Immigration Archives - Page 91 of 178

Gorsuch Defends the Rule of Law in Immigration Case

April 19, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by The Daily Signal

If you take anything away from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s so-called “liberal” bloc in an immigration case this week, it should be his continued faithfulness to the rule of law and the separation of powers.

In Sessions v. Dimaya, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s opinion—joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and in part by Gorsuch—holding that part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines a “crime of violence” for purposes of removal proceedings, is unconstitutionally vague.

Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion expressing concerns about how vague laws can lead to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.

Some media outlets and noted conservatives have suggested that Gorsuch’s opinion is surprising or misguided, ruling with the liberal justices and against the Trump administration. For example, a New York Post headline reads, “Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices in Supreme Court Immigration Vote.” And Mark Levin tweeted, “Gorsuch blows it, big time.”

Whatever you think of any immigration policies or other issues surrounding this case, one thing is clear: Gorsuch faithfully applied fundamental constitutional principles and upheld the rule of law.

In many ways, Gorsuch also carried on Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy.

Consider what the law in this case required, and what Gorsuch wrote.

The Immigration and Nationality Act

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” in the United States is subject to deportation, regardless of their ties to the country. Congress defined “aggravated felony” by a long list of specific offenses and offense types (at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)), one of which is “a crime of violence” punishable by imprisonment for at least one year.

Congress defined “crime of violence” elsewhere, in 18 U. S. C. §16, in part by stating that it includes any felony “that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Only that provision, known as the residual clause, was at issue in this case.

But in order to figure out which convictions trigger that residual clause, the court assesses the presence of “substantial risk” by looking not at the facts of the case, or the elements of the crime, but to “the ‘nature of the offense’ generally speaking,” and asks this: Does “‘the ordinary case’ of [this] offense pose[] the requisite risk”?

Immigration judges held that James Dimaya, a Philippine native and lawful permanent resident, is deportable because he was convicted—twice—of first-degree burglary under California law. The government sought to remove Dimaya after his second conviction, and immigration judges found that first-degree burglary counts as a “crime of violence” under federal law.

Dimaya appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the “residual clause” is unconstitutionally vague.

The 9th Circuit relied in part on Johnson v. United States, a 2015 opinion that the Supreme Court published while Dimaya’s appeal was pending.

In Johnson, the court struck down part of the definition of “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act on vagueness grounds.

That law increased the sentence of a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm if he had three or more previous “violent felony” convictions, which includes any felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court in that case, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Scalia concluded that the residual clause left “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime,” and further “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.” Rather than make up those aspects of the law himself, Scalia chose instead to send Congress back to the drawing board.

For that, Scalia’s opinion advanced the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Gorsuch’s Concurring Opinion

In his concurring opinion this week in Dimaya, Gorsuch provided thorough reasoning for a narrow conclusion: that “to the extent it requires an ‘ordinary case’ analysis, the portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act before us fails the fair notice test for the reasons Justice Scalia identified in Johnson.”

Gorsuch’s concern in Dimaya was, like Scalia’s in Johnson, a fundamentally conservative one: hostility to vague laws and arbitrary power.

Gorsuch wrote that “vague laws … can invite the exercise of arbitrary power … by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” Gorsuch explained:

[T]he Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.

Gorsuch gave the following examples of the confusion that results from the “ordinary case analysis”:

Does a conviction for witness tampering ordinarily involve a threat to the kneecaps or just the promise of a bribe? Does a conviction for kidnapping ordinarily involve throwing someone into a car trunk or a noncustodial parent picking up a child from daycare? These questions do not suggest obvious answers.

Because the statute “leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate,” Gorsuch wrote, “the Constitution demands more.”

And Gorsuch explained exactly why that is.

Looking to history, Gorsuch cited early American court cases and turned to the Federalist Papers for the principle that “[w]ithout an assurance that the laws supply fair notice, so much else of the Constitution risks becoming only a ‘parchment barrie[r]’ against arbitrary power.”

And Gorsuch discussed exactly how vague laws might jeopardize other constitutional rights.

“Take the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause,” Gorsuch wrote, “and consider what would be left of that requirement if the alleged crime had no meaningful boundaries.”

Finally, Gorsuch observed precisely how vague criminal laws undermine the separation of powers.

Only Congress may enact law, but if Congress writes vague statutes, Gorsuch wrote, then it leaves judges, prosecutors, and police “free to ‘condem[n] all that [they] personally disapprove and for no better reason than [they] disapprove it.’”

Thus, to “keep the separate branches within their proper spheres,” Gorsuch wrote, is “the more important aspect” of the vagueness doctrine.

And that is the most important aspect of Gorsuch’s opinion in Dimaya.

To judge how individual justices vote in particular cases in relation to one another, without regard to the substance of their opinions, unjustifiably politicizes the judiciary.

Dimaya is interesting not because of how the justices voted in relation to one another, but because of how the justices—especially Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas—debated legal history and precedent, and did so respectfully.

Yes, the other conservative justices all dissented. Roberts dissented, joined by Thomas and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, arguing that, unlike the law in Johnson, the statute at issue in this case was not vague.

Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, joined by Kennedy and Alito, challenging Gorsuch on the merits of the vagueness doctrine.

And yes, Gorsuch’s opinion is not what the government hoped for in this case.

The government had pointed to the executive’s “considerable constitutional authority” in immigration and foreign affairs but, as Gorsuch wrote, “to acknowledge that the president has broad authority to act in this general area supplies no justification for allowing judges to give content to an impermissibly vague law.”

Now, Congress can go back to the drawing board and draft a more precise law.

Gorsuch’s opinion has explained why that is a job for Congress, echoing his prior statements on the role of the judge: “to put aside their personal politics and preferences to decide cases and to follow the law and not try and make it.”

And by echoing Scalia’s opinion in Johnson, this case also illustrates how Gorsuch carries Scalia’s legacy.

COMMENTARY BY

John-Michael Seibler

John-Michael Seibler is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @JSeibler.

EDITORS NOTE: The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now. The featured image of Justice Neil Gorsuch is by Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/Newscom.

Jihadis and Drug Cartels at our Border: A nightmare on the horizon.

April 19, 2018/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Michael Cutler

The border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico must be made secure.

There is no shortage of compelling reasons why this must happen, and the sooner the better, but today, given the lunacy of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States and the globalist goals of politicians from both political parties, particularly the Democratic Party leadership, rational and reasonable thought processes have been supplanted by greed, corruption and cowardice- fear of upsetting party leaders or fear of alienating deep-pocketed campaign contributors.

Indeed, it is irrational for any leader in the United States to refuse to take whatever measures must be taken to protect America and Americans from the rampant violence, corruption and potential for terrorists to traverse that highly porous border into the United States.

Yet this is precisely the situation that exists today in the United States.

Therefore, today we will consider some of the more compelling facts that demand that, for once and for all, the U.S./Mexican border be secured.

First of all, given the unstable and volatile situation in the Middle East, particularly Syria and U.S.-led military strikes in Syria, undoubtedly Iran and radical Islamists would like to be able to carry out terror attacks within the borders of the United States.

Iran and radical Islamists have a significant presence in Latin America, therefore, all that separates them from us is the U.S./Mexican border.

On April 21, 2017 I wrote an article, Border Security Is National Security in which I referenced an April 12, 2017 Washington Times report, Sharafat Ali Khan smuggled terrorist-linked immigrants.

Khan is a citizen of Pakistan who had established himself as a permanent resident in Brazil and then smuggled numerous illegal aliens from the Middle East into the United States through Mexico. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,

Foreign national extradited and pleads guilty to human smuggling conspiracy.

That Khan first became a resident of Brazil prior to beginning his smuggling operation is of particular concern.

Terror training camps run by Hamas and Hezbollah are to be found in the Tri-Border region of Brazil (where Brazil abuts with Argentina and Paraguay). While there was no specific mention of Khan making use of those camps, given the nature of his crimes, this is a very real and troubling possibility.

It is also entirely possible that members of ISIS and al-Qaeda are present in those terror training camps.

Concerns about the Tri-Border Region were ably reported on in a paper, Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region that was published by Jeffrey Fields, Research Associate, Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Khan is hardly the only alien smuggler who was operating in Latin America and has ties to the Middle East.

In addition to the nexus between Brazil and radical Islamic training camps, Iran routinely flies its Quds Forces, also known as “Shock Troops” into Caracas Venezuela. They are not present in the the Western hemisphere for vacation.

In addition to the threats posed by Middle Eastern terrorists operating in Latin America, we need to also consider the deteriorating situation to be found in Mexico where it has been reported that last year more than 29,000 people were murdered.

On April 11, 2018 the San Diego Union-Tribune report, Studies find record violence costing Mexico billions of dollars included this excerpt:

As fighting between drug trafficking groups drives up violence in Mexico to record levels, a new study released on Wednesday measures the economic impact in 2017 at $249 billion in losses — close to 21 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Authors of the study presented at the University of San Diego say that focusing on homicides alone fails to address the broad range of factors that drive the violence, and affect the well being of Mexicans on a multitude of levels.

To bring down the violence will mean addressing issues such as corruption and the weak rule of law, the study states.

[ … ]

With more than 29,000 murders, last year was Mexico’s most violent year on record, “with the peacefulness in Mexico deteriorating by 10.7 percent,” states the institute’s study, the fifth in a series of annual reports focusing on Mexico.

The study found that the economic impact violence in 2017 “amongst the highest in the world.” The total economic impact of violence “was seven times higher than the education budget in 2017,” according to the report. “A one percent decline in the economic impact of violence would equal the federal government’s investment in activities related to science, technology and innovation last year.”

In an effort to somehow paint a less pessimistic and alarming image of the level of violence in Mexico, the report concluded with the following:

In spite of public perceptions, “Mexico’s violence is ‘average’ for the Western Hemisphere,” according to the USD study, with homicide rates well below those of smaller countries, including Belize, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, and Venezuela.

This is no comfort to be found in that last quote. A caravan of citizens of Honduras making its way north through Mexico and headed for the United States, prompted President Trump to deploy National Guard troops along the southern border to augment the U.S. Border Patrol in non-law enforcement capacity- providing support for the Border Patrol as was reported in an April 4, 2018 USA Today report, Trump keeps focus on caravan of Honduran asylum seekers headed to U.S.

It appears that the caravan of Hondurans is being egged on by the government of Honduras, consider that The Arizona Republic reported on April 12, 2018:

Although many migrants traveling in the caravan have decided to remain in Mexico, many still plan to continue on to the U.S. border and apply for asylum, especially the large number of women and children, and a small group of about 25 gay and transgender migrants.

The Honduran ambassador to Mexico, dressed in a suit, tie and dress shoes, joined the migrants in a 9-mile walk from the Honduran embassy in the Condesa neighborhood of Mexico City to the Casa de Peregrino near the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexican news media reported.

Given the totality of circumstances, the potential exists that criminals such as members of MS-13 and other such violent gangs and members of drug cartels may well infiltrate this and other such caravans.

In point of fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that terrorists from the Middle East might also seize the opportunity to infiltrate large-scale smuggling groups to gain entry into the United States, not unlike terrorists in Europe infiltrated refugee flows.

Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, the potential exists that aliens who seek asylum in the United States might actually be such criminals and/or terrorists.

This very topic was the focus of a November 21, 2013 Washington Times news report, Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming ‘credible fear.’

The report quoted Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

“It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican.

“Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their country,” he said. “However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves.”

Concerns about the lack of integrity to this system were the focus of two House Judiciary Committee hearings conducted as a result of Chairman Goodlatte’s concerns.

Of course while one of the hearings focused on how asylum abuse was overwhelming our borders, in reality, asylum abuse is overwhelming the entire immigration system throughout the entire United States of America.

Furthermore, this is not simply a matter of “asylum abuse” but of immigration fraud.

The official report that was authored by the 9/11 Commission Staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel noted on page 98:

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Those concerns are very much as relevant today as they were at the time of those hearings and at the time that the 9/11 Commission reported its findings.

What more needs to happen before our “leaders” finally act to secure that dangerous border?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders?

Asylum Fraud: Abusing America’s Compassion?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

ROAD RAGE VIDEO: Illegal alien rams a motorcyclist in Sarasota, FL

April 17, 2018/in Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

This video of a car intentionally swerving into a motorcyclist in Sarasota, Florida went viral. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) the cost to educate, incarcerate and medicate illegal aliens in the state of Florida is:

Cost Per Alien: $4,919
Annual Total Cost of Illegal Aliens: $6,290,429,108

ABC News WFTS’s Jake Peterson reported:

The driver who was involved in a motorcycle road rage incident in Sarasota on Sunday evening was arrested on Tuesday night.

Magdiel Medrano-Bonilla, 30, who police identified as an illegal immigrant, has been charged with operating a motor vehicle without a valid license and aggravated battery. His bond has been set at $20,000.

“He was following the story and he was doing everything he could to do destroy the evidence involved in this, which almost killed a motorcyclists,” said Sheriff Knight.

Knight said Medrano-Bonilla is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. ICE has placed a hold on him.

Read more.

Magdiel Medrano-Bonilla should never have been in Florida. This incident is certainly not the first and will not be the last in the Sunshine State.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

VIDEO: Examples of Serious Crimes By Illegal Aliens

Help Get E-Verify on the Florida Ballot in 2018!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of illegal alien Magdiel Medrano-Bonilla is courtesy of the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office

What to Expect as Trump Sends the National Guard to the Border

April 17, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics/by The Daily Signal

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, drew surprising praise from President Donald Trump regarding plans to send the state’s National Guard troops to the southern border.

However, Brown seems to be placing many restrictions, according to an Associated Press report Monday. The report says the anonymous federal officials told the AP that California will not allow Guard troops to fix and repair vehicles, operate remotely-controlled surveillance cameras with the Border Patrol, or provide “mission support,” which could include buying gas and handling payroll.

Still other border states, with Republican governors, are stepping up, according to the Military Times.

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez’s office said the first 80 Guard troops will arrive this week. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey was expected to deploy 300. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has said he wants to send 300 troops a week and wind up with 1,000 on the border.

Brown previously had exchanged harsh words with Trump in signing a sanctuary state law to protect illegal immigrants and opposing most of the administration’s initiatives to enforce immigration law.

But Brown drew thanks from Trump after the Democrat committed to sending 400 National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.

States were reporting an initial force total of 529 National Guard personnel as of Thursday to support Southwest border operations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Governors have committed to more troops.

States reportedly committed to about 2,000 National Guard troops at the border, about halfway to Trump’s goal of 4,000 troops. Defense Secretary James Mattis said the troops would be covered by the Defense Department budget but remain under the authority of their governors.

That goal of 4,000 Guard troops is fewer than President George W. Bush sent to the border, but more than President Barack Obama sent.

Brown previously wrote a letter stating the state’s refusal to enforce federal immigration laws and to oppose construction of a border wall, but didn’t provide the level of details in the AP story on Monday.

Using the National Guard isn’t ideal, but is one way to address a border crisis, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates securing the border and enforcing immigration law.

“They will be in a supportive role, and that frees up the Border Patrol to do their jobs on the front lines,” Mehlman told The Daily Signal. “It’s a stop-gap measure. When you call up the National Guard to defend the border, it means you should have done more to prevent illegal immigration to begin with.”

Mehlman said he is glad Brown isn’t resisting on deploying the National Guard, but that the California governor is taking too little action.

“Jerry Brown is sending National Guard troops, but he should have done a lot more in cutting off the incentives for people to cross the border illegally,” Mehlman said.

The Trump administration hasn’t laid out the cost, but past deployments of the Guard could offer an idea.

Cost and Benefits for Bush and Obama

Bush’s Operation Jump Start involved 6,000 National Guard troops on the border from June 2006 to July 2008, and cost taxpayers $1.2 billion, according to a Government Accountability Office report in 2011.

Obama’s Operation Phalanx, from July 2010 to June 2011, put 1,200 Guard troops on the border and cost taxpayers $35 million.

Under Bush, the Guard assisted in 11.7 percent of the captures of 186,814 illegal immigrants and 9.4 percent of the 316,364 pounds of marijuana seized, according to the GAO.

Under Obama, the Guard assisted in 5.9 percent of the captures of 17,887 illegal immigrants and 2.6 percent of the 56,342 pounds of marijuana seized.

“What happened under Bush and Obama actually did work and had a deterrent effect,” James Carafano, vice president for national security and foreign policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“People aren’t stupid,” Carafano said. “This frees up the CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection]. It’s not a permanent solution. But it’s a deterrence and is part of a larger strategy. The president has said no DACA, no more loopholes, and is calling for workplace enforcement.”

Carafano said he doubted the Trump administration’s operation would have a significant effect on the military budget.

There are notable differences, Steven P. Bucci, a former top Pentagon official who is a visiting research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview.

“Today, the crisis is less well defined, although People Without Borders has promised continued marches with the intent of ‘busting’ our border,” Bucci said. “There is also a steady stream of illegal alien crossings estimated at 1,000 a day. Not the huge numbers of the earlier periods, but not a trickle either.”

The costs could be significantly different, Bucci said:

Another difference is that during Operation Jump Start, the Bush-era operation, we had much lower levels of Border Patrol agents and much less infrastructure/tech. The force-multiplier effect then was larger than we could expect today. Combined with the fewer border crossings than in 2006, the bang for your buck would be lower today.

Additionally, the military today is significantly underfunded and has been for years. Funding the entire thing with Defense Department money will be a serious drain on a budget that got its first chance at health only recently. If the operation drags on too long, this could be a detriment to our overall national defense.

The National Border Patrol Council, the union for Border Patrol agents, supports having deployment of National Guard troops at the border. But in 2014, the union questioned the effectiveness of a plan pushed by Republican lawmakers.

Governors Responding

Before Brown committed California to the effort, the Associated Press reportedthat other border state governors had committed 1,600 National Guard troops.

Governors of nonborder states, including the Republican governors of Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina, have suggested that their National Guard would be called up for assistance.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican whose state has a large immigrant population, reportedly said he hasn’t been asked.

Texas’ Abbott, a Republican, committed to 250 Guard troops in the first phase of the Trump administration’s action.

Arizona’s Ducey, a Republican, announced he would deploy 225 Guard troops.

New Mexico’s Martinez, a Republican, committed 250 troops.

In a recent poll, a plurality of those surveyed, 48 percent, said they support sending National Guard troops to the border, compared to 42 percent who said they oppose it and 9 percent with no opinion.

COMMENTARY BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of troops meeting April 12 with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott at the National Guard armory in far south Texas as they prepare to deploy to the border with Mexico. The soldiers will play a supporting role to federal Border Patrol agents and state troopers. (Photo: Bob Daemmrich/Polaris/Newscom)

Minnesota: Another Somali migrant arrested, this time it’s a plot to bomb the St. Cloud City Hall

April 15, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

However, perhaps more interesting is the lack of mention of the arrested man’s name, a critical omission in the first St. Cloud Times version of the story.

Apparently, only after a local radio station posts his pic and names him, did the politically correct St. Cloud Times bother to report that vital information.

Mayor welcomes Somalis, so why would they want to bomb city hall?

Remember when you read this first account on the 11th, which quotes the great defender of all things Somali, Mayor Kleis, that this office ostensibly targeted for a bomb, is the very office that is silent on anything relating to crimes involving Somalis the office welcomes to St. Cloud with open arms.

The “suspect” (the man) had already been arrested when the St. Cloud Times said this (hat tip: Bob):

Law enforcement has taken a suspect into custody in connection with a bomb threat at St. Cloud City Hall, according to authorities.

St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis

Mayor Kleis: no threat to the public

Officers responded to city hall at approximately 10 a.m., according to a press release, and conducted a K9 search of the building.

Mayor Dave Kleis said the building was searched after an individual “posted threatening comments and made statements about a bomb in St. Cloud.”

[….]

Officers found the suspect on St. Cloud State University’s campus at 110 Atwood Center. The suspect is not enrolled as a student there, according to the release.

Local investigators are working with the FBI, according to Kleis, on the active investigation. The area where the man was found was also searched, according to a press release. No suspicious items were found.

The suspect is being held in the Stearns County Jail in connection with charges of terroristic threats.

However, here we see that KNSI radio reported the arrested ‘man’s’ name and picture.

Listen to the nutty story the man’ is telling investigators.

(KNSI) – A man who says he felt he was being radicalized is accused of making a bomb threat that referenced St. Cloud’s city hall.

Abdalle Ahmed Ege

According to the criminal complaint, Abdalle Ahmed Ege, of St. Cloud, posted on his Facebook page “Im bouta bomb this town” on Wednesday morning.

Police found a duffel bag next to a gas can outside city hall. Investigators say the duffel bag contained Ege’s personal items. Police found no explosives when they searched the building.

According to the complaint, the 25-year-old told police that he was being radicalized and posted the threat on Facebook to get attention from the FBI.

He has been charged with two felony counts of making terroristic threats.

A couple hours later the St. Cloud Times got around to publishing his name and photo, see here.

So we are to believe that Ege wanted to get the FBI’s attention to what?—protect him from being radicalized! Why not just walk in to a local police station and describe what you think someone is doing to you. This is nuts, or he is nuts (a distinct possibility!).

We don’t know when Ege arrived in the US, but just know that mental illness is not a reason the feds use to screen out prospective refugees to place in your towns and cities.

See my ginormous St. Cloud archive by clicking here.

Reinforcing our National Guard at the Border: The steps that must be taken to really stop illegal entries…

April 11, 2018/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Michael Cutler

President Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to the U.S./Mexico border to provide support to the U.S. Border Patrol is not unprecedented. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama also sent unarmed National Guard troops to the southern border.

While the administration has yet to fully explain how the troops will assist the beleaguered Border Patrol agents, it is to be presumed that the National Guard personnel will also be unarmed and not directly involved in the interdiction and apprehension of aliens attempting to enter the United States surreptitiously without inspection.

Of course anything that can be done to free up Border Patrol agents from activities that distract them from their primary mission of securing the border are welcome, but we must understand that these national guard troops will not, by themselves, seal that problematic border.

Once again attention has been drawn, virtually exclusively, to the need to secure the southern border of the United States. Make no mistake, that border must be secured, however, the need to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States has always been ignored. We will consider interior enforcement shortly.

The justification for President Trump’s decision to deploy those National Guard troops was reported in an April 8, 2018 ABC News report, Trump adviser cites ‘alarming’ 200 percent increase in attempted US-Mexico border crossings.

Here is how the article reported on the underlying circumstances:

“It’s alarming. It’s an over 200 percent increase and we’re talking about apprehending over 50,000 people attempting to cross our border in one month,” White House homeland security and counterterrorism adviser Tom Bossert told ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and co-anchor Martha Raddatzon “This Week” Sunday.

The increase in March 2018 over the same month the year before paints a different picture than other figures from the Department of Homeland Security that show the number of people caught crossing the border illegally in 2017 was the lowest since 1971.

We can only speculate as to why the number of apprehensions has exploded as compared with the arrest statistics from the previous months.

One possible factor may be President Trump’s contradictory statements about how he would deal with DACA aliens, holding out the possibility that aliens who had not been processed but who claim to meet the requirements for participation in this illegal program may have convinced large numbers of individuals from around the world that if they can somehow enter the United States, especially without inspection, where no record is created of their admission, they could then easily falsely claim to have been present in the United States for years just days after actually entering the United States.

The number of such illegal aliens would be so great that no interviews and no field investigations could be routinely conducted in an effort to uncover fraud. Under such circumstances as the number of aliens who successfully game the overwhelmed bureaucracy increases, even more illegal aliens would be emboldened to submit similarly fraud-laden applications, thereby creating a vicious cycle of ever-increasing numbers of applications forcing the adjudications officers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to process more applications in the least amount of time possible.

An application can be approved in minutes while a denial may require days. It must be presumed that an alien whose application is denied will file an appeal.

The denial of an application often requires a field investigation be conducted and a formal report of that investigation be completed by the investigator. The adjudications officer must then prepare a formal denial that will have to be reviewed by a government attorney to make certain it meets minimum standards of legal sufficiency to justify that denial.

Often no investigators are available to conduct that essential field investigation leaving adjudicators no choice but to approve applications that should not be approved.

This undermines the integrity of the system thereby undermining national security.

Indeed, immigration fraud and the overall lack of integrity of the immigration system were cited by the 9/11 Commission as the key means by which terrorists have entered the United States and embedded themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

Concerns about immigration fraud was the focus of my article, Immigration Fraud – Lies That Kill.

Of course the number of Border Patrol arrests along the U.S./Mexican border don’t provide a comprehensive assessment of the true number of illegal aliens present in the United States or who are seeking to enter the United States.

A couple of years ago when I was a guest on Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News, Neil attempted to draw the conclusion that when border arrests are down there are fewer illegal aliens entering the United States. I told Neil that to attempt to determine the number of illegal aliens present in the United States purely on the basis of Border Patrol arrests is comparable to taking attendance by asking people not present to raise their hands.

Not all illegal aliens enter the United States by entering the United States without inspection from Mexican and Canada. Some stowaway on ships while others enter the United States via the lawful entry process conducted at America’s hundreds of ports of entry, particularly international airports, and then, in one way or another, violate the terms of their admission.

For nonimmigrant (temporary) visitors this may involve overstaying their temporary authorized period of admission, working illegally, or otherwise violating their terms of admission.

Aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence become subject to deportation (removal) when they commit crimes.

In November 2001, just weeks after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, I testified before the House Immigration Reform Caucus about failures of the immigration system that enabled the terrorists to enter the United States and hide in plain sight as they went about their deadly preparations. My prepared statement for that hearing was subsequently submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record by Caucus Chairman Tom Tancredo.

My testimony included the recommendation that Congress and the administration conceptualize effective immigration law enforcement as standing on an “Immigration Enforcement Tripod” and that each leg of that tripod must be of equal length.

Under this concept, the Immigration Inspectors (today they are referred to as Customs and Border Protection inspectors) enforce the immigration laws at ports of entry.

The U.S. Border Patrol enforces the immigration laws from between ports of entry and finally, the Immigration Special Agents- now known as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents) comprise the third leg of that enforcement tripod and enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

This critical leg of the tripod is not only responsible for arresting illegal aliens but also deter many aliens from entering illegally.

ICE agents also investigate employers who may hire illegal aliens and ICE agents also participate in various task forces such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force.

ICE agents and also conduct investigations into immigration fraud, a key vulnerability.

The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel included these paragraphs:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

[ … ]

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

More recently, consider how the Tsarnaev family was granted political asylum, claiming “credible fear” that they could not go back to their native Russia and then, upon being granted asylum, voluntarily boarded airliners for Russia. The two Tsarnaev brothers went on to launch the deadly terror attack on the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

For decades, this third leg of the immigration enforcement tripod has been much shorter and weaker than the other legs of this tripod and, I would argue, this has been intentional.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce exerts extraordinary influence in Washington. Without an adequate number of ICE agents, employers who violate the immigration laws go undiscovered and unpunished. Additionally, all too many politicians from both parties are globalists and all too many members of Congress are lawyers. Some, in fact, are immigration lawyers who don’t see illegal aliens as a problem but as clients for their friends, or, perhaps for themselves when they leave Congress and resume their legal practices.

Effective enforcement of immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is as important as securing our nation’s borders to solve the immigration crisis.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

VIDEO: It’s Anti-American to Want Open Borders

April 7, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Michael Cutler

My appearance on Dana’s excellent program was predicated by President Trump ordering members of the National Guard to back up U.S. Border Patrol agents along the U.S./Mexican border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico.

I addressed some of those other concerns during my conversation with Dana- I hope you will watch the video!

Of course, as I have stated repeatedly, while that dangerous border must be secured, it only represents one component of a immigration system upon which depends national security, public safety and the overall wellbeing of America and Americans.

Ignorance is not bliss. Knowledge is power so my article provides some cold hard facts for you to consider and hopefully share with others.

Being “Pro-Enforcement” is not “Anti-Immigrant.”

Indeed, advocates for immigration anarchy are actually taking an “Anti-Immigrant” position by obfuscating the line that separates lawful immigrants from illegal aliens. To provide a bit of clarity, while we are indeed a “Nation of immigrants” America is not a nation of trespassers. The difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Americans must be willing to stand their ground and not be intimidated by the false accusations- far too much hangs in the balance! We must speak out against mayors and governors who create “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States.”

Many people have come to complain that we have become too “Politically Correct” to speak the truth about important issues. My view is that the artful use of language that has been described as examples of political correctness are in fact, examples of Orwellian “Newspeak.”

Having invoked George Orwell, it is appropriate to consider a couple of his brilliant quotes:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Border Walls – Israel and The United States.

INS Senior Special Agent, Michael Cutler, (Ret). on Immigration Issues – The Daily Ledger.

Time is Running Out: Sign the Floridian’s For E-Verify Petition Now!

April 7, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by George R. Fuller

I have written several messages about Congress and the Florida Legislature’s failure to make mandatory E-Verify law so all workers are legal. In response to their failure to act hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are attending our schools and undercutting legal workers for jobs. Seven Southern states have passed and implemented mandatory E-Verify so illegal aliens looking for work are coming to Florida. The Taxpayer cost last year alone to educate, medicate and incarcerate them was an outrageous $6,300,000,000.00 ($6.3 BILLION).

We are fed up by their inaction so we decided to go around them and get the measure to make mandatory E-Verify an amendment to the Florida Constitution. The Commission which only meets once every 20 years will decide very shortly whether to put it on the November Ballot or not so we need your help!

Please go to the below link and sign the Floridian’s For E-Verify petition showing you support the amendment getting on the November 2018 ballot.

floridiansforeverifynow.org/petition

Has the Republican Controlled Florida Legislature Protected Florida’s Legal Workers?

April 5, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by George R. Fuller

Answer: NO!

Before I show you the proof let me give you some background information. Back in 2007 I joined with a group of Patriots out of South Florida looking to find a solution to end the invasion by illegal aliens to Florida.

The consensus we reached was the invasion would stop if we could get mandatory E-Verify passed into law so only legal workers could get jobs. Any reasonable person would say that should be doable. In 2007 the cost to taxpayers at that time to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens was $1,850,000,000.00 ($1.85 Billion).

We began attending meetings, sending emails and letters to the Florida Legislators to get mandatory E-Verify passed. In 2010 Rick Scott, a successful Businessman, ran for governor.

We backed him 100% since he stated:

“We have over 700,000 illegal immigrants in the state. They’re costing us billions of dollars, and they’re taking legal residents’ jobs.”

“Rick will require all Florida employers to use the free E-Verify system to ensure that their workers are legal.”

Immediately after taking office Governor Scott ordered all state offices to use E-Verify in dealing with State contractors but was silent about his campaign promise to protect legal workers. However:

On June 12, 2012 Governor Scott stated at a meeting of the Florida Citrus Mutual in Bonita Springs,

“Now, with the regard to E-Verify, as you know we did it for people who do business with state government but we’ve got to have a national E-Verify program because I don’t want to put Florida businesses at a competitive disadvantage.”
Scott lied to Florida’s voters!

Since then two bills regarding immigration have passed into law. One was to give illegal aliens instate tuition and the second was to allow an illegal alien passed the bar exam to practice law in Florida.

Last year the cost to Taxpayers educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens was $6,300,000,000.00 ($6.3 Billion), more than triple the cost in 2007.

Here is a list of all the failed legislation for the past ten years. Please keep in mind during that time the republicans have held super majorities in both houses and could pass any legislation they wanted.