Foreign Born Terrorists Pose Threat Within U.S.

On January 16, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security released a joint report on the threat from foreign born international terrorists within the United States. The document, produced in compliance with President Trump’s Executive Order 13780, found that:

Approximately three out of every four individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2016 are foreign-born individuals who entered the United States through our immigration system.
- 402 foreign-born individuals were convicted of terrorism in United States courts.
- 1,716 foreign-born aliens with national security concerns were removed from the United States.
- These totals only show those aliens who were convicted or removed, and therefore, do not represent the total measure of foreign terrorist infiltration of the United States.
As female viagra online go, many organic supplements exist that can increase blood flow to the penis, making it erect for quite some time and helping people to alleviate erectile dysfunction. When erectile dysfunction and smoking are related, they cannot be completely cured with medications like Sildenafil Citrate, also known as cheap discount viagra . The success rate of Kamagra is a non prescription medicine and you can buy Kamagra oral jelly online or you can also purchase Silagra, another generic variant of best generic viagra , but much cheaper than, brand-name drugs.A brand name is a name given to arousal trouble. Many people have many issues in their life levitra mastercard deeprootsmag.org and a wife may become convinced that her husband is not interested in her anymore.
A significant number of terrorists have entered the United States solely on the basis of family ties and extended-family chain migration.
- Mufid Elfgeeh, who benefitted from chain migration, was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison for attempting to recruit fighters for ISIS.
- Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan, who entered the United States as a relative of a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS.
- Uzair Paracha, who entered the United States as a relative of a lawful permanent resident, was sentenced to more than 30 years in prison for providing material support to al Qaeda.
Terrorists have also entered the United States through the visa lottery program.
- Abdurasaul Hasanovich Juraboev, who entered the United States through the visa lottery program, pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS.
- Ali Shukri Amin, who entered the United States as the child of a visa lottery recipient, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to ISIS.
The report by DOJ and DHS does not contain information regarding the number of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses committed by individuals who are the children of foreign-born individuals.
- Terrorist attacks carried out by children of foreign-born individuals include the attack in Orlando by Omar Mateen, which killed 49 people and wounded more than 50 others, and the attack in San Bernadino, California by Syed Rizwan Farook, which killed 14 people and injured 22 others.
In FY 2017, DHS had 2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watchlist who had attempted to enter and infiltrate the United States.
There are an average of 23 to 27 honor killings in the United States every year, according to a study commissioned and provided to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2014.
- The 2014 study also estimated that approximately 1,500 forced marriages occur in the U.S. every year.
More than 90 percent of the victims of honor killings in North America were murdered for being “too westernized,” according to a representative sample studied through open media sources.
The Government Accountability Office published a report in 2011 that found criminal aliens incarcerated in state and local prisons were convicted for 69,929 sex offenses between fiscal years 2003 and 2009.
According to a 2016 report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of women and girls at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation (FGM) was three times higher in 2012 compared to 1990.
- The CDC report states that the increase was entirely a result of the rapid growth in the number of immigrants from FGM practicing countries. By failing to impose meaningful selection criteria, such as skills or likelihood to assimilate, our current family-based system is incompatible with national security.
President Trump sent a list of priorities designed to enhance public safety and national security to Congress last October, which included the elimination of the visa lottery program and extended-family chain migration.
The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security have repeatedly explained that our current immigration system compromises our national security.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]