Once again California Christians are dragged into court for daring to obey God’s Word.
RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:
RELATED ARTICLE: Hollywood’s One-Sided Narrative on ‘Conversion Therapy’
EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Michele De Paola on Unsplash.
Center VP for Research & Analysis Clare Lopez spoke about the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on OAN’s “Tipping Point” with Liz Wheeler.
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
Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: @michellemalkin.
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.
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.
On November 20, 2018 the Washington Post reported: “In blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, federal judge blocks asylum ban for migrants who enter illegally from Mexico.”
Here is how the Washington Post article began:
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, saying the president violated a “clear command” from Congress to allow them to apply.
In a ruling late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy President Trump announced Nov. 8, which he billed as an urgent attempt to stop the flow of thousands of asylum-seeking families across the border each month.
The judge’s order remains in effect until Dec. 19, when the court will consider arguments for a permanent order. The administration offered no immediate comment, but has routinely appealed adverse decisions.
The president’s decree, now blocked, came just after the midterm election campaign, in which Trump made immigration and national security the GOP’s “closing argument“. He and his allies spread fear about the “Caravan heading to the Southern Border,” which, as he asserted without evidence in one pre-election tweet, included “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners.” In another, he warned of “some very bad thugs and gang members.” Labeling the movements of Central American migrants a “national emergency,” Trump last month deployed active-duty troops to the border.
But the federal judge said the president could not shift asylum policy on his own.
“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” wrote the judge, nominated to the federal bench in 2012 by President Barack Obama. He reasoned that the “failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”
To begin with, we must apply a bit of common-sense to the President’s policies given the totality of circumstances that exist today.
The “War on Terror” is ongoing. The “All Clear” has not sounded and is not likely to sound for years to come. As I wrote in my recent commentary, The Impending Alien Invasion, Iran-backed Hezbollah operatives are working in Latin America in conjunction with drug trafficking and human smuggling organizations to flood America with drugs, aliens and sleeper agents.
The 9/11 Commission has been clear on the nexus between multiple failures of the immigration system and the ability of terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves and go about their deadly preparations. The 9/11 Commission did not only focus on the attacks of September 11, 2001 but also looked back a decade into the actions of other terrorists and found that common thread running through their methodology.
President Trump’s policy applied to aliens who sought to avoid the vetting process conducted at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection inspectors who are guided in their decisions by Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the classes of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, spies and aliens who were previously deported. Additionally, aliens are also excludible if they would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed; and aliens who would likely become public charges.
Our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.
It must be presumed that the only reason that an alien would seek to evade that inspections process is because he/she knows that he belongs to one or more categories of aliens who are statutorily ineligible to be lawfully admitted into the United States.
Failures of border security have also enabled transnational gangs such as MS-13 and drug trafficking organizations which easily traverse the porous Mexican border and infiltrate towns and cities across the United States.
Graphic evidence of the nexus between drug trafficking and violent crimes at the hands of the drug cartels is being currently provided at the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman in the federal court in Brooklyn, New York for the Eastern District of New York. As the New York Post’s headline reported, El Chapo’s trial opens with chilling details.
Incredibly the presiding judge at that trial has agreed the highly unusual measure of keeping the names and addresses of the jurors a secret to protect them, in Brooklyn, New York, from potential Mexican sicarios (a term used to describe “hitmen”).
As for District Judge Jon S. Tigar’s statements, let’s begin with the notion as reported in the Washington Post, that “Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden” ignores presidential authority that is clearly an concisely laid out in Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182(f), which reads:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President.
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.
That section of law has been on the books since the INA was enacted in 1952 and has been successfully invoked by previous administrations including that of Jimmy Carter. President Trump is not rewriting any law, just attempting to enforce existing law.
Aliens who evade the inspections process are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States. In an earlier article Aliens Trespassing, I noted that Senator Chuck Schumer had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on national landmarks or critical infrastructure a federal felony that would carry a five year maximum prison sentence. Here is a quote from Schumer’s official Senate website:
With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.
However, it would appear that while Schumer and his friends in the Democratic Party would put trespassers in jail for up to five years, aliens who trespass on the United States are somehow sacrosanct and, indeed, worthy of U.S. citizenship.
Perhaps in addition to reading the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge should read another important document, the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, that was written by members of the 9/11 Commission staff- the federal agents and the attorneys.
The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
It also included these excerpts:
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.
The judge should read Article IV, Section 4 the Constitution, that states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Finally, The judge should also read my recent article The Threats Posed By The Impending Invasion.
According to his bio, prior to becoming a federal judge, Mr. Tigar was a public defender. If ever there was a time the American public needed defending, this is the time.
RELATED ARTICLE: Tijuana Government Reeling, over 100 Members of Migrant Caravan Arrested on Criminal Charges
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images first appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image by succo on Pixabay.
Mike Espy, the Democratic candidate in Mississippi’s Nov. 27 Senate runoff election, has been dogged by ethical questions over the course of his political career.
Espy, a former congressman who served as agricultural secretary during former President Bill Clinton’s first term, will face Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in the runoff election after neither candidate secured a majority of the vote in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
Espy has faced scrutiny over his lobbying work for the Ivory Coast under its then-president, Laurent Gbagbo, who is currently on trial before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Espy said in 2011 that he stopped lobbying for Gbagbo’s government less than a month after taking a three-month contract. Espy also claimed at the time to have received only $400,000 of the $750,000 contract and to have forgone the remaining $350,000.
But a report from Fox News on Nov. 15 appears to contradict that claim.
A signed Foreign Agents Registration Act Supplemental Statement that Espy filed with the Department of Justice in June 2011 shows that he worked for Gbagbo’s government for longer than two months and was paid the full $750,000.
Espy’s lobbying for Gbagbo’s government has previously faced accusations of ethical wrongdoing.
Congressman Mike Espy (2nd-L) accepts his nomination for Secretary of Agriculture 24 December 1992 in Arkansas as U.S. President-elect Bill Clinton (L) listens. (Photo: HERB SWANSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Espy resigned from the Clinton administration in October 1994 while under investigation for allegedly receiving improper gifts.
Espy was indicted on 30 related felony charges in August 1997, but was acquitted on all charges in December 1998 after the jury concluded there wasn’t evidence of a quid-pro-quo or of Espy accepting the gifts with criminal intent.
Espy’s acquittal has been compared to the unsuccessful prosecutions of New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez and former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell.
Although Espy escaped conviction, the Office of Independent Counsel’s (OIC) investigation “revealed a pervasive pattern of improper behavior by Secretary Espy and his top aide, and by persons and companies regulated by or with business before the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),” according to the OIC’s final report.
“The investigation disclosed that, among other offenses, companies with financially important matters pending before USDA gave Secretary Espy – either directly or via members of his family or his girlfriend – numerous gifts in an effort to garner his favor,” the OIC’s January 2001 report states.
Espy’s chief of staff at the USDA, Ronald H. Blackley, was sentenced in March 1998 to 27 months in prison for “lying about $22,000 he received from two Mississippi individuals who obtained large government farming subsidies,” The Washington Post reported at the time.
The Espy campaign did not return a request for comment.
COLUMN BY
Follow Peter Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson
RELATED ARTICLE: MSNBC Host Says Menendez Corruption Case ‘Doesn’t Look Close, It Looks Overwhelming’
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. 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.
Why are they entering the country that way? It isn’t hard to understand. The Investigative Project reported in January 2017: “A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety raises concerns about ISIS terrorists using the Mexican border both to enter and leave the country. It noted that at least 13 aspiring terrorists have tried to cross into Mexico, or considered trying, since 2012.”
And yet Leftists will tell you that if you oppose their entering the U.S., you’re a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.”
“Six Bangladeshis Apprehended in 12 Hours at Texas Border,” by Bob Price, Breitbart, November 19, 2018:
Laredo Sector Border Patrol agents continue to find illegal immigrants from Bangladesh who cross the border from Mexico. During a 12-hour period beginning on Saturday evening, six Bangladeshi nationals were apprehended in two separate incidents.
Agents assigned to the Laredo South Border Patrol Station came upon a group of four suspected illegal immigrants while patrolling near Masterson Road in Laredo, Texas, on Saturday. The agents conducted interviews as part of Laredo Sector line watch operations. The questioning revealed the four young men were Bangladeshi nationals, according to Laredo Sector Border Patrol officials.
The following morning, Laredo South Station agents carrying out line watch operations came upon another group of two suspected illegal immigrants walking near Oleander Street in Laredo. An interview with the subjects revealed the young men to also be Bangladeshi who were smuggled into the U.S., officials reported.
In an incident on October 29, Laredo South Station agents patrolling along the Rio Grande River rescued a group of Bangladeshi nationals as they attempted to cross the river, Breitbart News reported. Two of the migrants nearly drowned before agents were able to pull them into their boat.
During the month of October, the first month of the new fiscal year, Laredo Sector agents apprehended at least 75 Bangladeshi nationals. This represents an increase of more than 10 percent over October 2017.
During FY2018, which ended on September 30, Laredo Sector agents apprehended 668 Bangladeshi migrants — up nearly 270 percent over the previous year’s total. The sector led the nation in the apprehension of these migrants who paid up to $27,000 each to be moved into the U.S. by cartel-connected human smugglers….
RELATED ARTICLE: Tijuana Government Reeling, over 100 Members of Migrant Caravan Arrested on Criminal Charges
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Glen Carrie on Unsplash.
Washington, D.C. concealed carry permits jump over 1440% since District went ‘shall issue.’
NRATV’s Kerry Picket joins Dana Loesch with the latest.
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
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.
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) by Stephen Wynne– On Tuesday, as the U.S. bishops were still absorbing the news that the Vatican had blocked action on clerical sex abuse, they were slapped with two simultaneous lawsuits, with one naming the Holy See as a defendant.
Both lawsuits seek to force open diocesan secret archives by court order, compelling the U.S. Church to reveal the identities and histories of its predators.
One suit, launched by six clerical sex abuse victims, was filed in federal district court in Minnesota. It alleges that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) concealed “the known histories and identities from the public, parishioners and law enforcement of clergy accused of sexually abusing children across the country.”
Speaking Tuesday, Jeff Anderson, attorney for the six plaintiffs, warned the Church “maintains” a threat to public safety.
The same day, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both the USCCB and the Vatican itself — an unprecedented legal move.
It accuses the Church of conspiracy and running a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering statutes.
According to the 80-page class-action suit:
This case is about the endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members perpetrated by Roman Catholic Church cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders, members of Catholic religious orders, educators, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, agents, and representatives (collectively, “Clergy” or “Catholic Clergy”) while serving in active ministry — with the knowledge of Defendants.
It accuses Church leaders of promoting a public hazard by covering up the crimes of predator priests:
Rather than safeguarding and protecting Plaintiffs and Class Members — who were minor children at the time — Defendants protected the abusive Clergy, took extraordinary measures to conceal their wrongful conduct, moved them from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, failed and refused to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, and — incredibly — even promoted the abusive Clergy. Defendants’ wrongful acts are ongoing and continuous.
The class-action suit accuses the Church of violating the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which was originally devised to target organized crime syndicates. It seeks to triple financial damages for “unlawful and intentional schemes, actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence,” which “constitute assault, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, public nuisance, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.”
The class-action suit is historic, in that it attempts to hold the Vatican liable in the United States for the actions of its clergy — a first. Up to now, the Vatican has avoided liability by claiming it has no direct authority over clergy.
But this assertion was shattered on Monday when the Holy See blocked the USCCB vote in Baltimore.
“If that’s not command responsibility, I don’t know what is,” said attorney Mitchell A. Toups, who is helping lead the class-action suit.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.
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.
Apparently, no one in the federal bureaucracies cares to fully investigate Hillary Clinton’s email misconduct, but we are doing it, and we’re making progress.
This week U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her controversial email system.
In 2016, she was required to submit under oath written answers to our questions. Clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.
After a lengthy hearing Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must address two questions that she refused to answer under oath.
Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, deciding that the question about the creation of the email system was within the scope of discovery. Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”
The court refused Judicial Watch’s and media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials. And it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel. Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.
This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.
It is good news that a federal court ordered Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system. But it is shameful that our attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct.
The public and the media have a right to a full accounting about the Clinton State Department. In lieu of a much-needed, new and untainted investigation by the FBI, the continued work of Judicial Watch in the courts is clearly the only hope of bringing sunlight into the Clinton email issue and completing the public record.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with video and images is republished with permission.
With anti-gun Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives come January, now is the time to prepare for a new onslaught on the Second Amendment. Emboldened by the mere thought of controlling the lower chamber, we are already seeing the warning signs of what will come for the next two years.
First, virtually all Democrat leadership positions are likely to be filled by long-time anti-gun zealots, such as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Similarly, key committees will surely be chaired by extremists with long histories of supporting any and all legislation designed to diminish the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
In other words, if you can imagine a new, draconian restriction on guns, gun owners, firearm parts and accessories, or ammunition, expect it to not only be introduced, but to be given a hearing. Also expect the anti-gun legacy media to openly fawn over these efforts. The same goes for any old proposals that have already been introduced and rejected, or even implemented and later repealed or abandoned after proving to be ineffective.
At the top of the list, of course, will be banning semi-automatic firearms. Extremists will try to ban America’s most popular rifle, the AR15, as well as any other semi-automatic rifle. The standard magazines that come with these rifles, as well as any that are sold separately that are deemed “too big,” will also be the target of bans. Most semi-automatic handguns and shotguns will also be swept into these bans.
“Universal” background checks are also a priority for anti-gun Democrats. In fact, Nancy Pelosi even promised to support criminalizing the private transfer of firearms if Democrats were given control of the House. Pelosi and her ilk will try to exploit all of the recent tragic shootings that have taken place in order to promote “universal” background check while ignoring the fact that none of them would have been impacted by such a scheme. The firearms in all of these horrific crimes were acquired through either the federally-mandated background check, or even more restrictive state systems.
There are many reasons to not trust Pelosi, but when it comes to her pledge to attack law-abiding gun owners, you can take that to the bank.
Democrats who have been chomping at the bit for years to push their anti-gun agenda in the House have made it very clear your rights are fair game, and they have said they will not waste any time once they seize the reins of control.
Along with semi-auto bans and “universal” background checks, expect to see attempts to tax firearms and ammunition out of the grasp of the average American. Through incompetence or malice, these legislative proposals will be so poorly drafted that it will be impossible for law-abiding gun owners to even attempt to comply with their byzantine provisions.
As an example, one need only look to the most recent gun control bill introduced in Congress. H.R. 7115, the so-called “3–D Firearms Prohibitions Act.” Attentive readers will probably notice that the bad drafting started with the title: we live in a three-dimensional world; so all firearms are necessarily “3-D.” Despite the title, the bill doesn’t seem to ban all firearms, however, it’s provisions are so poorly drafted and show such a incredible lack of understanding of firearms that it likely does ban nearly any part intended for use in a modern semi-automatic firearm. Even simple pins and springs seem to fall within the provisions of the bill.
While 7115 is unlikely to move in the current Congress, it will likely be on the agenda next year. But that’s just the start.
Ultimately, the Second Amendment will likely be under a more severe attack over the next two years than perhaps it has ever seen. With some sources showing that as many as one in five likely voters in Democrat primaries would like to see the Second Amendment repealed, it’s likely that some members of Congress will attempt to oblige.
RELATED ARTICLES:
After Gov’t Gun and Knife Bans Fail, Brits Take Matters into Their Own Hands
Gun Rights Groups File Lawsuit Challenging WA State’s Recently Passed Gun Control Initiative
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.
On November 15, 2018 I was a guest on The Daily Ledger that is broadcast on the One America News Network. My segment focused on the so-called “Caravan of Migrants” comprised of thousands of foreign nationals that is headed to the U.S./Mexican border with the apparent goal of enabling the members of the caravan to enter the United States either by running our borders and thus evading the inspection/vetting process conducted at ports of entry or by presenting themselves at ports of entry to make “Credible Fear” applications for asylum in the United States.
Where those applications for asylum are concerned, the majority of aliens who have made such applications never followup on those applications but merely use those applications and the claims of credible fear as a means of gaming the immigration system to head for towns and cities across the United States where so-called Sanctuary Cities shield them from detection by ICE agents and where the lack of ICE agents enable them to hide in plain sight with little fear of being caught or deported.
What is being blithely ignored by the mainstream media and the globalist politicians is that aliens who seek entry into the United States are supposed to apply for and receive visas before they present themselves at ports of entry and apply for admission. The tactic of making credible fear applications at ports of entry is simply a ploy to circumvent the established laws.
RELATED ARTICLES:
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION ADDRESSES MASSIVE ILLEGAL ‘MIGRANT’ CARAVAN A dire national security threat.
TRUMP CONNECTS THE DOTS ON DANGERS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: But the Left attacks him for the picture it creates.
THE THREATS POSED BY THE IMPENDING INVASION: All Americans need to wake up and pay attention.
THE IMPENDING ALIEN INVASION: How the Left plays the “compassion card” for destructive ends.
RELATED VIDEO: Ami Horowitz: The Truth Behind the Caravan.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jorge Aguilar on Unsplash.