Tag: Secure Communities

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 111^th 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.”

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.

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.