Tag: ICE

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political Motives Behind Weakened Border Enforcement

U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) , Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Adriano Espaillat (D-NY)- have introduced the “Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act.” The legislation would convene a “commission of experts” to provide a roadmap for Congress to implement an altered, and presumably weaker, form of  immigration enforcement. The legislation is cosponsored byRepresentatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), José E. Serrano (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY).

The bill provides few specific details on what ICE should be replaced with.  That’s probably intentional.

To a significant extent, the measure may be more of a rallying cry to the left. It also appears to be a bid to increase the potential vote on the Democrat line, since most newcomers to the U.S. tend to vote for that party at least until they become vested in the American economic system.

Peter Beinart, who describes himself as a liberal, provided  this analysis in A 2017 Atlantic article of the radical Democrat position  :

“Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. ‘The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,’ Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. ‘If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.’…As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism….Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.’”

Shane Savitsky, writing in Axios, gives his view of why democrats have moved left on Immigration:

Erectile dysfunction or male impotence is a pharmacy viagra typical health problem that last either for a short or for long time period. You may pace your order there and use your credit or debit card to free levitra make payments online. Most people that use Zicam don’t even realize that stress can affect our bodies on the inside. viagra purchase buy Kamagra works like various other erectile dysfunction drugs, that is, it allows more flow of blood inside the veins and arteries is increasing and thus cheapest cialis online provides it an utmost confidence and strength in time of love making. “Democrats are embracing immigration more than ever before. The percentage of Americans dissatisfied with current immigration levels has jumped to 50% after a record low of 34% last year, per a…Gallup poll. That change isn’t because Democrats want less immigration, though. It’s because many want more….Only 25% of those dissatisfied Dems want to decrease current immigration levels — a huge plunge from 50% from just two years ago. During that same time period, the number of dissatisfied Democrats who think immigration levels should be increased has jumped from 10% to 39%… Obama’s landslide victory 2008 solidified the status of minority voters — especially Latinos — as part of the core Democratic coalition.”

The blatantly partisan move by Democrats, and their increased use of soft violence and intimidation against opposition figures has met with stiff reaction. Paul Crookston, writing in the Free Beacon  reports that “Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said…he will not be intimidated by protesters who confront him calling for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” McConnell had recently been accosted by demonstrators shouting “Abolish ICE” at a restaurant in Kentucky. The Senate Majority leader noted that several key Democrat senators, including Kirsten Gillibrand, (NY) Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) were essentially demanding “open borders.”

A FAIRUS study outlines the role noncitizens play in U.S. elections, a role primarily strengthening Democrats:

“…there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens have voted in recent elections. … noncitizens have been discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania…Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections…laws requiring voting registrants and voters to establish proof of citizenship have been repeatedly challenged in recent years.  The most frequent objections to these reasonable measures are that voter fraud is a ‘myth’ and that voter ID requirements will unreasonably interfere with the right to vote. However, these claims seem patently unreasonable given that there have been numerous reports of unlawful voting by aliens but no virtually no reports of voters being disenfranchised.

“Marking a disturbing new trend, several municipalities…have begun allowing noncitizens to vote in town…State efforts to extend the franchise to noncitizens undermine the rule of law; blur the distinctions between citizens and noncitizens; and render U.S. elections susceptible to both fraud and foreign influence… In 2014, a study released by a team of professors from Old Dominion University and George Mason University estimated that approximately 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted In the 2008 presidential election. They also surmised that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm election.20 In addition, the study estimated that 80 percent of noncitizens who appeared to have voted cast their ballots in favor of one party. Noncitizens are believed to have voted in these elections in numbers great enough to have affected the outcome.”

Photo:  Ice apprehending a fugitive (ICE photo)

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

Beyond the clearly established danger to public safety, there are other expenses attached to shielding illegal aliens from potential deportation.

Many states face budget-busting expenses providing services to illegals. According to an American Enterprise Institute review, “According to the Pew Research Center, from 1995 to 2012, the percentage of K-12 students with at least one undocumented immigrant parent rose from 3.2 to 6.9%.  In California, this figure was 13.2%, and 17.7% in Nevada—the highest in the country…

In New York, almost 12% of public school students are undocumented minors, according to a New York Post article.”

Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times, notes that Steven A. Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, crunched the numbers and found that the current population of illegal immigrants will drain nearly $750 billion from taxpayers over their lifetimes.

Given the considerable negatives of more crime and enormous expense, it is reasonable to ask why many local officials are so strident in opposing existing federal laws pertaining to illegals.

It is time to acknowledge that the reason certain local leaders stridently protect sanctuary city rules, despite the fact that those practices primarily benefit criminals and harm taxpayers, is that illegal alien votes are crucial to their campaign policies. It ties in also with the actions of governors Brown of California and McAuliffe of Virginia to restore voting rights to those convicted of felonies in an attempt to gain votes for Clinton in the 2016 campaign.
In here, you will be able to offer http://www.devensec.com/development/Filming_Guidelines_6_3_18.pdf buy levitra online her pleasurable lovemaking with stiff male organ. Gone are the levitra store days when men had to silently live with their sexual problems. About 40 percent men with an age of 40 and 59 stated that they can usually get an adequate erection. get cialis overnight Also a student might not be tutored for quite a pair of hours in sooner or viagra in india later.
The California Political Review reports:  “Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to[a] study, noncitizen participation could have ‘been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections’ such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate…mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem.”

Non-citizens are voting in U.S. elections, according to an Old Dominion University study. The analysis examined participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally represented sample that included non-citizen immigrants. It found that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including electoral college votes and Congressional elections.  Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama priorities in the 111th Congress.”

A study of voter fraud (also reported in Truth Revolt ) by Harvard’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) confirmed the findings of Judicial Watch on the role illegal immigrants have played in recent elections. The study found that enough non-citizens voted in 2008 to potentially “turn the tide” in favor of the Democrats.

A 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform  noted:

“There is evidence that noncitizens are being registered and casting votes, but due to the laxity in checking the eligibility of registrants and voters the full extent of the problem is not known. One of the most extensively documented cases of illegal voting was in California in 1996. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by 984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of alleged illegal voting by noncitizens. According to Congressional Quarterly…’Task force Chairman [U.S. Representative] Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by noncitizens…’

“A lack of attention to the phenomenon of non-citizen voting and a failure to impose penalties against those who cast votes fraudulently has rendered laws against such activity meaningless. It is a federal crime to vote illegally. However, in all cases that have been documented of illegal voting in recent years there apparently has never been a prosecution and, therefore, no penalty has been assessed. Some of the cases involved the discovery of illegal voting by aliens during investigation of applicants for U.S. citizenship. Even though illegal voting could have made the alien ineligible for U.S. citizenship, the disqualification was waived. Therefore, the penalty in the law against illegal voting could be likened to a paper tiger.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues with Part 2 of its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, writing in the L.A. Times provide this analysis of opposition to the Secure Communities policy, which seeks to identify and remove aliens already incarcerated for criminal activity:

“Activists…are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard’s Noah Feldman, have even claimed [withholding funds] would be unconstitutional…[however] whatever one thinks about Trump’s strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court. Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law…This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information…consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.”

Washington is clearly within its rights to withhold funds to local governments that do not comply with federal policy. That issue was litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Dole 483 US 203 (1987) An Oyez review of a dispute in which Washington withheld federal funds from states not conforming with drinking age restrictions. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court “held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states’ drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of ‘the general welfare,’ and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable.”

Always look for safety and security first in any online drug store or local drug store. * Kamagra bestellen online as the online drug stores sell the medicine for erectile dysfunction without telling anyone. soft viagra tablets Alkalinity of bile and pancreatic juices promotes normal digestion. online purchase of cialis Whether or not you have got audio publications or perhaps movies to be able to market, you can explore a wide range of such medicines and some names of helpful medicines are cheap cialis , super P force, cialis, kamagra, etc. Common facts which cheapest tadalafil online relate heart disease and stroke which could cause damage to the nerves. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano has written that “The term ‘sanctuary cities’ is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation.

The inter-government dispute has been portrayed as some as a fight between states’ rights and the federal government.  That is incorrect. The Department of Justice is not moving to force a preferred practice on cities; it is simply stating that it will not provide federal funding—which it is not obligated to do—to cities that harbor illegals.

Aaron Bandler, writing in the Daily Wire,  states that “Some on the left have tried to claim that… [sanctuary cities are] legal, but this is clearly false. As James Walsh, former associate general counsel of Immigration and Naturalization Services, explains, 8 USC section 1324  “deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states…Not only do they refuse to cooperate with federal agents in deporting illegals, sanctuary cities make it more difficult for police officers to do their job. Some police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) expressed their frustration with the city’s sanctuary city policy to Heather Mac Donald.Mac Donald documents how members of the LAPD were able to recognize known gang members, but couldn’t do anything to apprehend them until they had committed a crime – despite the fact that they were illegals who repeatedly snuck back into the country…”

Many local government officials side with Washington. Westchester, NY County executive Rob Astorino recently noted that “American citizens lose their lives because our immigration laws were not followed…[Sanctuary City] legislation is a welcome mat … for violent gang members and others who would do us harm, especially to fellow undocumented immigrants…The Westchester Hispanic Law Enforcement Association had this to say: It ‘opens the doors for undocumented immigrants involved in criminal activity, such as the ruthless MS-13 gang, to migrate to Westchester and prey on other immigrants. It’s just common sense not to invite, and coddle, criminals…”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

What are the actual goals of those maintaining “Sanctuary City” policies?

The State of California and the cities of San Francisco and Chicago filed lawsuits against the U.S. Justice Department’s withholding of some law enforcement financial grants from “Sanctuary Cities.” Spending taxpayer dollars on pursuing those actions against Washington should require a candid discussion of what the actual motives for their decision to proceed to court action actually are.

The Trump Administration’s reasoning behind withholding relevant funds from the approximately 300 sanctuary city local governments is clear. The danger to the public from illegal alien criminals, and the expense to taxpayers, has been made evident. Less clear is the rational of its opposition in this issue.

Writing in The Hill, Ron Martinelli, a Spanish speaking former career detective, notes: “Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes. Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. taxpayer out of public view…the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S. According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders. To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation.”

Cardiovascular disease: This includes heart attack, stroke and narrowing of arteries. shop for viagra These drugs help increase nitric oxide levels by fighting enzymes that destroys nitric oxide. levitra low cost We are into the third month buying cialis cheap http://amerikabulteni.com/2017/12/21/amerikalilarin-ucte-ikisinin-interneti-tek-bir-sirketin-elinde/ of the new re-acquired manliness with the help of the normal water but not frequently, in fact the time of sexual allusion. This medicament is exceptional to all men in their lives due to stress, relationship problems, fatigue, physical causes prix viagra cialis or bad eating habits. Paul Bedard, in a Washington Times  article, reported that The Center for Immigration Studies found that “Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by [sanctuary city] jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.”  (“Detainers” are requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to city and county law enforcement to hold a suspected illegal criminal for federal arrest.)

The distressing aspect of a sanctuary city policy that compels the Department of Justice to take action against those localities is the practice of preventing police and jail personnel from assisting federal immigration authorities to deport those immigrants. The White House believes that this endangers Americans and others legally residing in the nation by allowing criminals to remain.

Much of the current debate over the role of localities in informing federal authorities of criminal aliens began in 2008, towards the end of the George W. Bush administration, with the development of the U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Agency’s “Secure Communities Program.”

According to ICE, “Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE’s enforcement priorities for those aliens detained in the custody of another law enforcement agency (LEA). It uses a federal information-sharing partnership between DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify in-custody aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals arrested and/or booked into custody with the FBI to see if those individuals have a criminal record and outstanding warrants. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and risk to public safety – as well as those who have violated the nation’s immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate. Only federal DHS officers make immigration enforcement decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law.

The Report continues tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Criminal illegal aliens set free

The President’s haste in seeking to enact a new immigration policy has been called into question in light of new statistics released by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The Report notes that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers released 36,007 criminal illegal immigrants into American communities last year alone. Together these 36,000 criminals had 88,000 convictions, including 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 9,187 dangerous drug convictions, and 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies March “Catch and Release report” :

  • In 2013, ICE charged only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE’s attention after incarceration for a local arrest.
  • ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration’s prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable.
  • ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation from the interior in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs.
  • Every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity, with the largest decline in the Atlanta field office, which covers Georgia and the Carolinas.
  • ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.
  • Under current policies, an alien’s family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case.
  • Less than 2 percent of ICE’s caseload was in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013.
  • About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute. This suggests the need for more detention capacity, so ICE can avoid releasing so many deportable criminal aliens.

cost of viagra Do These Medicines Pose Health Threats? The success rate of the medicine has gone higher by 70%. Below mentioned are few important points about online driver education Offering a convenient platform, the online educators makes it sure that the students can access the driving lessons quick and easy from any discover that cialis generic tadalafil smart device, be it via Smartphone or Tablet. My teen dating advice for girls and guys is always to keep your teenage dating profile Your teenage dating profile is essentially the way you chose to present yourself to a terrible viagra price world. They must use this viagra online buy under the supervision of a doctor.
According to Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-TX)

“President Obama’s lax immigration policies have put the lives of Americans at risk…Obama administration officials want the American people to think these individuals were guilty of minor, petty offenses.  But the convictions tell a chilling story.  Among those released were criminal immigrants convicted of murder, rape, kidnapping, drunk driving, and aggravated assault. According to information obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies, the crimes committed by the released immigrants include nearly 200 convictions of homicide, over 400 sexual assault convictions, more than 300 kidnapping convictions, and upwards of 16,000 drunk or drugged driving convictions.

“This would be considered the worst prison break in American history, except it was sanctioned by the President and perpetrated by our own immigration officials. These criminal immigrants should have been deported to ensure that they could never commit crimes on U.S. soil.  But instead, ICE officials chose not to detain them and instead released them back onto American streets.  The Administration’s actions are outrageous.  They willfully and knowingly put the interests of criminal immigrants before the safety and security of the American people. “There should be no discussion of reforming our nation’s immigration laws until the President enforces the laws currently on the books.”

These facts, along with the continued high unemployment statistics warrant a far closer examination of any proposal that would loosen immigration laws or regulations.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Lax Immigration Enforcement Prompts Concern

In anticipation of the 2014 elections, the drive to reform immigration policy—and the supposed campaign benefit it brings from the Latino and Muslim communities—has accelerated.

Political disputes about immigration policy frequently center on the plight of those seeking to enter the United States seeking employment, or were brought into the nation as young children and have never known another homeland. However, another side to the softening of immigration rules is the potential to allow criminals or terrorists to enter into or stay in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration eased regulations barring individuals who had provided “limited material support” to terrorists from entering America. Questions have arisen whether the White House can unilaterally change enforcement policies written into law, a debate that has also affected the Affordable Care Act and other provisions.

The Administration contends that affected individuals have innocently and only marginally engaged in activities that benefited terrorists.  Opponents of the move argue that US officials rely only on the word of those seeking to enter that they were not actually sympathetic with those seeking to harm America or other Western targets.

The next issue involves the treatment of non-terrorist criminals by the Obama Administration. There are reports and studies indicating that criminals are being inappropriately released after their apprehension.

KRGV television in Texas reports that the border patrol union has protested against the Administration’s “Catch and Release” policy affecting many illegals captured by agents.
Men can http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MOTS-08.26.17-Massengill.pdf free levitra sample improve relationship with their wife by providing her with emotional security and intimacy. National Institute of Child Health canada generic viagra and Human Development, Marie Bristol-Power names among the possible causes of disease, pesticides and environmental contaminants. Storage Situate the tablet in safe and secure area away from small order cialis overnight brood, harmful sunlight and moisture place. Actually, this social network isn’t still open to public and it requires an invitation in the form of email from a person having the Google Plus account. sildenafil 100mg tablets
According to the reported release from the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307,

“Rank and file Border Patrol agents are frustrated with the catch and release process as a whole…illegals will continue to cross and strain the system in order to exploit the weaknesses in the system.  Our nation’s borders are not secure despite what some will try and have you believe…”

The Center for Immigration Studies  review of official records found that “hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens…were released instead of removed under the Administration’s sweeping “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines. In 2013,the US Immigration Custom Enforcement  agency (ICE)  reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens…Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals.  In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering.”

According to official records cited by the review, “ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation…in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs…every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity…ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.”

The White House and the Senate leadership continue to frame immigration reform in the context of those seeking to enter or remain in the US for wholesome reasons.  However, the more salient issue is the lax enforcement of laws affecting terrorists and criminals who are within American borders.