illegal aliens and crime – USA Gov Policy

It is one of the strangest episodes in American history: a number of cities, and some states, have decided to protect illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes.

A typical example is California, where SB54 made that jurisdiction a “Sanctuary State” in which local law enforcement will not cooperate with the federal government in Washington’s attempt to seize illegal aliens lawbreakers. As then-acting ICE director Tom Homan said at the time of passage (in 2017), “SB54 will negatively impact ICE operations in California by nearly eliminating all cooperation and communication with our law enforcement partners in the state… and prohibiting local law enforcement from contracting with the federal government to house detainees.”

The following year, New York City followed California’s example. h The results, unfortunately, were predictable. According to Scott Mechowski, ICE acting field office director: “In just three months, more than three dozen criminal aliens were released from local custody. Simply put, the politics and rhetoric in this city are putting its own communities at an unnecessary risk.”

The result of this odd experiment in political correctness have now been clearly spelled out in an ICE study. We provide key excerpts:

Immigration, Citizenship, And The Federal Justice System, 1998-2018

This… report highlights trends from 1998 through 2018, providing statistics on immigration and non-immigration offenses, U.S.-Mexico border and non-U.S.-Mexico-border districts, and country of citizenship. The findings are based on data collected by BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), which receives administrative data from six federal justice agencies: the U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. The FJSP links and standardizes this information, enabling the production of statistics not available elsewhere.

Highlights:

Based on fiscal years—

In 1998, 63% of all federal arrests were of U.S. citizens; in 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-U.S. citizens.
Non-U.S. citizens, who make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018.
The portion of total federal arrests that took place in the five judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border almost doubled from 1998 (33%) to 2018 (65%).
Ninety-five percent of the increase in federal arrests across 20 years was due to immigration offenses.
In 2018, 90% of suspects arrested for federal immigration crimes were male; 10% were female.

Nerves are viagra pharmacy damaged by high level of glucose in the blood may come to lower. A person who experiences codependency gets their self-worth from sources other than sildenafil india themselves. Those who are conscious about using such medication ever when they have a doctor’s approval may like to research viagra pill about these drugs on the internet, for their satisfaction effectiveness. This is something that may easily be avoided by keeping blood sugar levels well controlled three to six months before you become pregnant. lowest priced viagra

I n 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-U.S. citizens. In comparison, 37% of all federal arrests in 1998 were of non-U.S. citizens. Federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens more than tripled from 1998 to 2018 (rising 234%), while federal arrests of U.S. citizens rose 10%.

Citizenship: While non-U.S. citizens make up 7% of the U.S. population (per the U.S. Census Bureau for 2017), they accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018.

Non-U.S. citizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests and 25% of all federal property arrests, including 28% of all federal fraud arrests.

Citizenship by Country: The country of citizenship of persons arrested by federal law enforcement changed notably over time. From 1998 to 2018, Mexican citizens’ share of federal arrests rose from 28% to 40%. Citizens of Central American countries’ share of federal arrests rose from 1% to 20% during the same period, while U.S. citizens’ share of federal arrests fell from 63% to 36%.

The border and immigration: From 1998 to 2018, the portion of all federal arrests that took place in the five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border (out of a total of 94 judicial districts nationwide) almost doubled, increasing from 33% to 65%. In 2018, a quarter of all federal drug arrests took place in these five districts. Across 20 years, 95% of the increase in federal arrests was due to immigration crimes. Federal immigration arrests from 1998 to 2018 increased 5-fold (from 20,942 to 108,667). Prosecutions Of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 57% were U.S. citizens and 43% were non-U.S. citizens. Almost all (99.7%) of the non-U.S. citizens prosecuted in U.S. district court were prosecuted for something other than first-time illegal entry. The five crime types for which non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were illegal reentry (72% of prosecutions), drugs (13%), fraud (4.5%), alien smuggling (4%), and misuse of visas (2%)

Photo: ICE

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two part review of the role of illegal aliens in the recent increase in violent crime.

There is evidence that the Obama Administration’s decision not to deport illegal immigrants who have broken the law is responsible for a noteworthy portion of violent crime.

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government recently noted, the sharp downturn in violent crime since the 1990’s has started to reverse itself. Violent crime and homicide increased by about 10% in 2015.

The Brennan Center found that murder in 2015 increased by about 14 percent, with just three cities — Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. — responsible for half that increase. The Brennan Center also projects another 13.1% increase in 2016. “Nationally, the murder rate is projected to increase 31.5 percent from 2014 to 2016 …”

Despite the positions taken by those opposed to the Second Amendment, “loose” gun laws do not appear to be a factor. WND notes that that a “common denominator” of cities where murder rose by over 13% is that they impose strict gun control laws. It has been noted by a pro Second Amendment source that “More people were murdered in strict gun-control Chicago from 2001 to 2013 than the total number of U.S. military killed in Afghanistan since 2001 or killed in Iraq since 2003.”

One factor that should not be overlooked is the role of violent illegal immigrants. According to a United Nations study, “The global average homicide rate stands at 6.2 per 100,000 population, but Southern Africa and Central America have rates over four times higher than that (above 24 victims per 100,000 population), making them the sub-regions with the highest homicide rates on record, followed by South America, Middle Africa and the Caribbean.” The wave of illegal immigrants comes heavily from Central America.

The Congressional Research Service has found that Gang-related violence has been particularly acute in El Salvador, Honduras, and urban areas in Guatemala, contributing to some of the highest homicide rates in the world. Congress has maintained an interest in the effects of gang-related crime and violence on governance, citizen security, and investment in Central America. Congress has examined the role that gang-related violence has played in fueling mixed migration flows, which have included asylum seekers, by families and unaccompanied alien children (UAC) to the United States.

According to the FBI Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, continues to expand its influence in the United States. FBI investigations reveal that it is present in almost every state and continues to grow its membership, now targeting younger recruits more than ever before.

The 2015 report of the National Gang Intelligence Center notes that “Based on survey analysis and reporting from federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement over the past two years, the NGIC provides the following assessments:

Approximately half of respondents report street gang membership and gangrelated crime increased in their jurisdictions. The most prevalent crimes street gangs commit are street-level drug trafficking, large-scale drug trafficking, assault, threats and intimidation, and robbery. Street gangs exhibit few indicators of decreasing membership or criminal activity. Neighborhood-based gangs remain the most significant threat, while national level street gangs have a moderate-to-high impact in approximately half of reporting jurisdictions.
Approximately one-third of jurisdictions report an increase in threats to law enforcement. The attacks that were carried out against law enforcement and judicial officials over the past two years were violent and brazen. However, the number of actual attacks against law enforcement remained relatively stable.
Over 68 percent of survey respondents indicate prison gang membership has increased over the past two years. The greatest threat of prison gangs lies in their nexus to street gangs and in their ability to corrupt prison officials. Corruption of prison staff threatens various prison systems by facilitating the smuggling practices of inmates. Respondents rate drugs, cell phones, and weapons as the contraband prison gangs most commonly smuggle. Prison gangs engage in a host of other crimes to further their criminal objectives. The most commonly reported crimes include smuggling of contraband, assault, racketeering, extortion, murder, robbery, witness intimidation, and prostitution. Prison gangs also exploit Freedom of Religion rights and rely on female counterparts to facilitate gang activity.
Larger OMGs have established new chapters and have attracted many new members. The surge in membership has incited clashes for geographic dominance, which has created higher levels of violence. OMGs continue to engage in all types of violent crimes to include: weapons possession, threats and intimidation, assault, arson, extortion, and drug trafficking. OMGs have a notorious reputation for their use of violence and often employ brute force to exact punishment on rival gangs and on their own members. OMGs mainly recruit motorcycle enthusiasts and members of the US biker community. Some larger OMGs require smaller motorcycle gangs or sport bike clubs to wear a support patch and demand monthly payments in exchange for the patch. OMGs rely on support clubs for recruitment purposes, financial support, and to counter rival gangs. Gangs continue to foster partnerships with MTCOs. Survey respondents identified more than 96 gangs involved in crossborder crimes. Sureños, Barrio Azteca, and Tango Blast rank as the top three most criminally active gangs along the US/Mexico Border, while the Sinaloa Cartel emerges as the MTCO with the most gang ties. Despite intelligence to support gang/ MTCO partnerships, the exact nature of these relationships remains unclear. Drug trafficking is the cross-border crime gangs most frequently commit.
Approximately 26 percent of jurisdictions and 44 percent of prison facilities report that gang members joined domestic extremist groups. A mutually beneficial arrangement, extremists use gangs to spread their doctrine, while gangs turn to extremists to increase membership and facilitate collaboration with other criminal organizations. Gangs also refer to extremist ideology to respond to perceived injustices and to enact social change.
Survey respondents indicate that over the past two years known or suspected gang members from over 100 jurisdictions have applied for positions or gained employment with the US military, law enforcement agencies, corrections facilities, and within the judiciary. Employment with the US military ranked as the most common, followed by corrections, law enforcement, and the judiciary.
Approximately 15 percent of respondents report that gangs in their jurisdiction engage in human trafficking. According to law enforcement reporting, gang involvement in sex trafficking has increased over the past two years. This is likely a significant underestimation, as sex trafficking is often underreported for two reasons: victims fail to report due to shame or fear; and misclassification of gang involved cases, where the offense is cited as prostitution, as opposed to sex trafficking. Gangs that partake in sex trafficking and prostitution crimes typically collaborate with other criminal organizations in order to maximize profit and evade detection from law enforcement.
Social media and other forms of technology play an essential role in the illicit activities of gang members. Gangs use a number of sites, applications, and platforms to recruit prospects, facilitate communication, target rivals, and to thwart law enforcement efforts. Over the past two years, gang members’ utilization of technology, social media in particular, has risen significantly, enabling gangs to more readily further their criminal objectives. Nearly all jurisdictions report gang member use of technology, most frequently citing Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Technology is also playing an increasingly pivotal role in police investigations and anti-gang efforts. Over 54 percent of agencies report integrating social media into their gang investigations within the past two years.”

https://pdxcommercial.com/property/740-82nd-drive-gladstone/ cialis without prescription The pharmacy, which specializes in offering generic drugs at affordable price and fast delivery is ensured. It actively probes and expels vascular deposits fat and calcium. pfizer viagra price Where these sensations occur naturally depends upon the condition and type of sexual https://pdxcommercial.com/order-6346 buy levitra line issue person suffering from. Overcoming Impotence Sildenafil Citrate is the first remedy, which almost every man purchase generic viagra thinks about while facing impotence.

The report concludes tomorrow.

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.