Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative

/in , , , , , , /by

We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Retired Anti-Gun Justice Reveals Attempts to Thwart Landmark Heller Decision

Engineering Professor Shares Thoughts on Constitutional Law, Calls for Handgun Ban

House Democrats Outline Gun Control Agenda for 116th Congress

Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

EXCLUSIVE: Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search

/in , , , , , /by
  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures.

(Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)

Sundar Pichai, C.E.O., Google Inc. speaks onstage during the 2018 New York Times Dealbook on November 1, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

WATCH:

Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

COLUMN BY

Peter Hasson | Reporter

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

RELATED ARTICLE: Google Search Labels Republican Women ‘Enablers’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission from The Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

African-American Conservatives Lobby Senators In Favor Of ‘First Step Act’

/in , , , , , /by

Reporters from The Daily Caller spent some time with a group of African-American conservatives Wednesday, following them as they visited Senate offices lobbying for a bill that aims to take the “first step” toward overhauling America’s criminal justice system.

The “First Step Act,” which passed easily in the House of Representatives last summer, would roll back some of the initiatives of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act —also known as the “Clinton Crime Bill.” Most importantly for its supporters, the bill intends to combat recidivism, which is the rate at which released prisoners return to criminal behavior.

If passed, the bill would allow some people in federal prisons to earn “good-time credit,” which would set them up for early release if they participate in programs which allow them to demonstrate improved behavior and preparation for life on the outside. The bill would lead to the release of an additional 3,900 prisoners in the first year of its implementation, according to estimates.

The group of mostly black conservatives met with Republican Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They also found their way into the offices of a few other senators, not all of whom were available to meet with them.

Candace Owens leads a group of African-American conservatives in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, Nov. 28

Candace Owens and Gianno Caldwell lead a group of African-American conservatives in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, Nov. 28, as they lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

Among them were prominent young conservatives like Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk and Gianno Caldwell, each of whom spoke to The Daily Caller about why they are so passionate about ensuring the bill’s passage.

“It’s worked in Texas, it’s worked in Louisiana, it’s worked in other states,” Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA, said of the proposed reforms in the bill. “It’s in some ways an atypical issue for conservatives to be taking on, but that’s what I love most about [President Donald Trump], is that he’s willing to take on issues that are traditionally not always being taken on.”

“I don’t think anyone can make the argument that our prison system works, that somehow the prison system is working exactly how it should,” Kirk continued. “Once people leave prison, they’re much more likely to commit crimes after that. We as conservatives are worried about the financial burden that has on our society. We’re worried about societal burden. Obviously, we care a lot about freedom and we care a lot about justice and things like that, but it doesn’t help anyone when prisoners have the high recidivism rates that they have.”

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office Wednesday, Nov. 28 to lobby in favor of the "First Step Act"

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

Candace Owens, who is also a part of Turning Point USA, has advocated prominently for conservative principles in the black community. She was often at the head of the group Wednesday, as they went from office to office in various Senate buildings. (RELATED: Twitter Suspends Candace Owens — Then Says It Was An Error After Backlash)

“[Criminal justice reform] is one of the biggest issues in the black community, without question,” Owens said. “Every single one of us [in this group] has a family member that has served prison sentences. I know I certainly have. I have multiple family members that have served prison sentences. And we’ve all been outspoken black conservatives.”

“We’ve taken a lot of heat because of that,” Owens claimed.

“I personally spent time speaking to inmates down in the correctional facility in Tallahassee, Florida,” she continued. “They all say the same thing: If the system was not punitive, and instead was rehabilitative, we would see a difference in our recidivism rates.”

When asked what impact she believes passing bills like this will have on attracting minorities to the Republican Party, Owens said, “This is it. I think what we’re realizing is that Republicans don’t know how to approach the black community. They don’t know how. For so long they have handed the reins over to the Left and the Republicans have been falsely accused of racism. They don’t even know how to enter into the black community. This is it. This would be a major win if it passed, and it would allow them to knock on doors and broker conversations with our community.”

“And Republicans have all the power right now to deliver it,” Owens maintained. “So it’s something that hits close to home. And it’s something that feels like it’s within our control to actually implement.”

Gianno Caldwell, a political consultant and analyst, has been working for half a decade on issues of criminal justice reform. “This is something that is very impactful for me because it statistically impacts literally every member of the black community,” he said.

“In 2014, there were 6.8 million people within the prison system — and when I say ‘prison system,’ I’m talking about federal prisons, state prisons, jails and on parole. And of those 6.8 million — which, as you know, is the largest population in the world under the corrections system — 34 percent of those folks are African-American, or 2.3 million.”

“So statistically, it impacts every African-American in this country. So certainly, knowing what happened with the effects of the ’94 crime bill, I think that we absolutely have to take opportunities like these with the First Step Act — the literal first step, in terms of reversing those very draconian effects from that bill.”

“I think we can do more, but even changes like this — which some people are saying are modest— I think have a very large effect and impact on not just the black community, but those who want second chances across the country. So this is a great opportunity to start the work and hopefully, at some point after, continue the work.”

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office on Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the "First Step Act".

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office on Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

This bill would also allow judges to insert their own discretion into certain cases in order to circumvent mandatory minimums. Since having passed in the House, it has stalled in the Senate — but recently picked up steam after receiving the president’s endorsement. 

Despite widespread bipartisan support, the bill still faces opposition from both liberals and conservatives. Referring to it as the “jailbreak bill,” critics on the Right worry that the bill would release dangerous criminals into the general population. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton made such a case in a column for National Review, saying that it “goes against core conservative principles,” and allows for the early release of “violent felons.”

Critics on the Left argue that the law doesn’t go far enough, because it only affects the federal prison population. The number of inmates in federal prisons comprise only 183,000 of the nation’s 1.5 million inmates.

The First Step Act is currently not set for a vote, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is under pressure to bring it to the floor. Supporters believe they have the 60 votes necessary to send the bill to the president’s desk.

COLUMN BY

Jon Brown and William Davis | Contributor

Follow Jon Brown on Twitter. Follow William Davis on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Opinion: Prison Reform Is A Major Achievement For President Trump

Pro-Trump Pastor Calls On Republican Senators To Pass Criminal Justice Bill, This Is Why

Diamond & Silk Say Democrats Are ‘The Real Racists,’ Talk About Their New ‘Dummycrats’ Documentary In Exclusive Interview

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission from The Daily Caller.

VIDEO: Northwestern University Teaches Students To Fight Shooters With Hole Punchers

/in , , , , , /by

NRATV Frontlines correspondent and veteran Army Ranger Chuck Holton joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

Debunking 3 Myths About Trump Border Enforcement

/in , , , , /by

The mainstream media and Democrats have criticized the Trump administration’s response to the migrant caravans storming the nation’s southern border.

However, many of the critiques either don’t provide full context or are factually incorrect, based on information released Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are three narratives that the Department of Homeland Security is pushing back against:

1. Separating Myth From Fact on Child Separation

The long-running narrative has been that Border Patrol officials are separating children from parents. However, that doesn’t take into account fraudulent families, DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman noted in a statement.

From April 19 to Sept. 30, the government separated a total of 507 illegal immigrants within “family units” that weren’t legitimate, meaning the adults were not parents or guardians of the children, Waldman said.

A total of 170 family units were separated based on lack of family relation, she said, including 197 adults and 139 juveniles.  Another 87 family units, including 171 adults, were separated based on a child determined to be over 18.

The Rio Grande Valley in Texas had the highest number of reported fraudulent cases.

“In response to the misreporting from multiple outlets, I wanted to highlight the rampant fraud taking place at our Southern border,” Waldman said in the statement. “Aliens know that if they bring any minor with them, they will be apprehended by Border Patrol and released into the interior of the United States.”

She clarified, however, that the department isn’t claiming all cases are fraudulent.

“This data does not show, nor does DHS assert, that all minors apprehended as part of a family unit are illegitimate, but it does indicate that there is a significant problem that provides DHS the needed authority to protect the best interests and welfare of all children,” Waldman said.

The separation policy was based on a culmination of court decisions and legislation since the 1990s.

In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into something called the Flores Settlement Agreement, which ended a class-action lawsuit first brought in the 1980s.

The settlement established a policy that the federal government would release unaccompanied minors from custody to their parents, relatives, or other caretakers after no more than 20 days, or, alternatively, determine the “least restrictive” setting for the child.

In a separate development, in 2008, a Democrat-controlled Congress approved bipartisan legislation to combat human trafficking, and President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed it into law.

Section 235(g) of that law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, states that unaccompanied minors entering the United States must be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, rather than to the Department of Homeland Security.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit expanded the Flores settlement in 2016 to include children brought to the country illegally by their parents.

2. Tear-Gassing Children

The caravan still moving toward the U.S.-Mexico border includes 8,500 migrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Media outlets and Democratic politicians seized on children being among the migrants bearing the brunt of tear gas deployed Sunday along the California border, when hundreds of the migrants rushed the border.

Ben Rhodes, a one-time national security adviser to then-President Barack Obama, pounced.

However, the Obama administration used tear gas at the border on a monthly basis, The Washington Times reported.

Also, the Obama administration used pepper spray when a far smaller contingent of only 100 immigrants charged the border in 2013, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement Monday that the current violent rush on the border eclipsed prior problems.

“First, the violence we saw at the border was entirely predictable. This caravan, unlike previous caravans, had already entered #Mexico violently and attacked border police in two other countries,” the secretary said in a Facebook post.

“I refuse to believe that anyone honestly maintains that attacking law enforcement with rocks and projectiles is acceptable. It is shocking that I have to explain this, but officers can be seriously or fatally injured in such attacks. Self-defense isn’t debatable for most law-abiding Americans.”

She added: “[T]he caravan is far larger and more organized than previous ones. There are 8,500 caravan members in Tijuana and Mexicali. There are reports of additional caravans on their way.”

3. Not Legal Asylum-Seekers

Critics of the Trump administration contend the migrants have a legal right to seek asylum in the United States.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., tweeted:

However, Nielsen pushed back, noting that many of the migrants in the caravan do not legally qualify for asylum. Meanwhile, most are not women and children.

The homeland security secretary wrote:

Historically, less than 10% of those who claim asylum from #Guatemala, #Honduras, and #ElSalvador are found eligible by a federal judge. 90% are not eligible. Most of these migrants are seeking jobs or to join family who are already in the U.S. They have all refused multiple opportunities to seek protection in Mexico or with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.

She also said “the caravan members are predominantly male.”

“It appears in some cases that the limited number of women and children in the caravan are being used by the organizers as ‘human shields’ when they confront law enforcement,” Nielsen wrote.

“They are being put at risk by the caravan organizers, as we saw at the Mexico-Guatemala border. This is putting vulnerable people in harm’s way,” Nielsen said.

This story was corrected to note that the Obama administration used pepper spray at the border in a 2013 incident.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS: 110 percent surge in migrant men using kids to enter US, ‘rampant fraud’

Border Patrol Chief: No Migrant Was Able to Scale New Border Wall

RELATED VIDEO: Migrants on the border Prager U Video.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Kyodo/Newscom.

VIDEO: The Media Is Omitting The Reason Why Border Officials Decided To Use Tear Gas Against The Caravan

/in , , , , , , , /by

WATCH:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials were forced to use tear gas against the migrants in response to their attempt to storm the border, but many outlets focused more heavily on the U.S.’s response and less on what prompted it.

Many outlets including the New York Times and Associated Press chose to focus on the agents’ decision to use tear gas instead of explaining why they felt that they had to resort to such tactics.

“The truth is, the majority of the people that are in this caravan, especially outside — if we can make our way all the way over there, we’ll show you the majority of them are men,” MSNBC’s Gadi Schwartz stated earlier on Monday. “From what we’ve seen, the majority are actually men and some of these men have not articulated that need for asylum.”

Schwartz’s reporting goes against the narrative that the caravan is filled mostly with women and children.

“Unfake the News” is a Daily Caller program dedicated to debunking the mainstream media narratives that dominate our news cycle.

That’s where TheDC’s Vince Coglianese steps in to cut through the PC bull. Each week, Vince takes a closer look at how cable news outlets are telling the top story and then gives you his own unadulterated take.

This is “Unfake the News.”

SUBSCRIBE HERE!

NOW CHECK OUT this “Unfake The News” video — WATCH: Should The FBI Investigate Kavanaugh’s 36 Year-Old Sexual Misconduct Allegation

NOW CHECK OUT another “Unfake The News” video — WATCH: Unfake The News: Media Ridiculously Spins Trump Meeting With Kim Jong Un

COLUMN BY

Mike Brest

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Brest

Reporter

Follow Mike on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES: 

I Was Tear-Gassed, Along With 60 Of My Closest Friends, In An Enclosed Space

Democratic Rep Jim Himes Bashes Fox News For Covering Migrant Caravan

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Unfake The News.

TRUMP SEEKS DEAL WITH MEXICO TO AVERT INVASION: Agreement is aptly named “Remain in Mexico.”

/in , , , , , /by

For several months the human tsunami of thousands of individuals heading north from Central America, through Mexico and ultimately to the United States, has captured headlines and the attention of the media and politicians in both the U.S. and Mexico.

While the “caravan of migrants,” as it has come to be known, appears to emanate from Central America, there is a great potential that citizens of countries from outside the Western Hemisphere, including so-called “Special Interest Countries” — that is to say, countries that have a nexus with terrorism — may also have embedded themselves within the caravan along with individuals who have criminal histories and aliens who may have been previously deported from the United States.

I addressed the potential for terrorists to see in the caravan an opportunity to gain entry into the United States in my article, “The Impending Alien Invasion.”

It is also worth considering that under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then reenters the country without first being granted lawful authority to return is committing a felony that may carry a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.

When President Trump issued a proclamation that would deny aliens who entered the United States without inspection the right to file an application for asylum, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a Temporary Restraining Order to block the implementation of that proclamation. As I noted in my recent article, the judge was ignoring the Constitution, the 9/11 Commission Report and common sense.

Of late, polls conducted in the United States have shown that within the last month more Americans have come to consider illegal immigration to be the issue of greatest concern confronting America.

On November 22, 2018 (Thanksgiving Day) I participated in a segment on the Fox News program Fox & Friends that focused on this very issue.

Poll: Americans now see immigration as top issue facing US 
Nov. 22, 2018 – Reaction from retired INS Senior Special Agent Michael Cutler; Republican strategist Peter Lumaj and former Florida congressional candidate Noelle Nikpour

It is my opinion, and one shared by the other participants in that Fox News segment, that Americans’ heightened concerns about illegal immigration are directly related to that caravan approaching the U.S./Mexican border.

President Trump, who made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his successful campaign for the Presidency, has responded to the threats and potential threats posed by the caravan if the members of that caravan ultimately succeeded in entering the United States and vanishing into communities across the United States. Trump ordered members of the U.S. military to the U.S./Mexican border to begin erecting barriers and to support the efforts of the beleaguered U.S. Border Patrol.

Unlike previous administrations that have refused to secure that dangerous and highly porous border that enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States without inspection, and tons of narcotics to be smuggled into the U.S., it has been clear from the outset that President Trump was determined not to permit this invasion of our borders and our nation. This, even despite Congress not funding the border wall that he has wanted to erect.

Meanwhile, as the talking heads and members of the mainstream media speculated as to what will ultimately happen, it would appear that Donald Trump, the “Deal Maker in Chief” has cut a deal with incoming Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his administration. On November 24, 2018 the Chicago Tribune published a report that had initially run in the Washington Post, “Deal with Mexico would make asylum seekers wait outside U.S. border: Mexican officials.”

This excerpt from the newspaper report explains how President Trump may have convinced the Mexicans to cooperate:

Alarmed by Trump’s deployment of U.S. military forces to California, Arizona and Texas, and his threats to close busy border crossings, Mexican officials were further determined to take action after migrants traveling as part of a caravan forced their way onto Mexican soil last month, pushing past police blockades at the border with Guatemala.

For the first time, a president of the United States has begun the process of negotiating an agreement with Mexico that could prove to be a true immigration “game changer.”

Under the agreement, presuming it is finalized, aliens who want to pursue asylum applications in the United States would have to wait in Mexico until their applications could be filed and processed, turning chaos into a more orderly system.

For decades aliens and their smugglers had come to count on chaos along the U.S./Mexican border that would enable them to run our nation’s borders and use the claim of “credible fear” as a “Plan B” if they were caught by the U.S. Border Patrol. If they were not caught by the Border Patrol they would simply head to towns and cities across the United States and not bother filing an application for asylum.

Additionally, aliens who filed applications for asylum at ports of entry were often paroled into the United States where they also disappeared into communities across our nation as did aliens who were apprehended by the Border Patrol and served with Notices to Appear (NTAs). Frustrated Border Patrol agents came to call those “Notices to Disappear!”

If final arrangements can be made with Mexico, the United States will impose an orderly system that will give Customs and Border Inspectors and others who will be assigned to adjudicate applications for asylum the time to imbue the system with a bit more integrity.

While it won’t eliminate fraud in the system, it will represent a major step to help combat fraud. As more aliens come to realize that they will have to wait in Mexico and that their applications will be more thoroughly scrutinized, it is likely that more aliens will be deterred from filing fraud-laden applications. As the number of applications fall, the ability to more thoroughly scrutinize the applications that are filed will increase.

This will certainly enhance U.S. national security because, as I noted in my extensive article, “Immigration Fraud- Lies That Kill,“ visa fraud and immigration fraud were identified by the 9/11 Commission as the key methods of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

There are many reasons why, for the first time, the government of Mexico would agree to work cooperatively with the United States over an extremely serious immigration-related issue. It is likely, of course that President Trump was not just posturing when he said he would cut off aid to Mexico and other countries who permit the United States to be invaded by illegal aliens.

Additionally, as the newspaper article I cited above noted:

According to outlines of the plan, known as Remain in Mexico, asylum applicants at the border will have to stay in Mexico while their cases are processed, potentially ending the system, which Trump decries as “catch and release,” that has generally allowed those seeking refuge to wait on safer U.S. soil.

“For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico,” said Olga Sánchez Cordero, Mexico’s incoming interior minister, the top domestic policy official for López Obrador, who takes office Dec. 1. In an interview with The Washington Post, she called it a “short-term solution.”

“The medium- and long-term solution is that people don’t migrate,” Sánchez Cordero said. “Mexico has open arms and everything, but imagine one caravan after another after another. That would also be a problem for us.”

In other words, Mexico is being flooded with citizens from Central America that are stirring anger and animosity among Mexican citizens who are far less tolerant of the intrusion of these aliens into their country. It would appear that the government of Mexico is motivated to end the flood of illegal aliens who are seeking to use Mexico as a stepping stone to the United States.

While the U.S. mainstream media accuses any Americans who oppose illegal immigration of being bigots and racists, Mexicans who are also members of the Latino ethnic community, share the same concerns that Americans have about the dangers and difficulties that illegal immigration creates.

Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who has led the charge against the Trump administration efforts to restore integrity to the immigration system, was quoted in the article as stating, “The Administration ought to concentrate on providing a fair and lawful asylum process in the U.S. rather than inventing more and more ways to try to short-circuit it.”

Here is something Mr. Gelernt should consider: the United States has had the most generous immigration system in the world and continues to do so. When you consider how many applications for asylum are denied because of fraud or because the aliens themselves fail to go forward with the process, it is apparent that the majority of these aliens have been using bogus claims of “credible fear” as an (illegal) alternative to the lawful visa process to gain entry into the United States. This makes a mockery of our immigration system and imposes dangers and hardships on America and Americans.

There is nothing “fair or lawful” about asylum fraud or illegal immigration.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

States Show ‘First Step Act’ Is Pro-Cop, Pro-Borders, and Pro-Criminal Justice Reform

/in , , , , , /by

The package of criminal justice reform proposals endorsed by President Donald Trump is not “soft” on crime. It’s tough on injustice. And it’s about time.

Known as the “First Step Act,” the legislation confronts the titanic failure of the federal government’s trillion-dollar war on drugs by reforming mandatory minimum sentences, rectifying unscientifically grounded disparities in criminal penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine users, and tackling recidivism among federal inmates through risk assessment, earned-time credit incentive structures, re-entry programs, and transitional housing.

There’s nothing radical about giving law-breakers who served their time an opportunity to turn their lives around and avoid ending up back behind bars. More than 30 red and blue states have enacted measures to reduce incarceration, control costs, and improve public safety.

Texas–no bleeding-heart liberal mecca–spearheaded alternatives to the endless prison-building boom a decade ago by redirecting tax dollars to rehab, treatment and mental health services. The Lone Star state saved an estimated $3 billion in new public construction costs while stemming the prison population tide.

Similar efforts adopted last year in Louisiana–long known as the prison capital of the world–have yielded promising reductions in the recidivism rate.

Pelican Institute for Public Policy analyst Margaret Mire reports that “Louisiana’s re-arrest rate in the first nine months is 19 percent, or 7 percentage points, behind the national, annual re-arrest average of 26 percent.” State data show that the re-incarceration rate is down to 6 percent in the same time period –“on pace to be 9 percentage points lower than its full-year average prior to the reforms, or 15 percent.”

Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant overhauled sentencing mandates, embraced faith-based ministries and funded counseling programs for inmates preparing for their transition to life on the outside. “Crime is down 6 percent,” he reported at a White House prison reform summit earlier this year. “We have 3,000 less inmates. We saved $40 million since 2014. And you can do the same thing.”

Despite staunch support from conservative Republican governors, prosecutors, and law enforcement closest to the ground on this issue, the same hyperbolic talking points used by some immovable “law and order” opponents at the state level are now being used against First Step: Cops will be endangered, critics balk. Violent monsters will go free. Child predators and drug kingpins will flood our neighborhoods.

Scary, but deceptive.

The plain language of the bill makes clear that its “early release” provisions must be earned. Moreover, as Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee points out: “At all times the Bureau of Prisons retains all authority over who does and does not qualify for early release.”

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, a veteran of the criminal justice system for 20 years, notes that inmates convicted of crimes of violence (including assaults on police), drug trafficking (including hardcore fentanyl and heroin dealing), and child pornography would not qualify for credits. Period. The list of ineligible prisoners is a mile long.

As a staunch opponent of illegal alien amnesty for the past 25 years, the most potent attack by First Step critics concerns whether criminal aliens in federal prisons will be let loose en masse. They won’t.

The law states that no prisoner can earn time credits “if that prisoner is an inadmissible or deportable alien under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” And legislative analysts assert that under current Bureau of Prisons’ regulations, a prisoner subject to an ICE detainer wouldn’t be eligible for placement in home confinement, anyway.

Critic Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies is not satisfied and argues that “the simplest way to make it a clean bill where immigration enforcement is concerned is to say at the beginning of the bill that ‘none of the sections that follow in this bill apply to incarcerated aliens.’”

That should be a simple fix and is no reason to prevent First Step from moving to the Senate floor for vigorous debate.

My own awakening to the systemic flaws and failures of our criminal justice system came from viewing it through the eyes of the wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. Prosecutorial misconduct, police malfeasance, investigative bias, and a guilty-until-proven-innocent agenda have ruined lives and squandered limited resources.

From there, I’ve come to appreciate activists and practitioners on both sides of the aisle educating people about sweeping “hang ’em high” mandates that ensnare millions of their fellow citizens, clogging up jail space and wasting away productive years.

Our system is at its best when all involved can admit policy failures and work to change them. Why wait?

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

How This Criminal Justice Reform Bill Could Make Our Neighborhoods Safer

Trump Rips 9th Circuit, Next Stop for Asylum Case, as ‘Disgrace’

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters/Newscom.

Trump Must Reverse Obama Appointed Judge’s Decision on Asylum Seekers

/in , , , , /by

An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred.  In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.

Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country.

There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself.  The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.  For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” which is exactly what the President did.

What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate.  Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.  To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue.  In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country,

So, where are we in this situation?

Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs.  The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.

First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste.  The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.  The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Mexico Is Deporting Migrant Caravan Members So We Don’t Have To

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Mike Wilson on Unsplash.

VIDEO: D.C. Carry Permits Skyrocket After Recent Move From “May Issue” to “Shall Issue”

/in , , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. concealed carry permits jump over 1440% since District went ‘shall issue.’

NRATV’s Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.

DeSantis Cheers Brenda Snipes’ Resignation, Says Broward County ‘Dropped the Ball’

/in , , , , , /by

Republican Florida Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis appeared on “Fox & Friends” Monday to applaud the resignation of Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes and said there was “no way as governor that [he] was going to let her preside over another election.”

“Obviously we’re going to have to address some of the problems with the election administration in places like Broward and Palm Beach County,” DeSantis said.

dcnf-logo

“I think it’s good that Brenda Snipes has submitted her resignation.”

DeSantis claimed he would not have let Snipes continue under his administration and said she “dropped the ball” during the statewide recount.

“There was no way as governor that I was going to let her preside over another election down there after all the problems that they had,” he continued. “So we had 65 counties do a good job. We had two that dropped the ball. We want to make sure all 67 counties do these elections in a fair way.”

Snipes could have faced an “embarrassing suspension from office at the hands of either Gov. Rick Scott or his likely successor, Ron DeSantis,” according to Politico.

Host Ainsley Earhardt asked DeSantis what the next step in the process is and he said either he or outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Scott would appoint her replacement after she officially leaves office.

“It depends on when her resignation is effective. I heard it was going to be effective sometime in early January, about the time I’m being sworn in. So, yeah, then that will fall to me to appoint her replacement. If she has resigned immediately, then Gov. Scott would have a window to appoint it before he leaves office,” DeSantis said.

COLUMN BY

Nick Givas

Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @NGivasDC

RELATED ARTICLES:

School Choice Moms’ Tipped the Governor’s Florida Race: DeSantis owes his win to unexpected support from minority women.

The “Found Ballot” Fraud

Palm Beach County Techs Tell Tales Of “Total Incompetence” In Operating Voting Machines

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: SMG/ZUMA Press/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Indulgences for Hollywood as Movie Studio Buys Gun Offsets

/in , , , , /by

In 2014, Hollywood movie mogul and fierce NRA critic Harvey Weinstein appeared to acknowledge the movie industry might be able to have a positive impact by reducing its glorification of criminal violence. Weinstein explained,

I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be… I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.

To his credit, Weinstein eventually made good on his promise. Following a widely reported sexual harassment scandal, in 2018 The Weinstein Company declared bankruptcy.

In the meantime, the rest of Hollywood has picked up the slack by continuing to churn out depictions of graphic violence. As Weinstein knew, the glorification of violence sells. So one enterprising film company sought to develop a way to quell their moral pangs while continuing the on-screen carnage.

According to an October 25 press release, startup studio Level Forward (a partnership between gun control activist and Disney heiress Abigail Disney and Killer Content) will now only produce content that is “gun neutral.”

The press release explained,

For each prop gun that appears in a production, financiers and producers will add a “GUN NEUTRAL” budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based arts programs targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged.

As part of the program, Level Forward has pledged the money to destroy 10 guns for every prop gun that appears in one of their productions. And Level Forward does not appear to be toning down the on-screen violence due to budgetary concerns. In its first three Gun Neutral films, 166 prop firearms were used, resulting in a pledge to destroy 1,660 real firearms.

The Gun Neutral concept will remind some of carbon offsets. Carbon offset policy attempts to apply market forces to reduce carbon emissions and can be government mandated or voluntary. In the U.S. in the mid-2000s it became fashionable for elites to purchase carbon offsets to repent for their jet setting high-consumption lifestyles. Critics charged that this hypocritical approach to environmentalism was akin to the medieval practice of buying indulgences for sins.

However, perhaps a comparison to the medieval Catholic Church isn’t fair to the church in this instance.

In order to carry out the Gun Neutral program, Level Forward has partnered with the group One Less Gun. On the One Less Guns website, visitors are told that for a donation of £5 (about $6.50) they too can assure one gun is destroyed. At an average of $15 per prop gun, Level Forward appears to be paying $1.50 per gun purported to be destroyed.

We’re not sure if the Catholic Church ever offered a bulk rate on indulgences.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jamie Lee Curtis Made Sure ‘Halloween’ Only Used Firearms for Self-Defense and Aligned With Her Views on Gun Control

Hollywood hates guns, except in movies like ‘Peppermint’

Gun control advocates turn to Hollywood for messaging help

President Trump’s Proclamation on Mass Migration

/in , , , , , , /by

The whole idea of Democratic operatives’ well funded caravans is to overwhelm the U.S. asylum system and turn thousands of illegal aliens loose into our country in order to become “undocumented Democrats” and fraudulently vote in elections.

President Trump’s new rule on asylum fixes a dangerous loophole.

President Trump signed a presidential proclamation (below) that prevents migrants from claiming asylum unless they do so at an official border crossing. Despite pushback from the leftist organizations, like the ACLU, the order merely directs people to one of more than 300 ports of entry to legally present their asylum claims, which will be evaluated in a fair and orderly process. Heritage experts say this new rule will fix a loophole that has been used to overwhelm the immigration system, destabilize the border region, and make millions for human trafficking cartels.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Congress Can Do Now to Fix Immigration Enforcement

REPORT: Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections

Heritage’s latest report on how to fix immigration law and enforcement.

‘It’s Your Right to Go to the US’: What I Saw When I Visited the Migrant Caravan

Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States

IMMIGRATION Issued on: November 9, 2018

The United States expects the arrival at the border between the United States and Mexico (southern border) of a substantial number of aliens primarily from Central America who appear to have no lawful basis for admission into our country. They are traveling in large, organized groups through Mexico and reportedly intend to enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and to seek asylum, despite the fact that, based on past experience, a significant majority will not be eligible for or be granted that benefit. Many entered Mexico unlawfully — some with violence — and have rejected opportunities to apply for asylum and benefits in Mexico. The arrival of large numbers of aliens will contribute to the overloading of our immigration and asylum system and to the release of thousands of aliens into the interior of the United States. The continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders. I therefore must take immediate action to protect the national interest, and to maintain the effectiveness of the asylum system for legitimate asylum seekers who demonstrate that they have fled persecution and warrant the many special benefits associated with asylum.

In recent weeks, an average of approximately 2,000 inadmissible aliens have entered each day at our southern border. In Fiscal Year 2018 overall, 124,511 aliens were found inadmissible at ports of entry on the southern border, while 396,579 aliens were apprehended entering the United States unlawfully between such ports of entry. The great number of aliens who cross unlawfully into the United States through the southern border consumes tremendous resources as the Government seeks to surveil, apprehend, screen, process, and detain them.

Aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or without proper documentation and are subject to expedited removal may avoid being promptly removed by demonstrating, during an initial screening process, a credible fear of persecution or torture. Approximately 2 decades ago, most aliens deemed inadmissible at a port of entry or apprehended after unlawfully entering the United States through the southern border were single adults who were promptly returned to Mexico, and very few asserted a fear of return. Since then, however, there has been a massive increase in fear-of-persecution or torture claims by aliens who enter the United States through the southern border. The vast majority of such aliens are found to satisfy the credible-fear threshold, although only a fraction of the claimants whose claims are adjudicated ultimately qualify for asylum or other protection. Aliens found to have a credible fear are often released into the interior of the United States, as a result of a lack of detention space and a variety of other legal and practical difficulties, pending adjudication of their claims in a full removal proceeding in immigration court. The immigration adjudication process often takes years to complete because of the growing volume of claims and because of the need to expedite proceedings for detained aliens. During that time, many released aliens fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with subsequent orders of removal, or are difficult to locate and remove.

Members of family units pose particular challenges. The Federal Government lacks sufficient facilities to house families together. Virtually all members of family units who enter the United States through the southern border, unlawfully or without proper documentation, and that are found to have a credible fear of persecution, are thus released into the United States. Against this backdrop of near-assurance of release, the number of such aliens traveling as family units who enter through the southern border and claim a credible fear of persecution has greatly increased. And large numbers of family units decide to make the dangerous and unlawful border crossing with their children.

The United States has a long and proud history of offering protection to aliens who are fleeing persecution and torture and who qualify under the standards articulated in our immigration laws, including through our asylum system and the Refugee Admissions Program. But our system is being overwhelmed by migration through our southern border. Crossing the border to avoid detection and then, if apprehended, claiming a fear of persecution is in too many instances an avenue to near-automatic release into the interior of the United States. Once released, such aliens are very difficult to remove. An additional influx of large groups of aliens arriving at once through the southern border would add tremendous strain to an already taxed system, especially if they avoid orderly processing by unlawfully crossing the southern border.

The entry of large numbers of aliens into the United States unlawfully between ports of entry on the southern border is contrary to the national interest, and our law has long recognized that aliens who seek to lawfully enter the United States must do so at ports of entry. Unlawful entry puts lives of both law enforcement and aliens at risk. By contrast, entry at ports of entry at the southern border allows for orderly processing, which enables the efficient deployment of law enforcement resources across our vast southern border.

Failing to take immediate action to stem the mass migration the United States is currently experiencing and anticipating would only encourage additional mass unlawful migration and further overwhelming of the system.

Other presidents have taken strong action to prevent mass migration. In Proclamation 4865 of September 29, 1981 (High Seas Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to an influx of Haitian nationals traveling to the United States by sea, President Reagan suspended the entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas and ordered the Coast Guard to intercept such aliens before they reached United States shores and to return them to their point of origin. In Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992 (Interdiction of Illegal Aliens), in response to a dramatic increase in the unlawful mass migration of Haitian nationals to the United States, President Bush ordered additional measures to interdict such Haitian nationals and return them to their home country. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of those measures in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry. In anticipation of a large group of aliens arriving in the coming weeks, I am directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to commit additional resources to support our ports of entry at the southern border to assist in processing those aliens — and all others arriving at our ports of entry — as efficiently as possible.

But aliens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that became effective earlier today. Those aliens may, however, still seek other forms of protection from persecution or torture. In addition, this limited suspension will facilitate ongoing negotiations with Mexico and other countries regarding appropriate cooperative arrangements to prevent unlawful mass migration to the United States through the southern border. Thus, this proclamation is also necessary to manage and conduct the foreign affairs of the United States effectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), respectively) hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico is hereby suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire 90 days after the date of this proclamation or the date on which an agreement permits the United States to remove aliens to Mexico in compliance with the terms of section 208(a)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A)), whichever is earlier.

Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply only to aliens who enter the United States after the date of this proclamation.

(b) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection, or to any lawful permanent resident of the United States.

(c) Nothing in this proclamation shall limit an alien entering the United States from being considered for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) or protection pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the authority of the implementing legislation regarding the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or limit the statutory processes afforded to unaccompanied alien children upon entering the United States under section 279 of title 6, United States Code, and section 1232 of title 8, United States Code.

(d) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension or limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.

Sec. 3. Interdiction. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the Government of Mexico regarding appropriate steps — consistent with applicable law and the foreign policy, national security, and public-safety interests of the United States — to address the approach of large groups of aliens traveling through Mexico with the intent of entering the United States unlawfully, including efforts to deter, dissuade, and return such aliens before they physically enter United States territory through the southern border.

Sec. 4. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the failure to follow certain procedures, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

DONALD J. TRUMP

EDITOR NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Don Ross III on Unsplash.

How Goes Maine, So Goes the Nation

/in , , , , /by

$1.3 Million was spent to influence Maine voters on the the issue of Ranked Choice Voting. The bill passed and Maine become the first State in the Nation to institute this voting process. Now before we go further, let’s talk about what Ranked Choice Voting is…

Ranked choice voting is a method of ranking the candidates of your choice in order of your preference. In order to be elected to office, the candidate must reach 50 plus 1 percent of the vote. The candidate who reaches that mark wins the race. But what if it is a closely contested race and no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to claim victory. That’s where Ranked Choice comes into play.

In the recent 2nd District race for Congress here in Maine, the two major candidates were Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin and his Democratic challenger, Jared Golden. Neither candidate, however,  reached the 50 plus1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. So in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) we then turn to the “also ran” candidates to settle  the issue.

Previously, those votes cast for the candidates that were mathematically eliminated from the race in the first round of ballot counts were just thrown out, but now those ballots will be counted in a second round of counting when no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold. If you voted for one of the lesser candidates that was eliminated, your vote on that ballot for your second choice will now be added to the vote tally of that individual. This will keep going until one of the candidates reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to win.

So let’s take a race, as was the case here in Maine, with four candidates on the ballot: A Republican, Democrat, Progressive and Independent. Progressives and Independents are by and large, liberal, so If you voted for the Progressive or Independent as your first choice….who do you suppose your second choice is likely to be?  The Democrat of course, and so your second choice for office, the democrat, will get your vote!  So is RCV fair? I think not. It is a system of voting that is designed to stack the deck against a Conservative candidate.

In the recent mid term elections, Maine’s Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin was challenged by Democrat, Jared Golden who is backed by Pelosi and the far left. Liberal organizations pumped millions into Golden’s campaign in hopes of unseating the Republican incumbent. This was the most expensive Congressional Campaign in the Country and keep in mind that Maine’s population is only around a million people. Poliquin received more votes than Jared Golden in the election. Sadly, though, that wasn’t enough to win because remember, the candidate needs 50 plus 1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. Neither of these candidates received the required 50 plus 1 percent of the vote and so the remaining 23,013 votes were assigned to the voters second choice candidate. This placed Golden over the 50 plus 1 percent of the required votes needed to be declared winner. Even though, after the votes were counted, the incumbent Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin received more votes, Golden received more second choice votes on the ballot than did Poliquin and…presto, Jared Golden wins and becomes the new Congressman representing Maine’s 2nd district.

Added questions to this skewed voting process come in the form of Article 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

The sticking point seems to come from the word, “Manner,” and what the Founders meant by this word. I would argue that they were clearly referring to the way in which the electorate would show their support, either by a show of hands, or written ballot. I do not believe that ever in their wildest dreams would these learned and astute men who so meticulously hammered out the greatest Republic the wold has ever known, concoct a methodology of choosing a candidate that was so convoluted. They meant to give each and every American a voice and how he chose to use that voice was up to him; one man, one vote.

Bruce Poliquin has filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of RCV and to retain his seat in the Congress. The case is set to be heard in Federal Court here in Bangor on December 4th. The judge has promised a decision before the December 14 deadline when all certified votes for office must be submitted to Congress by Maine’s Secretary of State. I do not have a great deal of faith that RCV will be overturned in Federal court. The result of this election should be placed on hold and the case fast tracked to the Supreme Court and the decision made there on its Constitutionality.

Remember Maine’s Motto is “Dirigo,” or “I lead.”

“How Goes Maine….So Goes the Nation!!!”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Mercedes Mehling on Unsplash.

The President MUST Appeal The Acosta Ruling

/in , , , , , /by

Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CNN Reporter Jim Acosta’s hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.

Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta’s hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander’s “belated efforts at [answering Acosta’s concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.

I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly’s view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pages, when the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.

Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President must zealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.

Let’s be clear.  There is no finality to Friday’s ruling.  

The judge’s order was the implementation of a temporary restraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court’s position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.

Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.