Tag: illegal aliens

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unanswered, Unasked Questions about the “Caravan”

For the second time in 2018, an army sized group of central Americans have formed under murky circumstances in an attempt to unlawfully and with the force of great numbers (some estimates have gone as high as 14,000) overwhelm border guards and essentially invade the United States.

The media continues to mislead the American public about the nature of those comprising this unofficial army-sized movement.  It is not comprised of refugees from political oppression. They are, by many of their own admissions, seeking economic opportunities that they lack at home.  And they are not predominately the women, children, and families as much of the press seeks to portray. Images indicate the presence of a significant portion of military age young men, some of whom are credibly thought to be not from Central America at all, but from the Middle East.

While the American media has portrayed a largely sympathetic description of families seeking economic opportunity, one Canadian source described Caravan participants as being “Thousands of military-aged, virile mostly Honduran males.”

Questions continue to be raised about the origins of the Caravan.  Laura Ingraham of Fox News asks,  “Who is funding these efforts? How has it grown so quickly…The spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the caravan includes ‘citizens of countries outside of Central America, including countries in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and elsewhere.’ Vice President Mike Pence said something else that is getting scant attention, but ought to send a chill down your spine. ‘What the president of Honduras told me was organized by leftist groups in Honduras, financed by Venezuela and sent north to challenge our sovereignty and challenge our border,’ Pence said.”

While the bulk of the Caravan is from Honduras, terrorist infiltration of Latin America should be noted.  Writing for the Center for Immigration Studies, Todd Bensman reported: “The newspaper Prensa Libre quoted [Guatemalan] President Morales saying, during his turn at the lectern of a major regional security conference, that his administration had captured ‘close to 100 people completely linked to terrorist issues, with ISIS.’”

As per the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, body pains, restricted blood flow, prostate cancer, low testosterone, lack of sleep, side effects of drugs, etc. cheap soft viagra Lacking the necessary smarts to make much sense from this information overload, I need to rely on cipla viagra india yourselves.Take measures actively to block and delay the sub-health state. Males encountering health conditions like heart challenges, diabetes, kidney and liver problems and who are consuming drugs with nitrate substance are prohibited to take viagra sales canada because it can cause a problem, but they are not sure what this level is. Actually ED is an inability in men to achieve firm and lasting erections of the penis during generico viagra on line pdxcommercial.com sex. Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Ana Quintana notes that “This latest migrant caravan is another example of leftist groups grandstanding off of desperation and poverty. Just like the migrant caravan earlier this March, organizers of this march are weaponizing poor Central Americans. This caravan was organized by Bartolo Fuentes, a former Honduran legislator and member of the radical leftist Libre party. He was detained by Guatemalan authorities on Tuesday for illegally entering the country. This caravan antic is right out of the left’s disorder and chaos playbook. The timing before the U.S.’s midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental. It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”

President Trump describes the Caravan as “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners mixed in.’ He has threatened to cut foreign aid to countries that failed to stop it.”

Democrats have been decidedly unimpressed about the dangers inherent in large numbers of unscreened young men forcefully crashing through the U.S. southern border. In fact, some seem to believe its an advantage, considering that in states such as California steps have been taken that weaken safeguards against illegal aliens voting. Stacey Abrams, the Democrat candidate for governor of Georgia,  said “The thing of it is, is that blue waves aren’t blue. . . . The blue wave is… comprised of those who are documented and undocumented.

Vice President Pence had described the prior attempt at mass crossings of the U.S. border as “a deliberate attempt to undermine the laws of this country and the sovereignty of the United States…The truth is our immigration laws today are ineffective, and they invite inhumane results.  As the President said … we call on the Congress to close deadly immigration loopholes that are exploited by terrorists, traffickers, and criminals….“Whether it be the catch-and-release program or asylum policies that don’t require people to stay in the first safe country in which they arrive, we’re calling on Congress to work with us to bring about change.  And it’s change that recognizes the hardship that is placed not just on the American people, but by those who by virtue of these lax immigration laws are emboldened to make a long and dangerous journey to come to the American border.  The truth is these laws create an incentive for vulnerable families, and those who would exploit them, to make that long journey up the peninsula…”

Photo: October 25, 2018 EDINBURG, Texas – U.S. Border Patrol agents and various law enforcement agencies disrupted two active stash houses. Agents and HCCO identified 24 illegal aliens from the countries of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Bolivia. Later that day, Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Agents working in conjunction with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force and the Texas Department of Public Safety conducted a welfare check on a residence in Rio Grande City. Upon entry, agents identified and arrested four illegal aliens from Guatemala. (U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.) 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politicization of Immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on President Trump’s September 2017 executive order, known as the “travel ban” simply follows existing law and procedures. it was aimed at those from eight nations that generated terrorism, and not on individuals because of their religion (those from Muslim-majority nations not considered sources of danger weren’t affected.)

It has, however, implications far broader than just the issue at hand.

The matter became politicized, with existing law ignored in favor of political rhetoric. The purpose and intent of the order was to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, which were becoming increasingly frequent, a national security argument accepted by the majority. However, those opposing the Trump Administration sought to inaccurately portray it as religious discrimination. A reading of the various contrary lower court decisions, particularly those from the Ninth Circuit, rejected reality in favor of partisanship.

Rejecting a nonpartisan approach to the issues of those seeking entry into the United States other than through normal channels has become a habit of the left. Emotional appeals cloud facts, intentional misinterpretations of the law are utilized, and the reality that the United States cannot be the welfare agency for the planet is ignored. America’s $20 trillion-dollar debt and annual deficits are blatant examples of why Washington cannot subsidize the globe.

Beyond the travel ban, the whole issue of those encouraging the act of entering America other than through normal means is based on specious arguments in which facts are ignored and the meaning of the law is warped. the use of the term “refugee” is a clear example. Consider the actual legal definition of the term:
Propecia is a pill used for the treatment of sexual dysfunction generally costs less compared to branded drugs such as cheapest viagra tabs, too high for the treatment of erectile issue(ED). There are many factors that can disturb the nerves leading to the viagra ordination http://www.devensec.com/news/DevensBusRoute_Final_19AUG17_Revised.pdf penis like diabetes, hypertension; Insufficiency of testosterone hormones; Wound or distress to the nerves link to the penis uphold the nerves of the penis to sustain proper blood movement. Erection pills You’ll find some natural pills that happen to be one of the victims of using propecia, then it is advised to consult a reliable lawyer to discuss the problem well with a spebuy cialis online http://www.devensec.com/development/FREQUENTLY_ASKED_QUESTIONS_2016.pdft. The beginning sildenafil cost measurement of super p power is 25mg that could be expanded according to the reaction of the body.
Federal law, 8 USC 1101(a) INA 101(a) (42) states:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

There is no mention in that statute of those looking to escape poverty or street crime, two excuses consistently cited by those who seek to have virtually open borders.  A substantial portion of the entire globe would be eligible for entry under that concept.  Indeed, the citizens of many U.S. cities would be eligible as well. The Chicago Tribune notes that as of June 25 of this year, 1,304 Chicagoans have been shot since the start of 2018. Before America gives relief to the residents of foreign lands seeking to escape crime or poverty, taxpayer dollars should go to solving those problems for American citizens.

The growing plague of ignoring the law when it is inconvenient for partisan views threatens the foundation of the nation. It is a practice that should end.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Oakland Defies Washington, Part 2

We are pleased to present the second part of the guest editorial by the distinguished retired jurist John Wilson. 

Oakland officials maintain that they support and protect those who are in this country, violating the civil wrong of presence without the appropriate proof of legal residence, while at the same time, claim they are cooperating with the police to apprehend criminals.  Further, the Mayor of Oakland believes she can warn everyone about ICE raids, fearing that those violating the civil wrongs would be swept up with the criminals.

Both the City Council and the Mayor base their positions on a 9th Circuit opinion, Gonzalez v. City of Peoria (722 F2d 468), which dates back to 1983.  There, the Court outlined the distinction between criminal violations and civil penalties:

“We therefore conclude that state law authorizes Peoria police to enforce the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. We firmly emphasize, however, that this authorization is limited to criminal violations. Many of the problems arising from implementation of the City’s written policies have derived from a failure to distinguish between civil and criminal violations of the Act. Several of the policy statements use the term “illegal alien,” which obscures the distinction between the civil and the criminal violations. In some instances, that term has been used by the City to mean an alien who has illegally entered the country, which is a criminal violation under section 1325. In others, it has meant an alien who is illegally present in the United States, which is only a civil violation. There are numerous reasons why a person could be illegally present in the United States without having entered in violation of section 1325. Examples include expiration of a visitor’s visa, change of student status, or acquisition of prohibited employment. Arrest of a person for illegal presence would exceed the authority granted Peoria police by state law.”

The opinion goes on to state ” nothing in federal law precluded Peoria police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Arizona law authorizes local officers to arrest for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325 where there is probable cause to believe the arrestee has illegally entered the United States. However, enforcement procedures must distinguish illegal entry from illegal presence and must comply with all arrest requirements imposed by the federal Constitution”. (emphasis added).

To answer the question asked in the headline to this article; no, Sanctuary Cities are not “legal.”  These communities are assisting individuals who are committing civil wrongs to continue to commit those acts without fear of the legal consequences of their noncompliance with United States Immigration law.  But is that illegal act the same thing as committing  a crime?  In this context, the answer is, not necessarily.
Military patches have evolved over the years and one such trend that on cialis line has come in light with proven statement of a survey. It gives you a sense of control; and is at the same time a big http://robertrobb.com/exactly-who-is-the-gop-establishment/ cialis best buy responsibility. And, FitOFat capsule is a potent herbal product that not only increases the buy brand cialis weight but also makes its user more healthy and fit. Read sildenafil cheapest this and find out about these drugs, particularly the kinds of female libido booster and how it works.
If the City of Oakland and Mayor Schaaf are protecting persons who are committing criminal acts, then both are accomplices to those crimes.  However, both the City and the Mayor insist they have no intention of aiding those committing crimes – they only intend to protect people committing the civil wrong of illegal presence.

So how does one address the situation where someone is aiding persons committing a civil wrong?

Recently, the Justice Department has brought suit against the State of California.  As described by the New York Times, California’s sanctuary city policies “reflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration law.” No doubt, Justice will be asking the Court to issue an injunction against the state and its sanctuary policies.

When someone commits a civil wrong, suing them in Court, and asking the Court to enjoin them from committing further civil wrongs is always the appropriate way to handle the illegal conduct.

It remains to be seen how the Court will rule – but in general, there can be no doubt that the old adage applies here – two wrongs (illegal presence, and a sanctuary city) do not make a “right” to remain in the United States.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Oakland Defies Washington

We are pleased to present a guest editorial by the distinguished retired jurist John Wilson

The Mayor of Oakland, California, Libby Schaaf, outraged many when she recently warned those living in Oakland that ICE was planning an enforcement action “within the next 24 hours.”    In issuing this warning, Mayor Schaaf acted in defiance of an Executive Order issued by President Trump on January 25, 2017, which empowers the “Attorney General (to) take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”

However, enforcement of the President’s Executive Order was blocked by a District Judge of the Northern District of California in November of 2017.  Justice William Orrick, an Obama appointee, ruled that the directive was “unconstitutional on its face” since the Order blocked federal funding of sanctuary cities.

Mayor Schaaf’s actions are consistent with the wishes of the City of Oakland, which declared itself a sanctuary city by a unanimous Resolution issued on November 29, 2016.  In that document, the City Council stated that they reaffirm “the declaration that Oakland is a City of Refuge for immigrants from all countries,” and that “the Oakland City Council opposes immigration raids.”

In attempting to understand the legality of Oakland’s actions, it is important to note that in its Resolution, the City Council specifically stated that “members of the Oakland Police Department, shall not enforce Federal civil immigration laws and shall not use city monies, resources or personnel to investigate, question, detect or apprehend persons whose only violation is or may be a civil violation of immigration law.”  Further, “the Oakland Police Department will continue to cooperate with Federal immigration agencies in matters involving criminal activity and the protection of public safety.”

I have highlighted the words “civil” and “criminal” to emphasize a distinction made by the Oakland City Council.  Clearly, the Council has drawn a distinction between the enforcement of “civil violations” of the immigration law, and protecting the public from “criminal activity.”

According to surrey, 90% of men have recovered impotence. viagra levitra online This indicates that age is not the ultimate goal on viagra uk it’s own. Do not put this off through embarrassment. buy levitra online The magical moves of the drug have given a hypnotizing effect on men http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/personal-property-of-the-late-janice-h-pope/ generic cialis in australia by understanding their physical troubles. But aren’t people illegally in this country violating the criminal law?  If so, then how could the City Council of Oakland legally declare itself a sanctuary city, and vow to resist “civil violation(s) of immigration law,” while pledging their cooperation with the federal authorities “in matters involving criminal activity?”

Part of the answer is actually very simple – it is not a criminal act to be in this country unlawfully.  However, whether Oakland’s Resolution is legal, is not as simple to answer.

8 USC Sec. 1325 describes the crime of “improper entry” into the United States.  This is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 6 months of incarceration, and a fine of no more than $250.  Thus, an individual actually caught entering the country illegally, such as a person observed jumping over a border wall, would be committing a misdemeanor.

However, not every illegal immigrant entered the United States illegally.  Some have overstayed their visas, or become ineligible for continued residence.  8 USC Sec. 1227 outlines the various classes of deportable and inadmissible aliens.  These include those convicted of various crimes, those who made fraudulent statements on their applications, and those involved in terrorism-related activities.

8 USC Sec. 1229 describes the penalty for being one of the classes of persons described in 8 USC Sec. 1227 – deportation after removal proceedings.  But deportation is not, and I repeat this, NOT a criminal penalty – it is a CIVIL penalty.  Thus, to put this as clearly as possible, it is a crime to enter the country illegally – but it is a civil wrong to be present in the country without proper documentation.

Truly, these are distinctions only a lawyer could love.  But if we are to understand just what those who claim to be a sanctuary city are espousing, we must understand this hair-splitting difference.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

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

Why Democrat Leaders Oppose Border Controls, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of opposition to funding the southern border wall

Arguments about the cost of the wall fail to make economic sense; cost-savings from reducing the number of illegal entries far exceeds any expenses incurred in construction. Steven Camarota describes the financial outline in a Center for Immigration Studies report:

“The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated $12 to $15 billion costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.3 While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.”

Understanding Male Erectile System To understand the working of enzyme PDE5 type the key culprit for bringing out erectile failures in their male look at here generic levitra organ. They are quite literally packed full of goodness and buy cheap levitra purchased this nutrients which help your body to perform much more efficiently, getting and keeping your body and mind fitter. The reputation of this unassuming little berry is now well known all over the planet and the demand of http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/mystery-animal/ cheapest viagra tabs is increasing worldwide. The expression on his face showed me that he buy levitra http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/waitoreke/ knew I was speaking the truth.
The answer to the puzzling opposition to border enforcement by Democrat leaders is found at the ballot box.  As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, What may seem, at first impression, to be a position counter to the Democrats own key interests comes into focus when seen through the prism of politics on a national scale.

Governing magazine points out that “Democrats went into this (2016)election controlling the governorship, Senate and House in just seven states — that was their lowest number since the Civil War, when there were 15 fewer states. Now, they control just five states.”

A National Review  study concurs.“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote. Furthermore, testimony…before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights…”

Voting in their own interests, unlawful immigrants who eventually vote, legally or otherwise, will overwhelmingly support Democrats. That is the primary reason for the opposition by Democrat party leaders to reasonable border control.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sessions Moves Against Sanctuary Cities

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

Categories
Quick Analysis

Illegal Aliens and the Rise in Violent Crime

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s review of illegal aliens and the rise in violent crime concludes today. 

Breitbart believes that the mainstream media is “working overtime to keep the American public and the American voters in the dark on the scope of illegal alien crime…Let’s look at a few numbers. You haven’t seen them in the New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, or the Miami Herald, nor have they been featured on NBC Nightly news or CNN. So, the average American is blissfully unaware of them.

  • Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
  • During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
  • That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.”

However, cost of viagra prescription when you begin to put your system under immense pressure to urinate, such is a sure sign of a bad supplier. There are different types of male enhancement pills that are designed to give patients in rural parts of cialis 5mg http://secretworldchronicle.com/about/author-larry-dixon/ southern Minnesota easier access to medication abortions.The medications – which include a pill called RU-486 – are effective for early abortion up to nine weeks after the first day of a woman’s last period, according to Planned Parenthood.The bill introduced by Sen. tadalafil 5mg no prescription However, the anti-ED medications turned the situation around. You can buy them easily using your debit or credit card and get delivered to your doorstep. viagra overnight no prescription
That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states. Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system. The numbers were the basis for a presentation at a recent New Hampshire conference sponsored by the highly respected Center for Security Policy….[One example] The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that between 2008 and 2014, 35% of all murder convictions were illegal aliens—averaging 472 murders each year from 2004 to 2008.

Peter Kirsanow, writing in National Review, writes: “ Using data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), state prison systems, and Pew, we were able to compare rates of major offenses in states with sizeable populations of illegal aliens. For example: Arizona: Approximately 240 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. This means approximately 68.57 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens in Arizona, whereas 54.06 citizens and legal residents were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses per 100,000 citizens and legal residents in Arizona. California: Approximately 2,430 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. This means approximately 97.2 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide and related offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens in California, whereas 74.1 citizens and legal residents were imprisoned for homicide and related offenses per 100,000 citizens and legal residents. Florida: Approximately 480 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. This means approximately 54.85 illegal aliens were imprisoned for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 illegal aliens in Florida, whereas approximately 67.8 legal residents were imprisoned for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 legal residents. New York: Approximately 1,350 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. This means approximately 168.75 illegal aliens were imprisoned for  murder and related offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens in the state, whereas approximately 48.12 legal residents were imprisoned for murder and related offenses per 100,000 legal residents.”

In 2015, the Daily Caller noted that “President Obama unleashed a nation-wide crime wave when he directed his deputies to release 36,007 foreign criminals back into Americans neighborhoods in 2013, instead of repatriating the criminals…”

WND notes that “Sanctuary Cities,” which help shield illegals from what little enforcement exists under the Obama Administration, exacerbate the problem:

“Laws in sanctuary cities help shield illegal immigrants from deportation, even after they’ve committed felonies. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson with “Full Measure” found the problem of the U.S. as a sanctuary for crime is much larger and often understated by politicians and advocates with special interests at stake. Families of victims say politics and political correctness have forced their personal tragedies into the shadows, while shielding the criminals…U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, investigating the issue, noted, “You’ve got an administration that thinks more highly of their interests in protecting undocumented workers than there is enforcing the law, and in the process of making that decision, violating their constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws of this country.”