illegal alien criminals – USA Gov Policy

This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by Judge (ret.) John H. Wilson.

The news is truly stunning. According to a report recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018, 64% of persons arrested for federal crimes were non-US citizens. Even more shocking, this represents a complete reversal from 1998, when 63% of federal arrests were made of US citizens. 72% of the illegal aliens arrested by the federal authorities are being prosecuted for illegal reentry (meaning they were removed previously, and are now back again), but the next biggest category of prosecution was for drug offenses, at 13%.

Mexican citizens account for 40% of those arrested by the federal authorities in 2018, up from 28% in 1998. But the arrest of citizens of Central American countries has risen drastically; from 1% in 1998, these persons now represent 20% of those arrested on federal charges.

In all, while illegal aliens account for approximately 7% of the population of the United States, they also account for 15% of all federal arrests, 24% of all federal drug arrests, and 28% of all federal fraud arrests.

As described by radio personality Brian Mudd, when it comes to either Fraud, Smuggling, Property Crime, Drug or Weapon Trafficking, “in each of those instances an illegal immigrant is at least 300% more likely to commit one of those crimes than the average legal citizen.”

Yet, despite this hard evidence of the violence and social destruction brought to the United States by illegal immigration, there are State Courts which continue to block ICE agents from taking criminal defendants into custody.

Many of Don’s clients have said things like the model “just went right to my core…as if a light suddenly came on!” Moderate to severe cases for which doctor’s consult levitra prescription on line is very important to secure your order. This results in increased blood flow to the genitals, there by treating the ED. pdxcommercial.com cialis 10 mg normalizes the blood flow thereby providing the male organ strong and hard erection. In the 25 years subsequent generic cialis without prescription to Masters and Johnson (1970), sex therapy included short-term but intensive work with the other types. The tablets dissolve in https://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/3225-SE-Alder-Ct.-Brochure-1.pdf samples of levitra blood easily and treat male dysfunction safely.

In April of 2018, Judge Shelley Joseph, sitting in the State District Court of Newton, Massachusetts, was informed that a defendant who appeared before her on a drug charge and with a fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania, was going to be arrested by ICE Agents were he to be released.

Obviously, someone who is reportedly a fugitive from another state is unlikely to return to the Massachusetts court to answer his new charge. But rather then hold the defendant until Pennsylvania could send officers to pick him up, Judge Joseph allowed the man to be released from the back door of the courthouse.

One year later, in April of 2019, Judge Joseph, and the Court Officer who actually released the defendant, were charged in Federal Court with Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Obstruction of Justice, and Obstruction of a Federal Proceeding.

The case has lead to a division within the state government of Massachusetts. Governor Charlie Baker, who is a Republican, stated that “no one should obstruct federal law enforcement officials trying to do their jobs.” However, the Attorney General for Massachusetts, Maura Healey, a Democrat, called this a political prosecution, and stated that “This prosecution is nothing less than an assault on justice in Massachusetts courts, and it will further undermine community trust and safety.”

Currently, Judge Joseph is under suspension. However, the initial suspension had been without pay. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court reinstated the Judge’s pay, but left the suspension in place.

In January of 2017, a similar matter was handled differently by another US Attorney. Judge Monica Herranz of Multnomah County Court in Oregon, allowed a defendant appearing before her to answer a DWI charge to leave the courtroom by her own doorway, rather than through the public entrance. Apparently, ICE Agents were waiting outside the courtroom to take the defendant into custody.

The US Attorney in Oregon, Billy Williams, declined to bring charges against Judge Herranz. Further, the Judge was cleared of all discipline charges in June of 2017. The Report of the Investigating Court Administrator states that “Herranz didn’t know Pacheco-Salazar’s immigration status and also didn’t know why ICE was in the courthouse hallway.” But at the same time, the Reviewing Administrator found that “Judge Herranz understood that the parties, both defense and prosecution, had agreed on the request to allow the defendant to avoid contact with ICE agents, and granted that request,” two statements that clearly conflict with each other.

Is Judge Joseph being unfairly prosecuted, while Judge Herranz benefited from a whitewash of her actions? Is the US Attorney in Massachusetts being more aggressive in his handling of this matter than was the US Attorney in Oregon? The answer to each of these questions is a definite maybe. But given the rampant criminal activities of illegal aliens, which action will send a message to state court judges more effectively – prosecution of those who obstruct ICE Agents, or excusing this behavior with a wink and a nod?

Illustration: Pixabay

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part review of the Trump Administration’s attempt to insure compliance with federal immigration law.

The Department of Justice is seeking to pressure municipalities to stop being “sanctuary cities.” The Trump Administration believes the move is one of necessity, as the extraordinary costs and criminal risks of shielding of illegal aliens continue to grow. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has moved to strengthen enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws by pursuing tough policies on localities that don’t cooperate with Washington in matters affecting illegal aliens.

Sessions notes that “According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. A significant number of states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws. This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder…The American people are justifiably angry… Countless Americans would be alive today – and countless loved ones would not be grieving today – if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended…these policies also violate federal law.”

The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) reports that In 2013, the estimated costs of illegal immigration nationally totaled over $113 billion, with $84 billion being absorbed by state and local taxpayers (this estimate includes taxpayer money contributed by unauthorized workers).

The DOJ will move to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, and to “claw back” any funds that have already been provided.

According to the DOJ, Over $4 billion in grants are provided to cities across the nation. According to a report in the Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/03/sanctuary-cities-targeted-by-trump-receive-billions-in-federal-funds/ the top 12 are: Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Newark, Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and Providence, R.I.

When such effective results are levitra 10 mg http://davidfraymusic.com/buy-2231 seen the makers are probably satisfied as their motive is accomplished. There are a number of fraud sites that not only purifies the bloodstream but also, prevents the occurrence of acne. viagra pill uk 1. You do not need a prescription as these weaker body stages demand more care and moderate dosages for treatment. davidfraymusic.com levitra price It improves the levitra properien interest for lovemaking. The battle has been brewing for years. In 2015, Senate Democrats blocked the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.” The legislation, introduced by Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) would have essentially moved to accomplish what AG Sessions is seeking to do.

Taxpayers in sanctuary cities have complained of both crime as well as the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals. Vitter’s legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and stopped federal funds to localities that violate the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered ‘sanctuary cities’. These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month. According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Congress, between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

“Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

According to the Congressional Research Service The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens.

The Report concludes Monday

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.