ST. LOUIS: Muslim migrant robs, beats, stabs woman with a metal rod. He is let off because he has an IQ of 49

“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” says the victim, Alicia Clarke, and she is right. Not only has she been failed by law enforcement authorities, but also by the establishment media. The KSDK story below contains no hint of the fact that the attacker was a Muslim migrant. It was left to the victim’s sister to reveal that on Facebook. It is clear from KSDK’s coverage that Muslim migrants are a protected class, and that the establishment media avoids reporting on anything that might reflect poorly upon them. Was a concern to protect their image also part of the authorities’ considerations in dismissing the case? That’s what the KSDK reporters should have been asking. Instead, they completely whitewashed that aspect of the story.

“‘I’ve been failed by the system’ | Teen walks free after neighbor says he broke her nose, left her in bruises,” by Justina Coronel and Robert Townsend, KSDK, February 24, 2020 (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis woman feels like the judicial system failed her, after she said her teenage neighbor attacked her and walked away free.

Alicia Clarke said exactly a week ago she went for a quick run outside her south city home. When she came back, she noticed her shoes had been moved to a different spot and her cell phone was gone.

From there, she used Find My iPhone to search for it. The location said it was on her property grid. She used her work phone to call it.

“I open my back door to call it and I hear it in my neighbor’s backyard behind me,” Clarke said.

Clarke said she hopped the fence to get it and jumped back over to her yard. Another neighbor yelled out to her and said, “Hey, I told him, ‘I know you did this and I’m calling the police!’”

Clarke said that’s when the 6-foot teen jumped the fence and tackled her.

“He knocked me down, pulling my hair, kicking,” she recalled.

Before he ran off, she said he grabbed her personal cell phone again. She used her work phone to call police.

“I am on the phone with St. Louis police dispatch, making my way to my backdoor, when he comes back with a weapon. He is on top of me. There was blood everywhere. I was literally fighting for my life at that point,” she told 5 On Your Side.

Clarke said as he was on her back, he stabbed her in the head and face with a metal rod.

She was able to get the weapon out of his hand and ran inside. He ran away again, taking her second cell phone this time.

Police arrested the teen on charges of first-degree robbery, second-degree burglary and third-degree assault.

Clarke thought the fight was over. But when she went to juvenile court a few days later, she learned his case was dismissed.

“The most hurtful thing of all of this, is the dropped charges. That was much more hurtful than the physical assault,” Clarke said.

A juvenile court official said a staff attorney dropped the case before even going to the judge. The courts weren’t able to comment specifically on this incident, since it involves a juvenile. Clarke said she was told her accused attacker was found incompetent to aid in his own defense because he has an IQ of 49….

“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” Clarke said….

Andrea Clarke Flatley, Facebook, February 20, 2020 (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

Updated 2/26. See addendum #6 below. It’s worth the scroll!!!

This is my sister. On Monday night she was attacked by her 15 year old neighbor. He stabbed her in the head and face with a screw driver. She fought him off and was able to escape to a neighbors house to call the police. The boy was taken into police custody and brought to juvenile detention center. No clear motive was ever established.

Alicia has a broken nose, staples in her head and stitches to the puncture wound under her eye.

Hassan is a 15 year old refugee from Somalia who lives with his family. He is 6’ and approx 175lbs, much larger than my sister. He has broken into Alicia’s car 3 different times and broken into another neighbors house. The police were involved every single time and reported that nothing could be done since he was a minor. Surely this time would be different, though.

This morning we went to the juvenile courts building for the deposition hearing where we would find out if he would be held in custody while he awaits his court date, or if he would be allowed to return home. It had been explained to alicia by the victims advocate that the 3 charges he was facing each independently carry a strong recommendation of remaining detained; all three compiled was almost a sure thing. We arrived feeling very hopeful.

On arrival, we learned from that same patient advocate that Hassan’s IQ is 49. This makes him incompetent to aid in his own defense, therefore all charges were formally dismissed by the prosecutor, Sakina Ahmad. We never entered a courtroom, saw a judge, nothing. Hassan was able to go home with a family member. He likely left the building as a free person before we even learned all the above information.

The prosecutor sympathized with our frustration and explained that because he is a mentally handicapped, juvenile refugee, every safeguard available is to his benefit and to Alicia’s detriment. She went on to tell us, VERBATIM, that even if alicia had been KILLED, the outcome would be the same and that this case would be dismissed. Now, Go ahead and read that last sentence again….

RELATED ARTICLES:

India: Muslim rioters molest 6th-8th grade Hindu schoolgirls

A Letter to Michelle Malkin: I urge you to rethink your defense of a Jew-hater and Holocaust-denier

Paris: Muslim who fatally stabbed four cops ran web search on “how to kill infidels” an hour before rampage

Czech Republic: Muslim cleric gets 10 years prison dawah for supporting jihad terror

Germany: 500 Muslim migrants hunt Germans celebrating carnival and beat them up

Greece: Muslim migrants vandalize Greek Orthodox Church, stone Greek authorities

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: Our Children, Our Country, Heart of Oaks Launch

And if YouTube takes them all down, I will see to it that there is a version we can watch. And damn the censors.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Sanders: Trump’s Plan to Deal With Coronavirus ‘Disgusting’

Democrat presidential contender Bernie Sanders on Wednesday called the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus threat “disgusting.”

“We are ready to adapt and we’re ready to do whatever we have to as the disease spreads, if it spreads,” Trump said on Wednesday, noting his request for $2.5 billion from Congress to tackle the disease. “If they want to give more, we’ll do more, we’re going to spend whatever’s appropriate.” Trump also announced that VP Mike Pence would lead a coronavirus task force. “Mike is going to be in charge and Mike will report back to me, but he has a certain talent for this,” the president said.

Sanders tweeted falsely in response that Trump’s game plan was to “Cut winter heating assistance for the poor. Have VP Pence, who wanted to ‘pray away’ HIV epidemic, oversee the response. Let ex-pharma lobbyist Alex Azar refuse to guarantee affordable vaccines to all.” Sanders concluded by calling it “Disgusting.”

Like the rest of the Democrat Party, Sanders is hyping the threat of the coronavirus and lying about the Trump administration’s response because pinning the “crisis” on Trump is crucial for the left’s election hopes.


Bernie Sanders

139 Known Connections

Sanders Says That U.S. Criminal Justice System Is Racist & Less Fair Than China’s System

During a February 2020 campaign rally in Texas, Sanders said: “This is the United States of America. We should not be having more people in jail than any other country on earth including Communist China [which is] four times our size.” Lamenting America’s “racist and broken criminal justice system,” he stated: “The people in jail, as everybody here knows, are disproportionately African American, Latino, and Native Americans.” Sanders also  pledged that, as president, he would invest money in more education for young people instead of “more jail and incarceration,” and that he would end the cash bail system.

To learn more about Sanders, click here on the profile link.

The Scale of the Chinese Lockdown — What to make of these scary figures?

The official death toll from the Covid-19/coronavirus now stands at over 2,500 people. There are over 80,000 cases worldwide.

The people I’ve talked to about this epidemic fall into two camps.

Those in the first camp say that this needs to be put into perspective, the number of people who die each year from the flu dwarf the number of coronavirus deaths and it is likely that survival rates will be much better in a first-world, Western health system where the doctors aren’t in fear of the secret police when they say that there is something wrong.

Those in the second camp say that we can’t trust any of the numbers coming out of China, that it is worrying that there seem to be cases cropping up in countries around the world, and that China would not lock down half of its country for a disease that is less deadly than the flu.

“But Marcus!” I hear you say, “Don’t use hyperbole for effect! China hasn’t locked down half of its country!”

Well, according to this report from CNN, I am not exaggerating that much. Almost half of China’s 1.3 billion-strong population remain subject to varying forms of travel restrictions and other quarantine measures. Or, to put it another way, some 780 million people are living under some form of restrictive movement. This is an unbelievably large number.

These restrictions are in place across all of Hubei, the northeastern province of Liaoning, as well as Beijing and Shanghai. Now, these restrictions are not uniform and range from self-quarantine (also known as my normal Friday night … thank you, yes I’m here all week – try the veal) to limits on who can come and go from neighbourhoods.

Some of the restrictions are very strict: Wuhan, Huanggang, Shiyan and Xiaogan (the four cities at the epicenter of the outbreak in Hubei province) have completely sealed off all residential complexes and communities and the use of non-essential vehicles is banned. Residents have food and other necessities delivered to them because they are not permitted to leave their homes. (Apparently online gaming is surging in China at the moment…)

This is all having a massive effect on the Chinese economy. I saw a graph based on shipping that showed that imports to China were down a third and exports from China were 50 percent below their post-Chinese New Year historical averages. For a country that is heavily dependent on its economic growth to distract its citizens attention from its horrific human rights abuses, restricting half of its citizens’ movements in some degree seems an overreaction to what is apparently less deadly than the flu.

But let us have some optimism!

China has announced that some of the restrictions in Wuhan have been lifted…oh wait, no, it has renounced that announcement and the officials that prematurely announced that easing have been “reprimanded” (and their families have been invoiced for the 5.8mm “reprimand”).

What a wonderful country we have economically bound ourselves to hand and foot.

COLUMN BY

Marcus Roberts

Marcus Roberts is co-editor of Demography is Destiny, MercatorNet’s blog on population issues.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CDC announces first US case of coronavirus with ‘unknown’ origin

Trump offers coronavirus reassurance as he tries to end days of mixed messaging and market free fall

Death is becoming very efficient in Canada

Nigeria must be held to account over Christian persecution

Divided loyalties: the 737 Max warning light glitch

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

What the New Self-Reliance Rule Means for Immigrants

Politicians across the political spectrum have a penchant for bragging about how their parents or ancestors came to the U.S. with next to nothing, but worked hard to provide a better life for their children.

Yet when the Department of Homeland Security proposed taking self-reliance into account in weighing applications for green cards or immigration visas, liberals condemned the proposal as harsh and sued to block the proposed rule from taking effect.

Initially, they won court injunctions in several jurisdictions. Now, however, all have been dismissed. And so, the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule took effect nationwide Monday.

If you think that means poor immigrants must now abandon all hope of entering the U.S. or becoming permanent residents, think again. The left has tremendously overblown the scope of this rule.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


The rule defines a “public charge” as one who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for example, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).

The rule defines “public benefit” to include any federal, state, local, or tribal cash benefits for income maintenance (including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing/Rental Assistance, and public housing.

Benefits not considered include emergency medical assistance, disaster relief, national school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, foster care and adoption subsidies, government-subsidized student and mortgage loans, energy assistance, food pantries, homeless shelters, and Head Start.

The rule will not be applied retroactively. It does, however, apply to future applicants for visas and green cards. According to Homeland Security,  each year about 382,000 immigrants seek a change in status that would make them subject to a public charge review.

The rule also sets forth the factors U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must consider in whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. Those factors include age, health, income, education, and skills.

The agency also can, in certain circumstances, offer an applicant the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100, but the actual amount will depend on an individual’s circumstances.

The rule has many exceptions. It does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, special immigrant juveniles, certain trafficking victims, victims of qualifying criminal activity, or victims of domestic violence. Members of the military and their families are also exempt.

The public charge rule is really nothing new. Long before there was any federal agency charged with implementing immigration policy, seaboard states enacted laws to restrict immigration by those deemed likely to become dependent on public welfare.

The first federal immigration law, the Immigration Act of 1882, reflected this concern, excluding from entry “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The act also created a federal immigration head-tax, the proceeds from which were used to care for immigrants arriving in the U.S., including those who fell into economic distress.

In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It includes statements of national policy on welfare and immigration, including:

—Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of U.S. immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

—Immigrants will not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.

—The availability of public benefits will not constitute an incentive for immigration to the U.S.

Although the Immigration and Naturalization Service published a proposed rule to define “public charge” in 1999, it wasn’t finalized. As of Monday, however, that job was completed.

No, this limited rule will not cause the immigration sky to fall. It will, however, reaffirm the essential American value of self-reliance through hard work—a value that politicians from both parties claim to esteem.

COLUMN BY

Lora Ries

Lora Ries is a senior research fellow specializing in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @lora_ries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona GOP Leader Explains Why Area Voted Against Sanctuary Status

‘Endangers the Lives of the Public’: Trump Tears Into LA Mayor Over Sanctuary Status

Arizona Sheriff Describes Fight to Stop Cartels From Trafficking Drugs, Humans

What’s Really Driving the Homelessness Crisis

Cuban Americans Tell What Life Under Castro Was Really Like


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Michael Bloomberg’s Plan for Immigration: We Need More!

I pay fairly close attention to the 2020 campaign news and especially when it comes to the Dem candidate’s plans for immigration should they regain the White House.

But, I think it’s odd that with all the other news about Michael Bloomberg, there is little mentioned about his now decade-long plan to increase immigration as seen in his National Partnership for a New American Economy.

I told you all about it here last November, but I have been writing about it off and on for years.

Now I see that there is a short piece at Bloomberg news briefly summarizing his immigration plans.

But, strangely, no mention of his organization that has been gradually softening up mayors by handing out grant money and praising elected officials for a decade through his New American Economy network.

Michael Bloomberg Unveils Plan for ‘Broken’ Immigration System

Michael Bloomberg proposed an immigration plan similar to proposals from his moderate [LOL!] Democratic presidential rivals that includes reversing President Donald Trump’s policies, creating a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented residents and allowing “place-based” visas.

The former New York mayor does not go as far as progressive rivals Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who would decriminalize migration.Bloomberg’s plan contains many of the same elements as those offered by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. They include rescinding Trump’s travel ban, ending family separations at the border, protecting so-called dreamers — young adults who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children — as well as increasing the cap on resettling refugees and updating the asylum process.

[….]

Bloomberg would expand temporary worker visas to address labor shortages and allow certain localities to petition for “place-based” immigrant visas to meet economic or social needs in their communities.

For regular readers of ‘Frauds and Crooks‘ this should give you a chuckle….

He would also allow more opportunities for foreign-born doctors, nurses and other health professionals to address the shortage of health-care workers in under-served areas.

More here.

And, now see his platform that includes increasing refugee admissions to 125,000 per year!  (Trump’s is presently set at 18,000.)

End policies that run counter to our deepest values as Americans

Mike will rescind President Trump’s disgraceful travel ban, end family separations at the border, establish rigorous safeguards for children, and promote alternatives to detention for individuals and families who pose no threat to public safety. Mike will set the annual refugee resettlement target at 125,000 and also restore fairness and timeliness to the asylum process. And he will honor and protect immigrant service members, veterans and their families.

[….]

Mike will create a federal Office of New Americans to support the integration of newcomers….

With that he is recycling an Obama White House plan.

Read it all.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where Was Amy Klobuchar That Day?

Virginia: Petty Bloomberg-bought Delegates Target NRA Firearms Training and Right-to-Carry

Super Bowl of Dishonesty: Michael Bloomberg Spends Big to Lie to America

Bloomberg: We Can No Longer Provide Health Care to the Elderly

Michael Bloomberg’s Constitutional Blinders

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Too Often, Trump Critics Rely on False, Dangerous Ideas About National Security

No question, President Donald Trump is an unconventional statesman. On the global stage he looks like a fullback at a field hockey match.

Different doesn’t always mean wrong—except to the critics who have gone to absurd lengths to weaponize policy differences to undermine the legitimacy of the president’s decisions.

One of the most extreme and wrongheaded complaints is that this administration has violated how policy must be made. Critics complain the president seems to have a mind of his own and the audacity to not reflexively implement the recommendations the bureaucracy cranks out.

Nonsense. Not only is it wrong to suggest the White House must follow only the policy proposals its “experts” devise, it can at times be the worse step a president can take.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


It is risky business for the Oval Office to make policy in a vacuum. But there are a lot of ways for the White House to get good advice, and Trump actually may be better than most presidents when it comes to gathering information for decision-making.

Past as Prologue

The modern national security decision-making process emerged after World War II with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law created the National Security Council to create better coordination among the key government departments engaged in defense and foreign policy.

The establishment of the National Security Council facilitated a more systematic process for developing and making recommendations to the president.

Department representatives and National Security Council staff members would get together to hash out proposals and pass them to a deputies committee that included high-ranking department officials. These committees would, in turn, pass along their thinking to “principles committees” made up of Cabinet-level officials, who would, in turn, make recommendations to the president.

This bottoms-up approach solidified under President Dwight Eisenhower. As former military man, Eisenhower appreciated the rigor of staff work and frequently chaired National Security Council meetings.

Every president has had his own version of a national security policy-making process. The process isn’t codified in law and rarely looks like the flow chart in textbooks—just as the way Congress crafts legislation often doesn’t match what students are told in their civics lessons.

These advisers and this process are meant to help the president make decisions; not to put him in a straitjacket that allows the bureaucracy to hold the president’s policies hostage.

There are crucial, important moments in history when president’s ignored the “best” advice and did the right thing. Harry Truman recognized Israel against the recommendations of his Cabinet. JFK made all the tough calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ronald Reagan turned down Mikhail Gorbachev’s deal at Reykjavik. And all three emerged with better outcomes.

There also are instances where presidents went it alone and came to regret their decisions. President Jimmy Carter announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea—only to find almost no one in Washington, not even his own secretary of defense, was willing to go along. Reagan turned over Iran-Contra to a few staffers in the National Security Council—and that didn’t end well.

Judge Policy by Outcomes, Not Process

Decision-making at the top is at least as important as bottom-up deliberations, particularly when the bureaucracy isn’t delivering good policy options. That said, making decisions in the isolation of the Oval Office can result in ghastly groupthink that’s no better than the mind-numbing same old, same old the agencies often crank out.

Smart presidents will shake things up and seek outside advice. FDR famously ranged far and wide for recommendations during World War II, consulting everyone from columnists to heads of state. Trump is more in the FDR mode; he likes to hear lots of opinions. Also like FDR, he is very much the decider-in-chief.

This is how Trump has chosen to run his presidency.

Those who don’t like it can vote him out. But it’s wrong to suggest the president is not legitimate or responsible because he doesn’t govern the way critics prefer.

COMMENTARY BY

James Carafano
James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Granddaughter of Slaying Victim, 92, Backs Trump’s Fight Against Illegal-Immigrant ‘Sanctuaries’

VIDEO:


Daria Ortiz’s voice cracked when speaking at a White House event Friday, as she described how New York City’s “sanctuary city” status let her family—and the rest of the city’s residents—down.

Her 92-year-old grandmother, Maria Fuertes, a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, was sexually assaulted and killed last month, and police have charged illegal immigrant and alleged repeat criminal offender Reeaz Khan, 21.

Khan, from Guyana, was previously arrested on assault charges, but the city released him, despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer request.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, and states that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants—in some cases, dangerous criminals—and obstruct federal immigration enforcement. That usually comes in the form of ignoring ICE detainer orders, except when there is a court order.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“Before coming to America, [Fuertes] worked as a secretary for the president in her native country, the Dominican Republic. She is a shining example of people who come legally to this country, work hard and do the right thing, and are law-abiding citizens,” Ortiz said. “My grandmother raised her children and her grandchildren while working hard to give us a future.”

Ortiz stood with President Donald Trump in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House, speaking to a crowd of about 220 U.S. Border Patrol agents and family members at a gathering of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union.

During the event, Trump spoke about his administration’s immigration policies, the border wall, and cracking down on sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Justice Department recently filed lawsuits against the states of California and New Jersey, as well as against King County, Washington. All three lawsuits argue that the states and the county have violated the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, contending the jurisdictions are flouting federal immigration laws.

“Unfortunately, my grandmother had to be the example of why something like this horrific crime should never happen,” Ortiz said, adding:

Our family’s hope is that her death was not in vain and that preventative measures are put into place to ensure that nothing like this happens to anyone again.

The tragedy in all of this is the fact that this could have been avoided had there been no sanctuary law.

She then talked about Khan, the defendant, facing seven charges, including second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, first-degree attempted rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and tampering with physical evidence.

“The man that is responsible for this should have never had the opportunity to do this, had his multiple offenses not been ignored,” Ortiz said, adding:

The system not only failed our family, but it failed our city. Our family would like to thank the administration for acknowledging my family’s tragedy and extending their concern.

Trump, who introduced Ortiz, returned to the podium and called for Congress to pass legislation that would allow the families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue municipalities over sanctuary laws.

A bill to do just that, the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and a companion House bill was introduced by Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., last summer. No action has taken place on either bill, according to Congress.gov.

“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities,” the president said. “They are all over the place, and a lot of people don’t want them. Many, many communities don’t want them in California. The politicians want them for whatever reason.”

The California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom made it the nation’s first sanctuary state.

“That’s why we are calling on Congress to pass legislation giving American victims the right to sue sanctuary cities and hold them accountable for the suffering and the damages that they’ve caused,” Trump said.

“American citizens are entitled to safe neighborhoods and safe streets that, really, the people in this room have provided when given the opportunity,” he said, referring to the Border Patrol agents at the event. “The sanctuary cities are not really giving that opportunity.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Uncovers Forced-Labor, Trafficking Scheme Involving Church in the Philippines

Reader Praises Maryland Delegate Kathy Szeliga for Battling the Forces Looking to Make Maryland the Next Sanctuary State

Trump Begins Counterattack on Sanctuary Cities

Texas Begins Legal Fight With California Over Its Red State Travel Ban

China’s Hidden Influence in America


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Best 2020 Campaign Ad So Far . . . too delicious for words!

Hat tip to bigrims405 for publishing this video titled Best 2020 Campaign Ad So Far on YouTube:

© All rights reserved.

For more articles on immigration click here.

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

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.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous 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.

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Dems Propose Radical Immigration Act

A proposed Democrat immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act takes an extreme and radical approach toward immigration to America. If passed, the New Way Forward Act would grant greater rights to illegal residents, including violent criminals, at the expense of taxpaying American citizens.

The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats including Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In a stunning speech explaining the New Way Forward Act (see video below), host Tucker Carlson singles out the most devastating aspect of the New Way Forward Act:

“The [New Way Forward] bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.” – Tucker Carlson

Carlson argues that the New Way Forward Act dwarfs the Green New Deal when it comes to ripping up our laws and traditions by the roots. He adds that while Democrats claim the New Way Forward Act looks to break the “prison to deportation pipelines.” Carlson cautions American voters that these are not individuals in prison over parking tickets; they’re in prison over felony convictions.

The New Way Forward Act forces America to become a sanctuary nation, including for those who have committed violent crimes here or abroad before they came to the United States. Under the law, illegal immigrants are protected from deportation even if they’ve committed sex crimes against children.

“If this bill passes, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation … A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime.” – Tucker Carlson

Rise of extremist narratives in the American landscape is not a new occurrence, but it being leveraged by lawmakers is a dangerous precedent. In our Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Training Program, Clarion Project is vigilant of various forms of extremism.

We are noticing the same pattern of radicalism that exists elsewhere again making its way into U.S. politics. This is in part happening because there isn’t a serious good-faith inquiry by certain leaders into the connective tissue of extremist ideologies.

“Democratic ring-leaders like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take a very serious issue like White Supremacy and weaponize it as a political attack against their opponents. They have a responsibility to be tempered, studied, responsive to cracks in society that we have the power to address.

Instead — not that different from recruiters of extremist ideologies — they’re feeding on human vulnerability to push their radicalized world view.” – Shireen Qudosi

Last summer, Clarion Project PVE co-director and a cohort of the USC Civic and Digital Culture Program Shireen Qudosi drew attention to Ilhan Omar’s identity politics as a “gateway drug” to radicalization.

Qudosi called Omar a “failed American experiment,” raising the question of how the U.S. should place value on incoming immigrants and refugees.

At the same time, Tucker Carlson noted that Ilhan Omar is “living proof” that immigration is “dangerous to this country.” He added, “A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. Some of the very people we try hardest to help have come to hate us passionately.”

Some of those people, like Ilhan Omar, are now in positions of power and able to draft and pass extremist laws. The New Way Forward Act would be the most devastating piece of legislation in a century — reinforcing the narrative of a politically radicalized group that sees America as a white supremacists nation.

That view isn’t based on reality, but then again, neither is any other radicalization narrative.

RELATED STORIES:

Majority in new poll says they would not vote for socialist: Gallup

The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

AOC Links White Supremacy to Climate Change

Focus on White Supremacist Violence Doesn’t Explain NYC Attacks

At Least 3 Federal Agencies Investigating Ilhan Omar

With President Trump acquitted of impeachment charges, the focus is back on at least three federal agencies investigating Ilhan Omar.

David Steinberg, who has been closely tracking Ilhan Omar’s legal controversies offers a breakdown on the latest investigations against the freshman congresswoman. Steinberg reports that Omar is under investigation by at least three federal agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Education (DOE) Inspector General, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

  • In 2019, the FBI held a formal meeting to discuss the evidence against Omar. It has since found this evidence compelling enough to share with the other agencies
  • The DOE is evaluating evidence that Omar married a UK citizen in 2009 with the possible intent to commit student loan fraud
  • ICE is looking at the marriage to a UK citizen through the lens of immigration fraud. This is in reference to the widely circulating rumor that Ilhan Omar married her brother

Possible crimes by Ilhan Omar date back to 2016 when there was already enough evidence to formally look into her background. Publicly available state records plus her own social media posts were significant first-hand evidence. Most were saved before Omar began scrubbing the evidence.

Throughout the investigations, Omar has sailed through media scrutiny because she was packaged and presented by liberals as an opportune foil against President Trump.

The most recent controversy around Omar includes accusations that, while married, she is was having an affair with her political consultant Tim Mynett, which resulted in a divorce for the Mynetts. Despite Omar denying the affair, Mynett’s wife pointed to the affair with Omar as grounds for the divorce.

In January 2020, it was also confirmed that 40 percent of Omar’s campaign fourth-quarter spending in 2019 went to Mynett’s political consulting group. Total amount to Mynett at the tail end of 2019 comes out to $216,564.64.

The only media outlets that challenge Ilhan Omar’s identity-based narrative and are doing their job as journalists are independent personalities and outlets. Those include Scott W. Johnson, Preya Samsundar, PJ MediaJudicial Watch, and Laura Loomer.

Omar’s 2020 re-election for Minnesota’s 5th district is being challenged by Dalia Al-Aqidi.

Al-Aqidi represents the same diverse identity markers the Left loves: She’s a refugee; she’s an immigrant; she’s escaped a war zone; and she’s a Muslim American. Dalia is also a journalist, bringing the same grit to the race to challenge Omar on the one thing that matters most: ideas, service to constituents and community.

Clarion Project spoke with Dalia Al-Aqidi on the issue of multiple law enforcement branches looking into Ilhan Omar’s history. Dalia shares,

“While the FBI does its job, I will continue to do my job as a congressional candidate in Minnesota’s 5th district. The constituents need someone to work for them and that’s what I’m doing. I’m here but where is she?”

While the race is on, journalists with integrity like David Steinberg continue to do the heavy lifting that mainstream media outlets have long abandoned in favor of agenda-driven journalism.

As Steinberg warns Americans of Ilhan Omar’s conduct, he underscores that, “The facts describe[d] perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

RELATED STORIES:

Ilhan Omar Asks for Protection of a Somali Company Linked to Terror

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Ilhan Omar Forces New Conversation Around Somali Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Attorney General William Barr Vows Lawsuits And ‘Significant Escalation’ Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Attorney General William Barr vowed Monday to escalate the fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and announced a round of lawsuits that target states and localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The top attorney for the Trump administration announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be slapping several states and localities with lawsuits over their sanctuary policies while delivering remarks at the National Sheriffs’ Association in Washington, D.C., on Monday. DOJ later on announced complaints with California; New Jersey; and King County, Washington, over various policies that hinder the work of federal immigration authorities.

The moves were the latest in the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown against sanctuary jurisdictions across the country.

“This evening, I am announcing further actions the Department of Justice will take to protect the American people and allow for the proper and lawful functioning of our nation’s federal immigration system,” Barr said Monday while giving his address.

Barr announced that the DOJ was filling a complaint against New Jersey for a directive that limits what information state and local law enforcement can share with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive — an order the attorney general of New Jersey launched in 2018 — also forbids local and state law enforcement from participating in ICE operations and includes other restrictions.

The GOP attorney general also said his department would file a complaint with King County, which encompasses the liberal city of Seattle, for not allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use the King County International Airport to remove illegal aliens ordered to be deported from the U.S.

The DOJ isn’t stopping there. Barr said his department will be conducting reviews of sanctuary jurisdictions across the country

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies and laws of other jurisdictions across the country,” he said. “This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States.”

Shortly after his address, the DOJ announced the two lawsuits against New Jersey and King County. Additionally, the department lodged a complaint against California that challenges a state law, A.B. 32, which prohibits the operation of private detention facilities. Barr said the law was intended to forbid the detention of aliens in its state.

“Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’ But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe,” Barr said.

“We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law,” he added. 

The lawsuits follow DHS revocation of Trusted Traveler Programs for New Yorkers in response to the state barring DMVs from sharing information with ICE and Custom and Border Protection (CBP). ICE has also begun issuing subpoenas for information with jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal officials.

COLUMN BY

Jason Hopkins

Immigration and politics reporter. Jason Hopkins is a sci-fi reader, runner, coffee addict and an immigration reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A NYT Writer Said Trump’s Immigrant Crime Stories Were ‘Bogus’ – Then DHS Provided Him Examples

Barr: Justice Department Handling Giuliani’s Ukraine Information With Caution

Bill Barr Shocks Entire Nation – He Just Signed The Order

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.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.

The Fashionization of Islam by Aynaz Anni Cyrus

Again our Western world media has just celebrated #WorldHijabday, while in the Islamic world,  hundreds of Iranian women are being arrested and put in prison for removing their hijab. That Islamic oppression of women is steadily coming here, by our media’s own hands. The fashion industry leads much of that dangerous change.

In 2019, Nike expanded on their Pro Hijab brand by releasing The Victory Collection. The new market niche adds performance-wear options for Muslim watersport athletes. Choice for women is good. But now Nike just makes it that much harder for women athletes who might otherwise choose to leave Islam.

Before long, following the pattern of Sharia states, it is not inconceivable that this gear could become mandatory for all women competitors — Muslims will next demand it, as officials will bow to their charges of an uneven playing field.

Such fashion marketing can normalize even Islam’s worst elements, such as jihad violence. In fact, we have already seen jihad imagery flow into Islamofashion marketing. In their Fall-Winter 2018 runway show in Milan in February 2018, Gucci’s line began to use beheading imagery among their fashion models. They claimed it had to do with something about cyborgs, and cephalophores — figurines of saints who carried their own heads as martyrs, from medieval and Renaissance art.

Would any modern fashion audience get that ancient and obscure art reference? Or cyborgs with severed heads? Or does it instead have to do with Islam? The Left won’t directly say it. But they will put horrors which attract them right in front of our faces.

It is no shocking secret anymore that devoted Muslims of ISIS who read Quran and follow Muhammad have lately been cutting peoples’ heads off, and holding them up and placing them in positions of grotesque display. That context of gory news media imagery is what makes Gucci’s fashion art concept recognizable — instead of just inexplicable.

Gucci’s unstated nod to modern Islamic terror is obvious. The Gucci-friendly article about the fashion models carrying their own heads even noted it as “terror-inducing.”

Gucci’s display of attraction to terror imagery sends a message that opposing traditional western societal virtue is “cool.” In that sense, they give an approving nod of respect to ISIS beheaders, as rebels against the western system.

After all, if the Left did not want to suggest that mental association, then why would Gucci so obviously risk playing around with severed heads? The imagery they chose is what makes people see that association with Islamic murder and butchery.

The severed head imagery actually began in the prior year, with leftist Kathy Griffin, in her infamous photos taken in May 2017, which featured Griffin holding a model of President Donald Trump’s head dripping with blood.

So Kathy Griffin broke open the wall of taboo against severed head imagery. She breached the limits of how much it could be tolerated by our society. And then the Gucci runway show toned down the bloody gore, to make it accepted as just a new part of our culture.

So now because Gucci did it in fashion, Islamic-style beheading imagery became just part of the elite culture scene. ISIS media has competition.

But skeptics might protest that Gucci is just signalling, “Look, we are so edgy and fashionable.” After all, there can be a childlike drive to want to shock the adults, without really having a barbarous ideology of murder about it.

But in fact the fashion designers and beauty marketers have been systematically embracing the Islam-ish market for years. Designers have been marketing upscale hijabs and abayas in London and Paris stores since early 2016. The fashionable Left was said to greet the announcement of those top brand designs “with jubilation.”  And it was noted that the collection “could easily appeal to nonbelievers.” Forbes celebrated it as the “smartest move in years.” The Left love this suffocating stuff so much, they don’t want it to be just for oppressed Muslims.

Next, hijab was hailed as a “win” for fashion when New York Fashion Week debuted its first all-hijab runway show in September 2016. Hijabs for everybody. What women want to show hair and neck anyway?

Then in November 2016, CoverGirl began to feature a hijabi beauty blogger. And very rapidly, the fashionization of Islam became part of the consumer marketing landscape.

As far back as March 2017, I reported on Nike’s plan to release a sports hijab. Nike ultimately released its Nike Pro Hijab in December that year—with “moisture-wicking technology and breathable mesh for cool comfort.” Where would sports be, without the ability to breathe.

American Eagle came out with a denim hijab in July 2017. No, I can’t explain it either.

In January 2018, L’Oréal ran a campaign featuring a hijabi model. By that time, even Muslims began to become annoyed by the trend, which was being denigrated as a “hijab fetish” of product marketing.

While Gucci was deep into Islamic imagery during its February 2018 fashion show, it actually came under harsh criticism by the Left — no, not for Islamization — but for using too-white models in cultural appropriation. Gucci was asked, “Could you not find a hijabi model?”

Versace, and other luxury brands joined Gucci in the hijab imagery. Around the same time as the Milan show, in February 2018, Macy’s became the first Islamofashionized department store in the United States, with its Verona Collection.

In May 2018, H&M released an Islamized clothing line ahead of that year’s Ramadan. The company may have come late to the Islamofashion product market by that time, but they reportedly had used a hijabi model as far back as 2015. So Islam was already long in their culture view.

In summer 2018, Gap featured a smiling young girl in a hijab for its back-to-school campaign. So now it is pretty much everybody.

Marketing forces normalize things that we should not see as normal. The marketing of oppression is very dangerous. Women in Iran are fighting and risking jail to take off this ridiculous hijab. But the Left with their corporate marketing enablers are up there putting it on our own women here, as a fashion statement.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iraqi refugee in Phoenix arrested as alleged leader of Al Qaeda assassination cell

Harvard professor’s arrest shows Chinese spying via US universities

Protests Pose New Challenges to Iranian Regime’s Future

RELATED VIDEOS:

Palestinian Official Issues Death Threats to Netanyahu and Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: Stolen Lives — Victims of Illegal Alien Crime

The idea that illegal immigration is a victimless crime has been promoted by open borders activists, special interest groups, and the media elite. Tragically, there is a growing number of American mothers and fathers who will never see their children again.   A growing number of Americans who have lost their loved ones speak for them and countless other unheard voices.  These are their stories:

More details on victims of illegal alien crime.

Shayley Estes, was killed on July 24, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona by Igor Zubko, an illegal alien from Russia.  Shayley obtained an order of protection against Zubko just 10 days before her murder, but he entered her home and fatally shot her. Zubko entered the U.S. legally, but overstayed his visa and remained in the U.S. illegally. He is in police custody and faces first-degree murder charges.

Lennox Lake was 6 years old when he was seriously injured when the car in which he was riding was hit by a drunk driver, Constantino Banda Acosta, an illegal alien who’d been deported more than a dozen times. His parents, Ingrid and Benjamin Lake, were also in the car but were not hurt.  After two mistrials, a judge ruled there would be no more trials of Banda and he was placed into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He remains in federal custody awaiting sentencing for illegally reentering the country.

Sarah Root, 21, from Omaha, Nebraska was killed on January 31, 2016. Her SUV was rear-ended by Eswin Mejia, an illegal alien from Honduras, who was street racing. Sarah had just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA the day before she passed away. Omaha is in Douglas County, Nebraska which has sanctuary policies that impede local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with ICE officers. Mejia was charged with motor vehicular homicide but posted bond to get out of jail and was released. He is still on the run.

Tessa Tranchant, 16, was killed on March 30, 2007 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Tessa and her friend, Ali Kunhardt, were sitting at a stoplight when Alfredo Ramos, an illegal alien from Mexico who was intoxicated and speeding, rear-ended their car. Ramos had a history of prior convictions, but due to Virginia Beach’s sanctuary policies, he was never detained. He was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Ronald da Silva was standing with a friend on April 27, 2002, in his driveway when he was shot and killed by an illegal alien who had been previously deported. The illegal alien was sentenced to 21 years in prison but will be released in 2020. Ronald da Silva’s mother, Agnes Gibboney, has made a powerful statement, “The guy that killed my son has a determinate sentence in prison but I have a lifetime sentence of grief and pain.” Since the tragedy occurred, Agnes has been on the front line pushing for immigration reform.

Dominic Durden was riding his motorcycle to work on July 12, 2012 when he was hit and killed by an illegal alien. The illegal immigrant who killed Dominic only served 35 days in jail. In the years since his passing Dominic’s mother Sabine Durden, a legal immigrant from Germany has been fighting for true immigration reform.


Send your love to an angel mom…


EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.