Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘immigration’

Voters are backing POTUS’ travel moratorium, big league


Posted July 05, 2017 10:50 AM by Nate Madden

URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/voters-are-backing-potus-travel-moratorium-big-league

president thumbs up outside on south lawn of white house

President Donald Trump gives a ‘thumbs up’ as he walks across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP Images

After months of wrangling against the mainstream media and liberal federal judges, President Trump’s moratorium on immigration from six Middle Eastern countries has not only won at the Supreme Court, but is winning in the court of public opinion, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll.

Per the story at Politico Wednesday, when asked about the administration’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to ender the country,” 60 percent of those surveyed supported the measure, while a mere 28 percent were against it.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters also found that the policy was a big hit with independents in addition to Republicans. While 84 percent of GOP voters support the revised measure, 56 percent of independent voters got behind it as well, with just 30 percent opposed.

Finally, registered Democrats signaled more of a split on the policy than a decided opposition to it, showing only a five-point discrepancy with no majority either way. A mere 46 percent of Democrat voters opposed the moratorium, with 41 percent in favor.

The moratorium popularity boost comes at a moment when both the president and his primary policy focus – health care reformare facing rough numbers themselves.

And with the GOP’s efforts to repeal/address/bail out Obamacare stuck in political limbo and tax reform far away on the horizon, it would appear that the kind of tough anti-terror and immigration policy that got him elected might just be the clearest winner in the president’s political arsenal.

When news of the unanimous Supreme Court decision holding up the substantive portions of the moratorium came out, Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz pointed out that the win provided the administration an opportunity to seize and expand upon. The new polling numbers this week appear to have proven him correct, on some level.

“With Obamacare repeal going down in flames and Republicans accomplishing nothing else, Trump needs to notch up some transformational victories on immigration,” Horowitz wrote. “Ensuring that America doesn’t self-immolate as a civilization, as Europe is doing before our very eyes, should be at the top of that list.”

He goes on to suggest that Trump should continue charging forward on his national security agenda by imposing a full-year moratorium on refugee resettlement until the full impact of the program can be evaluated, especially since the highest court in the land has issued the no-brainer ruling that he has the authority to do so.

“There is something seriously wrong when, even according to former FBI Director James Comey, 300 of the roughly 2,000 terrorism investigations relate to refugees, well beyond their composition of the population,” Horowitz concluded.

He goes on to argue that the current Obama-designated cap of 50,000 resettlements per year is too high and that lowering it would “send a clear message that security is paramount and that such a move is well within his authority.”

As of the time of this writing, the current number of refugee resettlements for this fiscal year is at 49,255.

Sanctuary cities? That’s a constitutional ‘hell no’


Immigration writing on a chalkboard / sebastianosecondi | Shutterstock

You may not have heard of the “Nullification Crisis” that President Andrew Jackson faced in 1832. But there are many unfortunate similarities between it and what is happening today on immigration. From the unjustified obstruction of immigration law by some activist federal judges to the defiance of the federal government on sanctuary policies by governors and city mayors such as Ed Murray of Seattle, there are some interesting parallels — and lessons.

I was reminded of the Nullification Crisis recently on a tour of James Madison’s home, Montpelier, which is close to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. One of the docents related how President Jackson had visited Madison in the midst of his reelection campaign to get his advice. This crisis was about high tariffs which, before the implementation of the income tax in 1913 through the Sixteenth Amendment, was one of the main sources of income for the federal government.High tariff rates were resented throughout the South, particularly in South Carolina. While they benefited manufacturers in the northern states, they hurt the mostly agricultural southern states. Led by John Calhoun, South Carolina and other states asserted that they had the final authority to declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus null and void within their states. While Jackson was a moderate on tariffs and respectful of the rights states retained in our federal system, he was scornful of the nullification theory. He considered it an unconstitutional, “abominable doctrine” that “will dissolve the Union.”

In 1832, the nullifiers took control of the South Carolina government and passed the infamous “Ordinance of Nullification.” They expressed the same type of virulent hostility and contempt for (and defiance of) the Jackson administration and the tariff system that we are seeing today towards the Trump administration over enforcement of federal immigration law, including provisions against certain sanctuary policies. Those states and cities are pushing the same concept of nullification of federal law, although they are doing it in federal court.

As one would expect of Andrew Jackson, he reacted strongly to this threat from South Carolina, including issuing a Nullification Proclamation on Dec. 10, 1832. Nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” He wrote. The crisis was resolved by a compromise bill on tariffs that Congress passed in 1833 after passing the Force Bill, which gave the president the power to use state militias and federal forces against the nullifiers.

The similarity between these events and what is happening today are eerie. While there are many areas over which the states and the federal government share responsibility — or where the Tenth Amendment gives responsibility to the states — immigration is not one of them. Section 8 of Article I gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” just as Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive authority to establish and collect all “Imposts and Excises” or tariffs. The states have no authority in these areas at all. They can no more dispute the immigration rules established by Congress than they could dispute the tariffs imposed by Congress back in 1832.

This makes perfect sense. Any other rule would produce chaos. Think of the enormous problems that would be caused by border states such as Texas or California deciding that they would ignore federal law and apply their own immigration rules to individuals coming across the Mexican border into the United States — or if states decided that they would impose their own tariffs on foreign goods coming into their states in addition to those imposed by the federal government. In fact, it was that kind of behavior that was restricting trade under the Articles of Confederation between states such as Virginia and Maryland that helped lead to the call for a constitutional convention.

When it comes to immigration and the entry of aliens into the U.S., Congress delegated to the president the extremely broad authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182 (f) to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” As five dissenting judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out, there are a long series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority of prior presidents under this provision and severely limiting the ability of the courts to review the president’s decision.

Unfortunately, at the urging of certain states, the courts have in large part ignored the Constitution, federal law, and prior precedents. They are instead substituting their judgment for that of the president, and enjoining the president’s executive order by implementing a temporary halt to entry from certain terrorist safe havens. In essence, states such as Hawaii and Washington are turning to activist federal judges to nullify the exclusive authority of the federal government over immigration and the security of our national border — and those judges are complying.

The sanctuary policies implemented by cities such as San Francisco and Seattle also seek to nullify federal immigration law and obstruct its enforcement. 8 U.S.C. §1373 prohibits states and local jurisdictions from preventing their law enforcement officials from exchanging information with federal officials on the citizenship status of individuals they have arrested or detained. The Supreme Court upheld this provision in 2012 in Arizona v. United States.

Quite appropriately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced that he will not award any discretionary federal grants from the Justice Department to cities that violate §1373. Seattle has filed suit, claiming that the federal government has no right to cut off its access to discretionary funding. The city also makes the meritless claims that its policy does not violate federal immigration law.

Sanctuary cities are claiming that Sessions is trying to force them to enforce federal immigration law and that the loss of federal funds would violate the holding in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). This is the Supreme Court decision that upheld Obamacare but found that the Medicaid portion of Obamacare, which required states to significantly expand their Medicaid coverage or risk losing all Medicaid funding, violated the Spending Clause of the Constitution. The federal government was “commandeering” the states by compelling them to “enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

But Sessions is simply trying to get states to not obstruct federal enforcement. That includes abiding by the ban contained in Section 1373. Sanctuary cities are trying to prevent federal officials from finding out about criminal alien murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals that these cities would apparently rather release than have picked up and deported so they cannot further victimize Americans. Section 1373 doesn’t force local law enforcement officials to notify federal officials when they detain an illegal alien; It simply says that local governments can’t ban law enforcement officials from doing so.

The spurious legal argument that §1373 violates the anti-commandeering principle was raised by the City of New York in a lawsuit against the federal government only 11 days after the provision became federal law. New York also had a policy in place that forbade city officials from transmitting information on the immigration status of any individual to federal immigration authorities. In City of New York v. U.S. (1999), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the city’s case because the federal law was constitutional and well within congressional authority on immigration.

As the court pointed out, §1373 does not compel “state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program. Nor has it affirmatively conscripted states, localities, or their employees into the federal government’s service.” The only thing the provision does is prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials from “directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS.” A contrary holding would cause chaos: “If Congress may not forbid states from outlawing even voluntary cooperation with federal programs by state and local officials, states will at times have the power to frustrate effectuation of some programs.”

We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court.

That is clearly what is happening here: sanctuary states and cities want to “frustrate effectuation” of federal enforcement of our immigration laws. The absence of such cooperation, as the Second Circuit said, would force federal officials to “resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility.” This was the same type of resistance exhibited by local governments to Brown v. Board of Education: “a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so.”

Furthermore, refusing to award sanctuary cities funds that have to be applied for and that are entirely discretionary within the judgement of the attorney general does not come anywhere close to “commandeering” a “State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes,” which was the key factor in the NFIB decision. The Supreme Court said that there is no violation of the Spending Clause “when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds.”

States can make their own decisions on whether to apply for a portion of the $4.1 billion the Justice Department has available to local jurisdictions for improving their law enforcement programs. In fact, this situation raises even fewer concerns than a federal law that the Supreme Court upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). That law provided that states would lose five percent of their federal highway funds if they did not raise the drinking age to 21. This was “relatively mild encouragement” compared to the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, where the Court described the potential loss of all Medicaid funding as a “gun to the head.”

Similarly, when it comes to sanctuary cities, the Justice Department isn’t threatening the cutoff of any major entitlement funds such as Medicaid or even state highway funds. What’s at stake are discretionary grants that the states may or may not decide to apply for, and which the Justice Department may or may not choose to grant.

The Nullification Crisis was resolved when South Carolina rescinded its nullification ordinance after President Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation. We can only hope that the current nullification crisis will also be resolved once and for all when all of the lawsuits being filed by the states to prevent the enforcement of federal immigration law reach the Supreme Court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

 

Justice for Brian Terry: Cartel member suspected of murdering border agent with Fast & Furious gun finally arrested


URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/justice-for-brian-terry-cartel-member-suspected-of-murdering-border-agent-with-fast-furious

Nearly seven years after the untimely and tragic death of fallen Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, his suspected murderer — a member of a Mexican cartel — has finally been apprehended in Mexico, bringing a bit more closure to the deadly result of Obama’s “Fast and Furious Scandal.”

Terry lost his life in a shootout along the Mexico border with cartel thugs just 10 days before Christmas in 2010. The guns used be the thugs in the firefight, it was later revealed, had been obtained via an undercover United States government operation.

Here’s the story as reported by Fox News:

The suspect, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, was apprehended by a joint U.S.-Mexico law enforcement task force that included the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals and the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC).

A $250,000 reward had been sought for information leading to the arrest of Osorio-Arellanes, who was captured at a ranch on the border of the Mexican states of Sinaloa and Chihuahua. U.S. authorities have said they will seek his extradition.

Four other cartel members present at the 2010 gunfight have already been sentenced to jail in the United States, with one pleading guilty to first-degree murder in 2014. However, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga — the last remaining member of the crew — is still believed to be at large.

living nextdoor to youTerry’s death ended up setting off a chain of events that would expose the Obama administration’s now-infamous Operation Fast and Furious. The scandal started in 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms hatched a plan to release firearms into the hands of international criminals, and let them walk across the border with the intent of tracking them once they went to Mexico.

But once the guns got to Mexico, it was like they had vanished into the wind. Reports would later reveal the ATF made no real effort to trace the guns once they were out of the United States.

Why

Documents uncovered by investigators showed the operation was a Machiavellian effort by Obama officials to make the case for stricter gun control. A CBS report from 2012 demonstrated that part of the plan was to let guns fall into the hands of people who would use them to commit crimes, and then ride the political blowback to increase regulations on firearms sales here in the United States.partyof-deceit-spin-and-lies

Two of “walked” guns were found at the scene of Brian Terry’s murder.

While Terry is the only known American to have died as a result of the ATF operation, it may never be known just how many innocent Mexican lives have been taken by cartel violence with weapons supplied by Obama’s first presidential scandal.

Following a media firestorm and congressional investigation, the operation was shuttered. But none the shame Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder endured during the fallout brought Agent Terry back, nor did it bring back the hundreds of firearms still in the hands of Mexican gang members.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, immigration, and the judiciary. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate’s writing has previously appeared in several religious and news publications. Follow him @NateMaddenCR and on Facebook.

 

Swedish Feminists Flee Suburbs Due to Islamic Fundamentalists


Reported by Chris Tomlinson | 31 Mar 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/31/swedish-feminists-flee-suburbs-due-islamic-fundamentalists/

Nalin Pekgul is a self-described feminist and former member of parliament for the left wing Swedish Social Democrats. For over 30 years, she lived in the Stockholm suburb of Tensta but says that she no longer feels safe there. She claims Muslim fundamentalists have taken over and she doesn’t feel she can visit the centre of Tensta without being harassed, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

According to Ms. Pekgul, the situation for women in public life in the area has deteriorated over the past several years. She noted that there has been a rise in religious fundamentalism amongst the men in the area, many of whom come from migrant backgrounds. Pekgul attempted to combat the trend by organising coffee shop meetings but soon abandoned the idea.

“In Tensta I am a known face and I have no desire to stir up trouble when I get harassed,” Pekgul said explaining why she no longer goes into the centre of the suburb. When asked if she will remain in the suburb, she said: “I always hope that it will blow over. One should never forget that the vast majority here are cursing the fundamentalists.” 

Zeliha Dagli, a former Left Party politician, did end up moving from the no-go suburb of Husby. Dagli described Husby as having self-appointed “morality police” who attempt to control women’s behaviour in the area. Aggression toward feminists, in particular, became an issue she said. “There were rumours that we wanted to take away women’s veils,” she said. “They said that I should keep myself, and then I did not feel so safe anymore.” Dagli now lives in the inner city area of Stockholm and says she is happier that she can wear or say what she wants without fearing for her safety. She said she would consider returning to Husby, but only if the area became safer for her. 

Husby, like the no-go suburb of Rinkeby, is heavily populated by migrants, many of them from countries in Africa and the Middle East and many of them Muslim.  In May of last year, a Norwegian film crew was attacked by a group of locals in Husby while they were attempting to interview Swedish economist and author Tino Sanandaji.

Sanandaji, a Kurdish Iranian immigrant, has been slammed by many in Sweden for his new book Mass Challenge which describes the problems Sweden has faced because of mass migration. One library in Stockholm even refused to stock the book accusing it of being racist.

American filmmaker Ari Horowitz was also attacked in Husby last year during an investigation into Swedish no-go zones.

 Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson@breitbart.com

Trump AG targets LA over immigration: You better not be a ‘sanctuary city’ or no fed grants for you


Posted by on March 27, 2017

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday local jurisdictions seeking U.S. Department of Justice grants must first demonstrate they are not sanctuary cities — a threat that could potentially apply to Los Angeles and other local municipalities. Sessions said jurisdictions must prove they are in compliance with Section 1373 of U.S. Code Title 8, which requires notification of federal officials about the immigration status of people in local custody. The policy was issued under the Barack Obama administration in 2016, but was not enforced.

“The American people know that when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe,” Sessions said.

Sessions noted that the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs and Community Oriented Policing Services expect to issue about $4.1 billion in grants during the current fiscal year. Sessions’ comments were in line with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January that threatened to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities. The potential financial impact to local jurisdictions deemed to be uncooperative with federal immigration authorities was not immediately clear. The city of Los Angeles received $1.4 million from the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program this fiscal year, according to the Justice Department’s website.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Los Angeles County received $3.4 million in 2015 from the DOJ’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program — an amount that represents about one-tenth of 1 percent of the sheriff’s department’s budget.

While there is no specific definition of a sanctuary city or jurisdiction, it often refers to a city or county that refuses to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that is has an immigrant in the country illegally in its custody. Federal law requires the notification, even if the person has not been convicted of a crime, but many jurisdictions ignore the law.

Los Angeles’ leaders have resisted officially labeling the city as a sanctuary city, although many others cities, including San Francisco and Portland, have taken on the label. The policy of the Los Angeles Police Department is to only hold a person for ICE if there is a federal criminal warrant out for their arrest.

Mayor Eric Garcetti signed an executive order March 21 directing the city’s harbor and airport police to follow Los Angeles Police Department Special Order 40, which has been in place since 1979. It prohibits officers from initiating any police activity for the sole purpose of identifying someone’s immigration status. The executive order also bars any city employee from assisting any federal agency when the primary purpose is federal civil immigration enforcement.

“All residents must feel safe and supported when accessing the vast array of city facilities, programs, and services available to them,” the order states.

Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Panorama City, called Sessions’ remarks “unwarranted and misguided.”

“As the facts have shown time and time again, sanctuary cities are both safer and better off economically,” Cardenas said. “This administration’s backwards policies will make life worse for the millions of Americans that live in these cities.”

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles, echoed those remarks, saying cooperation between police and residents in “immigrant-welcoming” cities leads to safer communities.

“The A.G. is needlessly threatening to cut funding to cities for doing what every jurisdiction across the country should do — welcome diversity and ensure their local law enforcement builds strong bonds of trust and communication with all communities,” she said.

— City News Service

We Have Now Hit Full-On Crazy


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 22, 2017 8:09 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2017/03/22/we-have-now-hit-fullon-crazy-n2302798

We Have Now Hit Full-On Crazy

Liberals are ecstatic that a judge in Hawaii is writing immigration policy for the entire country, and that policy is: We have no right to tell anyone that he can’t live in America. (Unless they’re Christians — those guys we can keep out.)

As subtly alluded to in the subtitle of “Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third-World Hellhole,” the goal of liberals is for the poor of the world to have a constitutional right to come here whenever they want.

I can’t help but notice that the Third Worlders aren’t moving to liberals’ neighborhoods.

After nearly 1 million Rwandans were murdered by other Rwandans in 1994, our government asked itself: Why not bring more of this fascinating Rwandan culture to America? Ten thousand of them poured in. So far, nearly 400 have been convicted in the United States of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide.

And that’s why we have to tighten our belt, America! Massive international investigations don’t come cheap.

Almost every immigration case is a con, something we find out every time there’s a San Bernardino shooting and half the family turns out to have scammed our immigration officials. One hundred percent of the “humanitarian” cases are frauds.

Earlier this month, Rwanda’s Gervais Ngombwa was convicted for lying on his immigration application by claiming to have been a victim of the 1994 genocide. In fact, he was a well-known perpetrator — even featured in Rwandan newspaper articles as a leader of the genocide.

For most of the last two decades, Ngombwa has been living in Iowa with his wife and eight children in a house built by Habitat for Humanity — because no Americans need houses. He came to the authorities’ attention a couple years ago by setting that house on fire after a domestic dispute, then filing a fraudulent $75,000 insurance claim.

Another Rwandan genocidalist living in America was featured in “Adios, America”: Beatrice Munyenyezi, granted refugee status as an alleged victim of the genocide, even though she, too, had helped orchestrate it.

Munyenyezi was living safely in Kenya when she applied for a refugee visa to America. The welfare is way better here. And, luckily for us, she had a “chronic medical condition” that required constant attention from a New Hampshire hospital.

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa, then immediately applied for “asylum” on the grounds that he was persecuted in Egypt — for being a member of an Islamic terrorist group.

Being a member of a noted terrorist group cannot be used to block you from coming to America, thanks to Barney Frank’s 1989 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, because liberals love this country so very, very much. Being a talented neurosurgeon from Switzerland, however, is disqualifying.

Hadayet’s refugee application wasn’t denied until he’d already been living here for three years. When he was called in for a visa overstay hearing, he didn’t show up, and the INS didn’t bother looking for him. After allowing Hadayet to mill about America for another year, our government granted him permanent residency and a work permit.

On the Fourth of July following the 9/11 attack, Hadayet shot up the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport. I guess the Egyptians were right!

As bodies were being cleared away from the ticket counter, including Hadayet’s, his wife blamed America for the attack, denying her husband had anything to do with it. “He is a victim of injustice,” she explained. “In America, they hate Islam and Arabs after Sept. 11.”

At least immigrants are grateful.

Immigration bureaucrats are so determined to transform America without anyone seeing what they’re doing that the INS initially refused to release Hadayet’s file to congressional investigators, in order to protect his “privacy.”

Of course, anybody could miss Egypt’s designating someone a terrorist. And maybe the INS’s test for Rwandan “refugees” is: Would this person be able to convince Rolling Stone magazine that “Haven Monahan” raped her?

How about Rasmea Yousef Odeh? She waltzed into America after having been convicted and imprisoned in Israel for a supermarket bombing that left two Hebrew University students dead, and also for the attempted bombing of the British consulate in Israel.

She was released in a prisoner exchange — whereupon Odeh made a beeline for the U.S.

True, Odeh wasn’t subjected to the Inquisition-like vetting accorded the humanitarian cases, like the Boston Marathon bombers (we were warned by Russia), Hadayet (we were warned by Egypt) or the Blind Sheik (same).

But how did our immigration authorities miss a CONVICTION FOR BOMBING IN ISRAEL?

Apart from the terrorism, welfare and fraud, what great things did any of them do for our country?

Ngombwa was a custodian at the Cedar Rapids Community School District in Iowa, a job that, evidently, no American would do. Munyenyezi had a job as an advocate for refugees — just one of the many jobs being created by immigrants. Hadayet ran a failing limousine company and was $10,000 in debt. Odeh was an unemployed waitress and a Palestinian grievance activist. Recently, she’s been heavily involved in anti-Trump, anti-white male protests, because who doesn’t like incessant Third World unrest?

In 1960, 75 percent of the foreign-born in America were from Europe. Today only about 10 percent are. More than a third of all post-Teddy Kennedy act immigrants — not just the wretched humanitarian cases — don’t even have a high school diploma.

What is the affirmative case for this? How is it making America better? Improving the schools? The job market? Crime? The likelihood of terrorism?

Can the liberals doing cartwheels over a district judge’s announcement that everyone in the world has a right to come here (except Europeans and Christians), give us the cost-benefit analysis they’re using? Twenty million Third World immigrants give us ( ) terrorists, ( ) welfare recipients, ( ) uncompensated medical costs, ( ) discrimination lawsuits, but it’s all worth it because ( )?

Immigration Judges Dispatched to 12 U.S. Cities to Speed Deportations


Reported by Warner Todd Huston | 19 Mar 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/19/immigration-judges-dispatched-12-u-s-cities-speed-deportations/

Cities the DOJ want to staff up includes New York; Los Angeles; Miami; New Orleans; San Francisco; Baltimore, Bloomington, Minnesota; El Paso, Texas; Harlingen, Texas; Imperial, California; Omaha, Nebraska, and Phoenix, Arizona, the news service says.

This isn’t the first move to beef up immigration judge staff. Early in March the Trump administration also began sending judges to immigrant detention centers to speed up services.

The initial plan came on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security memo that requested the Trump administration allow federal immigration courts to use “expedited deportation proceedings” for any illegal immigrants living in the U.S. for two years or less. The process is currently limited to those only living in the U.S. for up to two weeks.

According to data provided by the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, there are up to 18,013 pending immigration cases in the cities targeted by the DOJ plan. The plan serves as another plank in President Trump’s promise to step up the deportations that ground to a halt during the last years of the Obama administration. It also marks a shift from Obama’s practice of deporting only illegals convicted of serious crimes — and even many of those were never deported.

Critics of the plan claim that “reshuffling” the judges will only cause a backlog at the courts that lost one of their judges.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: