who undergo this horrific torture end up prostituting themselves for the gang across the country, according to Brenda Paz, who was a criminal informant for the FBI.” Ms. Paz was eventually murdered by the gang.

The victim in the Houston murder? Genesis Cornejo-Alvarado, a 15-year-old girl missing from New Jersey.

And then there are the garden-variety criminal illegal felons who also cause death and destruction.

“An illegal Mexican immigrant with a long rap sheet who has been deported five times allegedly killed a California woman in a violent drunk driving crash. Estuardo Alvarado, 45, was arrested after slamming his car into the back of Sandra Duran’s vehicle … after fleeing another crash he had just been involved in. The 42-year-old mother died at the scene of blunt force trauma,” reported the Daily Mail.

So, for all the houses of worship pledging to “shelter” criminal illegal aliens from the president’s commitment to drive this cancer from our country, and all the feminists marching in opposition to Mr. Trump because he’s “a racist and a sexist,” it’s time to look up. Start marching for Kayla, Nisa, Genesis, Sandra and all girls and women whose lives have been destroyed by gangs and sex-trafficking facilitated by criminal illegals and open borders.

Mr. Obama’s policies helped this cancer spread. Mr. Trump’s policies, regardless of what you think of him, will put it in remission and save untold numbers of women’s lives.

Categories: Crime, Criminal gang, Illegal immigrants, Illegal immigration, Mexican gangs in America, MS-13, Trump and immigration, Trump and law enforcement
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Should the U.S. shift to a merit-based immigration system?

March 5, 2017

Should the U.S. shift to a merit-based immigration system? Fox News via YouTube, March 3, 2017

(Yep. — DM)

 

Categories: Immigration reform, Merit-based immigration, Trump and immigration
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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.

Categories: Immigration law enforcement, Obama and illegal immigration, Obama and law enforcement, Rule of Law, Trump agenda, Trump and immigration, Trump and law enforcement
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

DHS Removes Obama’s ‘Handcuffs’ on Border Patrol Agents

February 21, 2017

DHS Removes Obama’s ‘Handcuffs’ on Border Patrol Agents, Breitbart, Bob Price, February 21, 2017

us-border-patrol-stop-640x480File Photo

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removed “handcuffs” placed on Border Patrol agents by the Obama Administration, freeing them to expand border enforcement operations.

DHS Secretary John F. Kelly lifted most of the restrictions imposed on Border Patrol agents under the previous administration and ordered Border Patrol agents expand their efforts to enforce laws against illegal border crossings. The order came in a memo obtained by Breitbart Texas from DHS officials and discontinued President Obama’s “catch and release” program known as the “Priority Enforcement Program” (PEP) enacted on November 20, 2014. The order leaves in place, President Obama’s deferred action programs for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents.

“Except as specifically noted above, the Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” Secretary Kelly wrote in the memorandum. “In faithfully executing the immigration laws, Department personnel should take enforcement actions in accordance with applicable law.”

To support the expanded enforcement actions, Kelly ordered the hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 500 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations (AMO) officers. “CBP has insufficient agents/officers to effectively detect, track, and apprehend all aliens illegally entering the United States,” Kelly continued. “The United States needs additional agents and officers to ensure complete operational control of the border.”

Leaked Border Patrol training materials released in an article by Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby revealed the frustrating requirements placed on Border Patrol agents under the PEP program.

“Nothing says don’t arrest, but it clearly says don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” an official within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told Darby at the time. “There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear. Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”

After the Obama Administration had put the PEP program in place, a high percentage of migrants apprehended at the border were released with a “notice to appear.”

“[The Obama] administration has handcuffed the Border Patrol,” Babeu told reporters in a March 2016 press conference reported by Breitbart Texas.

This new set of orders from Secretary Kelly effectively removes those handcuffs and ends Obama’s catch and release programs.

“A country has a duty and obligation to secure its border. That didn’t change because Obama was the president,” Jackson County, Texas, Sheriff Andy Louderback told Breitbart Texas on Tuesday. “We are back to the rule of law now, and the gloves are off now, there’s no PEP. We are now allowed to do our job. I am on cloud 80 right now.” Louderback previously served as president of the Texas Sheriff’s Association.

Breitbart Texas was at a press conference when sheriffs from across the state descended upon the Texas Capitol in August 2015 to decry the federal policies of the Obama administration saying, criminal aliens have free rein.

“Policies that facilitate the release of removable aliens apprehended at and between the ports of entry, which allow them to abscond and fail to appear at their removal hearings, undermine the border security mission,” Kelly stated. “Such policies, collectively referred to as ‘catch-and-release,’ shall end.”

Categories: Border Patrol, Catch and release, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration law enforcement, Mexico, Trump agenda, Trump and immigration, U.S. southern border
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Promises to Keep

February 13, 2017

Promises to Keep, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, February 13, 2017

(“And miles to go before I sleep.” — DM)

cvb_1

During his campaign for the presidency Donald Trump frequently disdainfully scowled when he spoke about how most politicians were “All talk and no action.”

Candidate Trump promised that immigration would be a primary focus of his administration.

President Trump has indeed focused on multiple aspects of the immigration crisis that go well beyond building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

His selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General was the best possible choice for this important position.

Sessions had chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Consider that on February 25, 2016 that subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Impact of High-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Workers.”

When the Obama administration conducted meetings for “Stakeholders” on the immigration issue corporate leaders were invited to attend as were immigration lawyers representing illegal aliens and special interest groups that advocate for illegal aliens.

However, no one in attendance represented the “average American.”

Even the union leaders representing the Border Patrol, ICE agents and the adjudications officers were barred from participating in those meetings.

On February 9, 2017 President Trump held a news conference in the Oval Office to conduct a public swearing in ceremony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Immediately after Vice President Pence swore in Jeff Sessions, President Trump signed three executive orders:

Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking

Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers

Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

President Trump promised to be the “Law and Order” President and he has certainly hit the ground running.

His executive order to prevent violence against law enforcement officers is tangible evidence of his keeping his promise to look out for law enforcement officers.

Let’s next consider how he articulated the purpose for his executive order on enforcing federal laws to attack transnational criminal organizations:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens.  These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life.  They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.

These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.  In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs.  Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis.  These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.

A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.

That statement underscores his understanding of how important immigration law enforcement and border security are to combatting transnational criminals.

What is unfathomable is how many politicians who have to understand this issue have opposed Trump at every opportunity.  Only they can explain their conduct.  However, I have to conclude that those who would oppose President Trump’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders and effectively enforce our immigration laws are siding with the cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This certainly apply to mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors who want to create “Sanctuary States.”

Sanctuary Cities should be called “Magnet Cities” because they attract criminal aliens including members of transnational gangs, fugitives and international terrorists.

The politicians’ claims that by shielding vulnerable illegal aliens from immigration law enforcement they would be willing to come forward when they fall victim to criminals is a blatant lie that ignores that Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Sanctuary policies attract more violent criminals who are likely victimize members of the ethnic immigration communities.  However the false narrative serves to vilify valiant ICE agents who go in harms way every day they report for duty, seeking to protect national security and innocent lives.

Statutorily, U Visas are available for victims of human trafficking and other crimes if they come forward and assist with law enforcement efforts to apprehend the criminals.  Similar visa programs are available for illegal aliens who provide assistance to criminal investigations.

If those duplicitous politicians really wanted to assist illegal alien victims of crimes they would bring them to immigration offices and urge them to cooperate with the investigations of their criminal assailants.

That way everyone would win.

But then the politicians would not get their campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of special interest groups, and who know who else, who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by exploiting the immigration system.

In continuing to consider Trump’s executive order on trafficking I call your attention to two of the key elements of this executive order are proverbial “music to my ears.”

(e)  develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies — such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center — to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and

(f)  pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

I speak from extensive experience when I say that this task force approach to identifying, investigating and dismantling international drug trafficking organizations is extremely effective.  I spent the final ten years of my career with the INS as a Senior Special Agent assigned to the OCDETF program in New York City.

As for immigration fraud and visa fraud, these two issues are elements of “Extreme vetting” that Trump promised when he campaigned for the presidency.

On May 18, 2004 I testified at a hearing by the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives that addressed the issues of visa fraud and also the strategy of providing visas for illegal alien informants.

On May 20, 1997 I testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in 1993 at the CIA and first World Trade Center Bombing.

In one way or another, all of those involved with those attacks had gamed the visa system and/or the immigration benefits program.

The Clinton administration’s failures to address these vulnerabilities of visa fraud and immigration fraud that enabled these two deadly attacks to be conducted on American soil literally and figuratively, left the door open to the deadly terror attacks of 9/11.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” included this excerpt found on pages 46 and 47:

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“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.

In the years since the terror attacks of 9/11 more terror attacks were carried out in the United States while other attacks, for one reason or another, failed.  Most of those attacks involved aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Trump’s executive orders address our immigration vulnerabilities and Attorney General Sessions will provide the legal horsepower.

All Americans should be thrilled that this President is keeping his promises.

Categories: Immigration law enforcement, Immigration laws, Immigration reform, Law enforcement, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Sanctuary cities, Trump agenda, Trump and immigration, Trump presidency
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Did Gorsuch Blunder?

February 9, 2017

Did Gorsuch Blunder? Power Line, John Hinderaker, February 9, 2017

(Please see also, A Maniac is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump). — DM)

Newspaper headlines across the country are blaring Judge Neil Gorsuch’s characterization of President Trump’s criticism of Judge James Robart as “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” This is one more in a long series of anti-Trump propaganda victories for the Democrats:

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has said he found the president’s attacks on the judiciary “disheartening” and “demoralizing,” according to a Democratic senator.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut disclosed the comments from Judge Neil Gorsuch after meeting with the nominee Wednesday, as the candidate for the high court vacancy paid a series of courtesy visits to senators.

In a tweet this past weekend, Trump lashed out at Judge James Robart after he issued a stay on the president’s refugee and immigration ban.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump tweeted.

I wouldn’t take far-left Senator Blumenthal’s word for it, but the AP tells us that “Gorsuch’s confirmation team confirmed the judge’s comments.”

What to make of these statements by Gorsuch? I think they betray a serious lack of judgment and, perhaps, loyalty. Trump’s reference to Judge Robart, who violated his judicial duty by issuing a political opinion that he didn’t even attempt to justify with facts, law or logic, as a “so-called judge,” was arguably apt. In any event, if Gorsuch really would be “demoralized” by such a mild rebuke as “so-called judge,” he lacks the stomach to sit on the Supreme Court.

It would have been easy for Gorsuch to deflect Blumenthal’s question about the president’s tweet by saying that it was nowhere near as harsh as what Barack Obama said about the Supreme Court. If pressed, he could have added that judges in a democracy are not above criticism, and in fact, they are often criticized. Gorsuch must understand that he is engaged in a political process. So why would he sell out the man who has just appointed him to the Supreme Court?

A friend emailed a different perspective on Gorsuch’s criticism of Trump:

I think Gorsuch’s comment to Blumenthal was a very clever effort to lure Dems into thinking he may be more on their side than they think. It’s a gambit to get sixty votes.

Maybe, but I am not so sanguine. I fear it is a sign that Gorsuch lacks the tough-mindedness that we need in conservative Supreme Court justices.

Categories: "Muslim ban", "Muslim Registry", "Right wing extremists", Executive order, Judge Neil Gorsuch, Refugees, Trump and immigration, Trump and refugees, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

A Maniac is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump)

February 9, 2017

A Maniac is Running Our Foreign Policy! (It’s Not Trump), Front Page Magazine, Ann Coulter, February 9, 2017

(There has been much criticism of President Trump’s rather mild criticism — please see also, A Strange Ruling from a Strange Judge —  of  “so called” Judge Robart. I disagree with the notion that Judges should be immune to criticism regardless of the stupidity demonstrably erroneous natures of their rulings, while other officials nominated by the President and approved by the Senate are fair game. From whence and why did that notion arise? Do judges assume a civil divinity when confirmed? When they don black robes? Had President Trump referred to the Judeo-Christian God as a “so-called God,” I suspect the outrage would have been less vocal and widespread. Perhaps only a similar reference to Allah would have been equally vocal and widespead.– DM)

judge-james-robart

When Arizona merely tried to enforce the federal immigration laws being ignored by the Obama administration, the entire media erupted in rage at this incursion into the majestic power of the president over immigration. They said it was like living in Nazi Germany!

The most reviled section of the act, melodramatically called the “Papers Please” law, was upheld by the Supreme Court. But the other parts, allowing state officials to enforce federal immigration laws, were ruled unconstitutional. A president’s policy choice to ignore immigration laws supersedes a state’s right to enforce them.

The court conceded that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were arrested in Arizona each year, that they were responsible for “a disproportionate share of serious crime,” and that illegals constituted nearly 6 percent of Arizona’s population.

But Arizona was powerless to enforce laws on the books — if those laws happened to be about immigration. The president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy.

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

If only we were able to deport citizens, we could use Trump’s new policy of excluding those who are “hostile” toward our country to get rid of Judge James Robart.

Judge Robart’s veto of Trump’s travel ban notwithstanding, there is not the slightest question but that the president, in his sole discretion, can choose to admit or exclude any foreigners he likes, based on “the interests of the United States.”

The Clinton administration used the executive branch’s broad power over immigration to send a 6-year-old boy back to a communist dictatorship. The courts were completely powerless to stop him.

As explained by the federal appellate court that ruled on Elian Gonzalez’s asylum application: “It is the duty of the Congress and of the executive branch to exercise political will,” and “in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs,” which includes immigration.

The court acknowledged that Elian might well be subjected to “re-education,” “communist indoctrination” and “political manipulation.” (Then again, so would enrolling him at Sidwell Friends.) It didn’t matter! Sending little boys back to communist dictatorships was the policy of the Clinton administration.

The Obama administration’s immigration policy was to ensure that millions of poverty-stricken foreigners would come here and help turn our country into a Mexican version of Pakistan.

When Arizona merely tried to enforce the federal immigration laws being ignored by the Obama administration, the entire media erupted in rage at this incursion into the majestic power of the president over immigration. They said it was like living in Nazi Germany!

The most reviled section of the act, melodramatically called the “Papers Please” law, was upheld by the Supreme Court. But the other parts, allowing state officials to enforce federal immigration laws, were ruled unconstitutional. A president’s policy choice to ignore immigration laws supersedes a state’s right to enforce them.

The court conceded that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens were arrested in Arizona each year, that they were responsible for “a disproportionate share of serious crime,” and that illegals constituted nearly 6 percent of Arizona’s population.

But Arizona was powerless to enforce laws on the books — if those laws happened to be about immigration. The president’s authority over immigration is absolute and exclusive, as part of his authority over foreign policy.

To review:

— When the president’s immigration policy is to promote international communism: The president wins.

— When the president’s immigration policy is to transform America into a different country: The president wins.

— But when the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president.

This is exactly what I warned you about in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Nothing Trump does will be met with such massive resistance as his immigration policies.

The left used to attack America by spying for Stalin, aiding our enemies, murdering cops and blowing up buildings. But, then liberals realized, it’s so much more effective to just do away with America altogether!

Teddy Kennedy gave them their chance with the 1965 immigration act. Since then, we’ve been taking in more than a million immigrants a year, 90 percent from comically primitive cultures. They like the welfare, but have very little interest in adopting the rest of our culture.

In many parts of the country, you’re already not living in America. Just a few more years, and the transformation will be complete. There will be a North American landmass known as “the United States,” but it won’t be our country.

The only thing that stands between America and oblivion is a total immigration moratorium. We are well past the point of quick fixes — as Judge Robart’s delusional ruling proves.

The judiciary, both political parties, the media, Hollywood, corporate America and approximately 1 million lobbying groups are all working frantically to bring the hardest cases to our shores. Left-wing traitors, who used to honeymoon in Cuba and fight with peasant revolutionaries in Peru, toil away, late into the night, to ensure that genocidal Rwandans can move to America and immediately start collecting food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security.

No matter how clearly laws are written, government bureaucrats connive to import people from countries that a majority of Americans would not want to visit, much less become. Federal judges issue lunatic rulings to ensure that there will never be a pause in the transformation of America.

Congress could write laws requiring immigrants to pay taxes, learn English, forgo welfare and have good moral character. It could write laws giving the president authority to exclude aliens in the public interest.

Except it already has. Those laws were swept away by INS officials, federal judges and Democratic administrations — under ferocious pressure from America-hating, left-wing groups.

The country will not be safe until the following outfits are out of business:

The ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project; the National Immigration Forum; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild; the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the Office of Migration and Refugee Services; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the Border Information and Outreach Service; Atlas: DIY; the Catholic Legal Immigration Network; the Clearinghouse for Immigrant Education; the Farmworker Justice Fund; Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship; the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force; the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; the National Association for Bilingual Education; the National Clearinghouse on Agricultural Guest Worker Issues; the National Coalition for Dignity and Amnesty for Undocumented Immigrants; the National Coalition for Haitian Rights; the National Council of La Raza; and the National Farm Worker Ministry.

And that’s only a small fraction of the anti-American immigration groups assiduously dragging the Third World to our shores — while you were busy working.

Look at that list — look at Judge Robart’s ruling! — and ask yourself: Is it possible that anything short of a total immigration moratorium can save this country? Only when there is no immigration to bellyache about will these nuts be forced to think of a new way to destroy America.

Categories: "Muslim ban", "Muslim Registry", double standards, Executive order, Exhalted status of Federal judges, Immigration laws, Refugees, Trump agenda, Trump and immigration, Trump and refugees, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries