The Caravan v. Donald Trump

There are 600 miles – and the entire Trump administration – standing between the migrant caravan and the border. The 3,600 people hoping to cross into the U.S. will have to get past border patrol, the American military, and the rule of law. Despite the odds, one extremist group thinks it can beat them – in the same place liberals always go to get their way: the courts.As if this story couldn’t get any crazier, an American legal group called Nexus Services flew to the caravan that’s snaking its way through Mexico and recruited 12 people to sue the U.S. president. “Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States. President Trump and his administration have used ‘increased enforcement,’ like separating families and lengthening detention to violate migrant rights,” argues Nexus’s Mike Donovan.

A dozen Hondurans are claiming that their “constitutional rights” have been violated – under a constitution that isn’t even theirs! And even if it were their constitution – which it isn’t – how does enforcing the law possibly violate it?According to one court filing, “the plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.” Absolutely he can. “Asylum” isn’t a magic word that gives people a free pass from U.S. laws. It’s the administration’s prerogative, through the application process, to pick and choose who comes into our country. Executive powers are broad, especially regarding national security. If it were 12 people trying to cross the border, there might be a stronger claim — but even the plaintiffs admit that it’s at least a 3,600-person caravan. The president shouldn’t have his hands tied when potential threats like this arise.

As Donald Trump pointed out yesterday, “The government of Mexico has generously offered asylum, jobs, education and medical care for people within the caravan, but many members of the caravan have refused these offers, which demonstrate that these migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers. They are not looking for protection because if they were, they would be able to get it from Mexico.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has already said, “If you do not have a legal right to come to this country, and you come as part of this caravan, you come in our country, you will be returned home.” The administration has expressed every intention to follow the law. Nexus’s attorneys know as well as anyone that even an activist court would have a difficult time finding fault with the president for that. As FRC legal expert Alexandra McPhee points out, a court would have to certify the class action first. For all we know, the judges would decide that this proposed class (essentially, all members of the caravan) is too broad. There would be too many unique issues that a class action couldn’t appropriately address.

Regardless of what the media would have you believe, no one is saying that immigrants aren’t welcome in America. What they are saying is that the way here is through the law – not around it.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the November 2 Washington Update:

Extraordinary Measures: Voters Tackle 155 Issues Nov. 6

Prayer: A Pillar for the Persecuted

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

Trump Announces Step to Stop ‘Meritless’ Asylum Claims at Border

President Donald Trump said Thursday he is working on an executive order to deny automatic entry to the U.S. to illegal immigrants claiming asylum unless they go to a legal port of entry.

“My administration is finalizing a plan to end the rampant abuse of our asylum system, to halt the dangerous influx, and to establish this control over America’s sovereign borders,” Trump said.

“Under this plan, the illegal aliens will no longer get a free pass into our country by lodging meritless claims in seeking asylum,” he said. “Instead, migrants seeking asylum will have to present themselves lawfully at a port of entry.”

Trump said he will be releasing a “quite comprehensive” executive order next week.

“Those who choose to break our laws and enter illegally will no longer be able to use meritless claims to gain automatic admission into our country,” the president said. “We will hold them—for a long time, if necessary. The only long-term solution to the crisis, and the only way to ensure the endurance of our nation as a sovereign country, is for Congress to overcome open-borders obstruction.”

Currently, illegal immigrants who illegally cross the border can claim asylum, and the United States is legally obligated to grant them a hearing.

However, a single asylum case can take as long as three years to hear. Trump and other federal officials have said that illegal immigrants frequently don’t show up for those hearings, since they are already in the interior of the country.

“We will end catch and release. We are not releasing any longer,” he said.

Trump also spoke of the Central American caravan of migrants in Mexico making its way toward the United States’ southern border. At one point, the caravan reportedly numbered 10,000, but the crowd is said to have declined since then to fewer than 4,000.

“These illegal caravans will not be allowed into the United States, and they should turn back now, because they’re wasting their time,” the president said. “They should apply to come into our country. We want them to come legally into our country.”

Trump called the caravan an “invasion” that has already “overrun” the Mexican border, carrying out violent acts against Mexican police and soldiers. He has deployed 7,000 active-duty military personnel to assist Customs and Border Protection officials and has threatened to double that number.

He said the caravan was involved in a “break-in” to Mexico, one in which its police and military were attacked.

“Anybody throwing stones or rocks, like they did to the Mexican military and the Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we will consider that a firearm, because there’s not much difference,” Trump said.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Announces a ‘Comprehensive’ Executive Order on Immigration Is Coming Next Week


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Free-Photos on Pixabay.

UPDATE BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Team Beto Assists Caravan Aliens

UPDATE:

Last night I sent our new video [below] exposing Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s senate campaign for a potentially illegal application of campaign funds.  Our video subjects confirmed that these campaign funds were allegedly used to aide early members of the Honduran caravan.  In case you missed it you can view the video HERE.

Our video, which received nearly 2 million views in 24 hours, was so shocking that Beto was forced to respond.

Here’s what he said:

Beto ignores that his own campaign staffers are admitting to breaking federal election laws.

Today, his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, has encouraged other journalists and the mainstream media to push Congressman O’Rourke to own up to the actions and words of his staff.

We’ll continue to ask questions of the Congressman and keep the pressure on double-talking politicians like Beto.

Stay tuned for tonight’s investigation where we’ll release video with familiar faces in a very tight election.

In Veritas,

James O’Keefe


Texas: Project Veritas Action Fund has released new undercover video from the campaign of current Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate, Beto O’Rourke.

This new investigation uncovers what appears to be illegal activity on Congressman O’Rourke’s campaign showing campaign workers misusing funds to purchase items for Honduran aliens and early arrivals of the migrant caravan.

According to campaign workers, these expenditures have been improperly and illegally reported as other expenses.

  • Campaign workers appear to illegally misuse expenditures to assist Honduran aliens: “Nobody needs to know.”
  • Campaign staff are using “pre-paid credit cards” . . . it’s “some sort of a violation”.
  • Campaign worker wants more campaign resources to assist Honduran caravan aliens: “I’m done being nice. I’m done being professional. [Be]cause nothing is professional. None of this is like s**t there is a rule book for, you know?”
  • O’Rourke workers play fast and loose with the law: “For me, I can just ignore the rules and I’m like f**k it.”

View the full video HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why did nobody mention that Beto O’Rourke’s wife is a billionaire heiress? | Spectator USA

New York Democrat to Schumer: ‘Today’s Democratic Party does not deserve our support’

Sanctuary Country – Immigration Failures by Design

The idea of writing about how America has become a “Sanctuary Country” came to me less than two months before demonstrators and, incredibly, leaders of the Democratic Party began demanding that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be completely disbanded and terminate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

My consternation led me to think back to a Congressional hearing at which I participated in 2005 and at which Rep. John Hostettler, then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, expressed frustration over how the very structure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the inclusion of a divided immigration law enforcement program had come to be created, hobbling border security and immigration law enforcement. Rep. Hostettler warned that immigration enforcement must not take a “back seat to customs or agriculture” and that it should be shielded from political pressures. He observed that the structure of DHS itself violated the Homeland Security Act which was enacted in 2002 roughly one year after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). This was the enabling legislation that created the DHS, which was supposed to address the myriad vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists had exploited, enabling them to enter the United States and carry out their deadly attacks.

Let’s not forget that the “C” in ICE stands for “Customs,” an area of law that has nothing to do with immigration. In fact, before the creation of the DHS the U.S. Customs Service operated under the auspices of the Treasury Department while the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was an element of the Justice Department.

As we consider the extreme politicization of immigration law enforcement, consider these opening remarks by Chairman Hostettler from that hearing well over a decade ago:

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the U.S. with-out weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting, and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

Since the 9/11 attacks and the Congressional hearings to address the core issues involved, the U.S. has been victimized by a multitude of failures of the immigration system. There is a clear pattern of utter unwillingness by political leaders from both parties to address those failures with meaningful efforts and/or resources.

So-called “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” refuse to cooperate with ICE agents to seek the removal (deportation) of any illegal aliens, including aliens who have been convicted of violent felonies. Those cities should actually be referred to as “Magnet Cities” because they attract illegal aliens, among whom are international terrorists and their supporters, members of extremely vicious transnational gangs, and international fugitives from justice, as well as aliens who are likely to displace American and lawful immigrant workers.

However, the most effective way to block the vital work of ICE is to make certain that there is an abject lack of personnel to carry out their vital missions. The federal government has, in point of fact, been guilty of this crime. There are roughly 6,000 ICE agents nationwide, half of whom are not even doing immigration law enforcement-related work. To provide some comparisons, the Border Patrol has about 20,000 agents, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has roughly 45,000 employees, and the New York City Police Department has roughly 37,000 officers, while the U.S. military has more than one million enlisted men and women serving in all five branches.

The very structure of DHS and the immigration law enforcement elements of ICE obstruct rather than facilitate the enforcement of our immigration laws. This has been known to those in Congress concerned with immigration-related problems for a long time. For example, at a hearing on “Funding for Immigration in the President’s 2005 Budget” before the House Immigration Subcommittee on March 11, 2004, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) lamented the lack of ICE agents to combat the hiring of illegal aliens — the “magnet” responsible for drawing many of them to the U.S.

Rep. Smith’s statement below at the hearing on immigration enforcement funding illustrates how long these issues have persisted and how both political parties bear responsibility for the crisis that continues to this day. Here is Rep. Smith’s statement:

Mr.SMITH OF TEXAS.Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you once again for holding an interesting and timely and critical hearing on such an important subject matter. I want to make some observations and then I have a couple of questions for some of our witnesses here today.

First of all, I am glad to see in the Administration’s budget an increase in the money that’s going to be spent on the worksite inspections. I notice, though, in some figures that we have been given in a memo to all Members of the Subcommittee that the number of companies fined for hiring illegal workers has plummeted from over 1,000 in 1992 to 13 in 2002. That means it was almost non-existent.

And while it’s a step in the right direction that we’re increasing the amount of money—as I recall, it was something like from $20 million to $40 million, roughly—for worksite inspections, that’s a little bit like having two candles instead of one candle in a blackout. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not doing near what we should.

The gentleman from Iowa just made an excellent point a while ago, which is basically if we’re not willing to enforce employer sanctions, we’re not really willing to reduce the attraction of the largest magnet that is attracting the individuals to this country, that is jobs. So I hope that this is the beginning of an Administration willing to go into the right direction.

But what concerns me, I think, is the mixed signals that is coming from the Administration. We had this small increase in a very large budget in one area. Meanwhile, as I understand it, we are not increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. And meanwhile, going back to my assertion of mixed signals, we are approving matricular cards which are only going to be helpful to illegal immigrants and help them stay in the country longer. We’re not doing anything to discourage States from offering drivers’ licenses. We continue to give Federal benefits to many people in the country who are here illegally.

In other words, we make it very, very easy in many, many ways for individuals to stay here who are here illegally. That is not the right signal to send if we are, in fact, serious about reducing illegal immigration in America.

To the question that we hear asked so frequently, well, we have ten million people in the country illegally. What are we going to do, deport them all? No. There’s an alternative to that and there’s an alternative to gradual amnesty or immediate amnesty, depending on who is proposing it, and that is enforcing immigration laws. And if we enforced immigration laws alone, that would discourage many people from coming and would discourage those who are here from staying.

All that would lead to a reduction in the number of people who are in the country illegally, which, by the way, is far more than ten million. Ten million refers to the number of people who are here permanently. If you today took a head count of the number of people in the country illegally, it would probably be closer to 20 million because there’s a lot of people who are here only for a month or two or three.

That’s how serious the problem is, and if the Administration were serious, we wouldn’t be sending these mixed signals, in my judgment.

Another mixed signal, by the way, is that I just had a staff counsel return from a trip to the border where she was informed by various agents that in New Mexico and Arizona, a person coming across the border illegally had to actually be apprehended between ten and 15 times before they were actually arrested and officially deported. When you’re coming into the country or want to come into the country illegally and you figure your chances, that you have 15 free chances, that’s an open invitation in bright red lights to come to America, keep trying to come to America. And, of course, we know once you get across the border and if you don’t commit a serious crime, you’re basically home free. So we shouldn’t be surprised that both the illegal immigrant traffic is increasing and we shouldn’t be surprised that so many people want to stay here. We’re making it very easy for them to stay here.

By the way, I don’t know who to ask, Mr. Dougherty or Mr. Stodder. On the Texas border, how many times do you have to be apprehended before you’re actually a part of the deportation process, do you know?

Indeed, failures of the immigration system under-mine national security, public safety, public health, and the jobs and wages of American workers and create great stresses on the critical infrastructure of towns and cities across the U.S. Failures of the immigration system violate the findings and recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that was, we must remember, convened to make certain that future such attacks would be prevented.

Early on, as a new INS employee, I came to the worrying conclusion that the INS was an agency that refused to take itself seriously when, in point of fact, the mission of the INS should actually be thought of as an extension of the common mission of all five branches of the U.S. military. Simply stated, that common mission for our armed forces is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible. During World War II German saboteurs attempted to enter the U.S. surreptitiously on U-Boats. Today’s terrorists are not coming to America on U-Boats but on airliners or by crossing our nation’s borders and entering without inspection. This puts this deadly threat firmly in the realm of immigration law enforcement.

Politicians and the mainstream media frequently claim that the immigration system is broken. To bolster this claim they point to the millions of illegal aliens who live throughout the U.S. Estimates as to the true size of the illegal alien population vary, but commonly the media report that there are about 11 million illegal aliens present. That number has been constant for the past decade in spite of the massive flood of illegal aliens flowing across the U.S./Mexican border, including so-called “Unaccompanied Minors” and the fact that a series of GAO and other reports state that more than a half-million aliens who were lawfully admitted each year violate the terms of their admission. In point of fact, it is likely that the U.S. has more than 30 million illegal aliens.

For millions of aliens to embark on the dangerous and financially costly journey to the southwest border of the U.S., covertly without inspection, or enter through ports of entry with the intention of violating their terms of admission, is a measure of the abject failure of our government to deter such illegal conduct.

I would argue that this failure to deter the entry of all of these aliens in violation of our laws is willful on the part of political leaders from both major political parties and demonstrates, that for all intents and purposes, the lack of resources and commitment to effective and meaningful immigration law enforcement has already turned our entire country into a virtual “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.

The supposed “solution” proffered by the politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties has been to provide lawful status to millions of illegal aliens. They repeat, “We cannot arrest them all.” This actually incentivizes still more aliens from all over the world to enter America.

There is no other area of law enforcement where politicians are so eager to readily admit defeat and offer to provide a massive amnesty. There are certainly more motorists who have cell phones than there are illegal aliens, and certainly more motorists who drive drunk than there are illegal aliens. Yet no politician or chief of police has ever said that because there are so many motorists who text or are under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving, that we simply can’t do anything about it.

Indeed, when there are massive violations of laws, the traditional response is to increase penalties for those who violate the laws, and to ramp up resources dedicated to finding and arresting the law violators. The authorities use every means possible to alert the public that such violations will not only not be tolerated, but will result in serious consequences for law violators who are caught. After thirty years in immigration law enforcement, I have come to the disquieting conclusion that the failures of the immigration system are actually “failures by design.” To the globalists, open borders are a beautiful thing. To greedy employers and a long list of others, the ability to exploit cheap labor is their “meal ticket” to a lavish dinner with all of the trimmings.

In order to truly understand what we are witnessing, you need to change your vantage point.

Forget that you are an American citizen or lawful immigrant who scrupulously abides by our laws. Consider the massive flood of foreigners pouring into our country from the perspective of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or executives of the hotel, hospitality, or travel industries. Consider the situation from the perspective of manufacturing executives. Consider that human tsunami from the perspective of immigration lawyers, and suddenly a new and clear image emerges.

Instead of thinking of the immigration system as a law enforcement system, think of it as a delivery system, a system that delivers an unlimited supply of cheap, exploitable labor. Think of it as a delivery system that delivers a huge number of foreign students who can then qualify to gain practical training in the U.S. by working for American companies. Think of it as a delivery system that provides an unlimited stream of foreign tourists, and finally, think of the immigration system as a delivery system that delivers an unlimited supply of clients for immigration attorneys.

From these perspectives, the immigration system is hardly a failure, but is, in fact, the most effective and efficient delivery system this side of Fed-Ex and UPS combined. That delivery system is well paid for. It is paid for by the campaign contributions of every industry and special interest group that sees profit in undermining the integrity of the immigration system.

To the greedy, the lives lost to criminal aliens, gangs, and terrorists are, as the father of a young man who was slaughtered during the terror attacks of 9/11 testified, simply “the cost of doing business.”

Military leaders go to great pains to minimize civilian casualties in war zones, euphemistically referred to as “collateral damage.” Engineers and scientists have devised “smart weapons” to save non-combatant lives, overseas. Inside the U.S., however, the thousands of innocent victims killed or injured by illegal aliens, including transnational gang members or international terrorists, are nothing more than collateral damage to the beneficiaries of the immigration system.

To greedy employers, the destruction of middle class wages, through the importation of cheap and exploitable workers, is not a problem but a goal.

Furthermore, offering illegal aliens lawful status accomplishes a number of other goals that are certainly not in the best interests of the American public. It acts as the “starter pistol” for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world, convincing them that our government lacks the resources or the will to search for them once they get past the U.S. borders. Additionally, it offers the promise that at some point they will not only not be arrested and deported after making the dangerous, arduous, and costly journey, but they are likely to be rewarded for successfully running the U.S. borders by our very own government.

Finally, if another massive legalization program is created, it will cause a veritable stampede of illegal aliens, quickly filling the waiting rooms of immigration law offices from coast to coast.

Immigration lawyers, particularly immigration lawyers who are members of Congress, from both parties, certainly want to get those illegal aliens “out of the shadows” and into the law offices of their colleagues or, perhaps, into their own law offices when they leave Congress, as some are doing at the end of this year.

Let’s not forget that the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” legislation first introduced ten years ago would have paid legal fees for the illegal aliens. This was not out of any sort of compassion for illegal aliens but was a taxpayer-funded subsidy for immigration attorneys who hate to work for free (think “billable hours”!).

This outrageous feature of that stalled legislation the “Bi-Partisan Gang of Eight” nearly foisted on us was legislation that I came to refer to as the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act.” It would have required the beleaguered and overwhelmed adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to process the applications of unknown millions of illegal aliens without the capacity to interview them or request outside field investigations. This would have created an open invitation to massive levels of immigration fraud — a threat not just to the integrity of the immigration system but to national security as well.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, it became abundantly clear that at the root cause of those deadly and savage attacks, staged by international terrorists, were multiple failures of the immigration system.

The Homeland Security Act, which was enacted by the Bush administration in 2002, roughly one year after the 9/11 terror attacks, was the enabling legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address the myriad vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists had exploited, which enabled them to carry out their deadly attacks. As has become clear over the years, in creating the DHS, immigration law enforcement was not enhanced but hobbled when it was moved from the Justice Department to the DHS and sliced into multiple agencies and combined with other law enforcement entities.

On May 5, 2005, I testified before a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, chaired by Republican Congressman John Hostettler. The topic of the hearing was new “Dual Missions” of the Immigration Enforcement Agencies.

Chairman Hostettler’s opening statement is essential reading. Remember, he was a Republican and courageously speaking out clearly and unequivocally against the actions of a Republican president to interfere with immigration law enforcement, even as the attacks of 9/11 continued to reverberate around the world, around our nation, and certainly within the hearts and souls of all Americans. Here are Rep. Hostettler’s heartfelt remarks:

The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these “immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Homeland Security Act [HSA], enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a “Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two: what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.

ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.

CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.

It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement….

While I am grateful for the service and good work of the heads of our immigration agencies — some of whom are leaving presently for other experiences in Government — I would urge the Administration in the future to place the leadership of the immigration agencies in the hands of those experienced in immigration matters.

Because the DHS was not created capriciously or arbitrarily, it must be concluded that it was done with considerable forethought. I have come to the conclusion that the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks had the actual effect of undermining the enforcement of our nation’s immigration law enforcement system.

What I had to say at that hearing back on May 5, 2005, is as relevant today as it was back then. In my prepared testimony I make it clear that the myriad failures of the immigration system were not the result of regrettable mistakes, but rather by intentional design:

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jack-son Lee, distinguished Members of Congress, members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this opportunity to provide testimony today on the critical issue of the dual missions of the immigration enforcement agencies.

While my prepared testimony will focus on ICE, it’s my understanding that the inspections program of CBP is similarly hobbled in its ability to enforce the immigration laws.

For decades our Nation has had the reputation of being the can-do Nation; if we could dream it, we could accomplish it. Our Nation’s entry into both world wars ended with victory. When President John F. Kennedy challenged our scientists and engineers to land men on the moon and return them safely to the Earth, in less than a decade we again rose to the challenge.

Today our Nation is challenged by many problems, and the one issue that impacts so many of these other issues, the enforcement and the administration of the immigration laws, eludes our purported efforts at solving it.

For decades the immigration crisis—and it is, indeed, a crisis—has grown more significant, and its repercussions have increased expo-nentially. We are waging a war on terror and a war on drugs. The immigration component of this battle, of which not only the lives of our citizens, but the survival of our nation itself is on the line, appears to be insoluble. I am here today to tell you that we can control our Nation’s borders, and we can effectively administer and enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S.

In order to gain control of our borders and our immigration programs, we need to see [them as part of a] system; we also need to understand that the interior enforcement program is critical to gaining control over our Nation’s borders.

Nearly half of the illegal aliens do not enter the country by running the border, but rather by being admitted through a port-of-entry and then subsequently violating their terms of admission. Special agents are desperately needed to not only seek to arrest illegal aliens, but to conduct field investigations to uncover immigration fraud to restore integrity to the benefits program which has been historically plagued with high fraud rates. This is especially troubling as we wage a war on terror. The 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel made it clear that this dysfunction of bureaucracy aided the terrorists who wrought so much damage upon our Nation.

The fact is that many of the managers of ICE appear more focused on traditional Customs-oriented investigations than they are on enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act to safeguard our Nation from terrorists and criminals who have become adept at hiding in plain sight by making use of gaping loopholes and deficiencies in the immigration bureaucracy that go undetected by the law enforcement agency that is supposed to enforce these laws.

Since the merger of legacy INS and legacy Customs into ICE, the new ICE special agents are no longer even being given Spanish language training, even though it’s been estimated that some 80 percent of the illegal alien population is, in fact, Spanish-speaking. It is impossible to investigate individuals you are unable to communicate with, yet this critical language training program has been eliminated from the curriculum of new ICE agents. I have to believe that this represents more than a simple oversight on the part of the leaders at the Academy; it underscores an absolute lack of desire to enforce the critical immigration laws.

If anything, our agents should be getting additional language training as we seek to uncover aliens operating within our Nation’s borders who are a threat to our well-being. Strategic languages such as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu should be added to the curriculum, along with Chinese, Korean and other such languages; yet at present the curriculum not only fails to mandate any foreign language training, it doesn’t even offer any foreign language training.

Identity documents are the lynchpins that hold the immigration program together, yet incredibly, while other law enforcement agencies provide in-service document training to their personnel to help them recognize altered or counterfeited identity documents, ICE does not. Immigration law training is not as effective as it needs to be.

Besides the extreme lack of resources that have been the focus at previous hearings, we need to make certain that the people in charge of enforcing the immigration laws have a true understanding of the laws and have a clear sense of mission that many key managers appear to lack. At present, nearly every field office of ICE is headed by a Special Agent-in-Charge who came from the U.S. Customs Service and not from the former INS. The immigration laws are highly complex and require that the executives who are charged with leading the enforcement effort have a thorough understanding of the laws that they are responsible for enforcing. They should have real-world experience at investigating and aiding in the prosecution of criminal organizations that produce fraudulent documents, promote fraud schemes to circumvent the immigration laws, and engage in large-scale human trafficking or the smuggling of criminal or terrorist aliens into the U.S. They should also have real-world experience and understanding of the ways in which proper enforcement of the immigration laws can synergistically act as a force multiplier when ICE agents team up with law enforcement officers from other law enforcement agencies.

The effective enforcement of immigration laws can also help to cultivate informants to facilitate not only investigations into immigration law violations, but into other areas of concern, including narcotics investigations, gang investigations, and terrorism investigations.

The current lack of leadership that is experienced in immigration law enforcement, the lack of effective training and the previously examined lack of resources have been disastrous for the enforcement of the immigration laws, thereby imperiling our Nation and our people.

It is vital that there be real accountability and real leadership where immigration is concerned. While Customs and Immigration were both border enforcement agencies, the border is where their similarities begin and end. I would, therefore, strongly recommend that the law enforcement officers charged with enforcing the immigration laws have a dedicated chain of command with a budget and training program that focuses on immigration. Certainly they can and should work cooperatively with the former Customs enforcement agents, but they need a separate identity in order to make certain that the current “Customization” of immigration law enforcement stops immediately for the security of our Nation. The enforcement of our immigration statutes needs to be the priority, and not an afterthought.

Back then some members of the Republican Party had the courage and integrity to confront the President about failures of the immigration system, even though that President was himself a Republican. Today President Trump faces fierce, bi-partisan attacks for trying to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws.

I made mention of Rep. Lamar Smith and his
remarks about the lack of resources to enforce our immigration laws. He made crystal clear his disappointment with the administration of George W. Bush, a fellow Texas Republican, in its failing to provide funding and leadership where immigration law enforcement was concerned.

I hasten to add that I am not being a partisan in stating my opinion. For the record, I have been a registered Democrat ever since I voted in my first election more decades ago than I care to remember. First and foremost I have always thought of myself as an American. How the times and our political “leaders” have changed! The issues that we are considering have nothing to do with “Left” or “Right.” They are all about right or wrong!

Globalists come in all shapes and sizes. They hate the concept of sovereign nations. They have flooded the campaign contribution war chests of politicians from both parties. George Soros and the Koch brothers are on the identical page where immigration-related issues are concerned.

Many decent Americans have been snookered by the promoters of mass immigration to believe that our immigration laws, and those who seek to have them fairly but effectively enforced, are xenophobic racists. In point of fact, our immigration laws are utterly and totally blind as to race, religion, or ethnicity.

CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors who stand guard over America’s ports of entry applying and enforcing our immigration laws in determining whether or not to admit aliens are guided by one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — Title 8, U.S. Code, Section 1182, which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness, are criminals, human rights violators, human traffickers, drug smugglers, war criminals, terrorists, spies, or aliens who had been previously deported from the U.S. and did not have authorization to return, or had committed visa fraud.

Additionally, aliens are to be excluded if they are likely to become public charges because they did not have the financial resources to care for themselves, or in the case of nonimmigrant (temporary visitors), were likely to seek illegal employment, thus displacing American workers and/or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed.

Aliens who evade the inspections process do so because they know that they are within one or more categories of aliens who are statutorily ineligible to enter the U.S. for reasons I enumerated above.

As Americans we share common goals and concerns. As an INS agent I arrested aliens from around the world of every race, every religion, and every ethnicity.

The complaint about families being separated at the U.S./Mexican border is cynicism at its worst. Those children would never have been separated from their parents (if indeed they were smuggled across the southwest border by their actual family members) if crimes had not been committed by the adults who brought them here.

No one complains when children are taken from their parents who mistreat them or leave them in deadly hot cars to suffocate in the summer time. It is expected that unfit parents will lose custody of their children to protect them from further harm.

It is estimated that about 3,000 children have been separated from their families by the Border Patrol, yet the activists want ICE to be disbanded. Religious groups rushed psychologists to care for the “traumatized children” who had been smuggled into the U.S. In my article for FrontPageMagazine.com, July 19, 2018, I revealed uncomfortable facts about the “family separation” issue, “The Left’s Embarrassing Plea For Open Borders,” which included the following:

The website Children’s Rights posted a section on Foster Care that included the following statistics:

On any given day, there are nearly 438,000 children in foster care in the U.S.

In 2016, over 687,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.

On average,children remain in state care for nearly two years,and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

Despite the common perception that the majority of children in foster care are very young,the average age of kids entering care is 7.

In 2016,more than half of children entering U.S. foster care were young people of color.

While most children in foster care live in family settings,a substantial minority — 12 percent — live in institutions or group homes.

How many psychologists carrying Teddy bears were dispatched, with lights flashing and sirens blaring, to care for those traumatized children?

By words and deeds, our political leaders, journalists, and judges solemnly invoke objections to the alleged “unconstitutionality” of President Trump’s efforts to finally secure the borders and enforce our nation’s immigration laws while ignoring 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.”

Invasion has been defined in part, in Dictionary.com, as:

• an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity: stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans.

• an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain: random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The popular misconception about immigration law enforcement focuses attention on the U.S. Border Patrol. Indeed, the Border Patrol mission is extremely important and dangerous, securing our nation’s borders against the unlawful entry of individuals and materials by circumventing the inspections process at ports of entry.

Obviously our borders must be secured. However, nearly half of all illegal aliens did not run our nation’s borders but entered through ports of entry and then, in one way or another, violated the terms of their admission.

The Border Patrol has no role to play in locating and arresting aliens who violate their terms of admission into the U.S. by violating their visas. This is a responsibility of ICE. ICE searches for aliens who fail to show up for immigration hearings and also conducts investigations into crooked employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens. ICE agents participate in various other task forces such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force where I spent the final ten years of my career.

The 9/11 Commission identified immigration and visa fraud as the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists, and not just the 19 terrorist hijackers who so savagely attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, but a list of other terrorists the Commission investigated.

Immigration fraud undermines the integrity of the immigration system and national security. Such investigations are not conducted by the Border Patrol but by ICE.

America should indeed be a true sanctuary where Americans and law-abiding immigrants are safe. That would certainly fulfill President Lincoln’t dream of a government: “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The True History of Millstone Babies

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Social Contract Press. © Copyright 2018 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X. (Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract). The featured photo is by Joey Csunyo on Unsplash.

2018 MIDTERMS: What’s At Stake?

Midterm elections are normally as exciting as watching grass grow. A handful of people usually show up to elect dog catchers and the like. Democrats tend to avoid it like the plague, failing to see the significance of it in comparison to a presidential election. However, in the Age of Trump and the Resistance, the 2018 midterm elections have been electrified and we may very well see some record voting numbers for such an election. This, of course, represents a bonanza for the news media who reaps the financial harvest by whipping the populace into a frenzy.

The media is quick to tell us the party in power normally loses during a midterm election. I would remind them, these are unusual times and we have a President who doesn’t play by their rules and is only interested in results, not history.

Elections are meters of our morality. This is where we collectively determine what direction we would like to see the country go. It defines our priorities and values; what is right and what is wrong. To illustrate:

COURTS

This election will determine what kind of Supreme Court we want: Republicans want justices to interpret the Constitution, and Democrats want them to enact law from the bench. Whereas the former is perceived as conservative, the latter represents a liberal approach. This also applies to the Federal benches as well.

This same phenomenon applies to State Supreme Courts. For example, in Florida three vacancies are awaiting to be filled. Should Democrat Andrew Gillum win the governor’s race, the three justices will likely be liberal; should Republican Ron DeSantis win, the justices will take a conservative approach.

This aspect alone is highly significant to the midterm elections. In terms of morality, should justices simply interpret law, or pave the way for new laws outside of the scope of the Constitution?

CONSTITUTION

The midterms will also have an impact on the mechanisms embedded in the U.S. Constitution. For example, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and rely totally on the popular vote to decide the victor of presidential elections. On the other hand, the Republicans want to keep the Electoral College “as is” in order to maintain parity between urban and rural America. From a moral standpoint, which is the fairest approach? Should the Electoral College be eliminated, the interests of rural America will be neglected, causing candidates to only focus on the needs of urban areas.

Another area under consideration is the eligibility to vote. Whereas Republicans want all legal citizens to vote, Democrats want to give illegal immigrants and criminals the right to vote. There is also discussion regarding the lowering of the voting age to 16. The question is, what kind of person should be allowed to vote?

THE RULE OF LAW

Some people believe the law should be applied equally to everyone. Others believe exceptions should be granted, that some people are above the law. Republicans believe a person is “innocent until proven guilty” and there should not be a double-standard that allows otherwise (“guilty until proven innocent”). To enforce this, there should be “due process” to entitle citizens to fair and consistent treatment under the law.

The Rule of Law includes Amendment I of the Bill of Rights whereby Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Peaceably is the keyword here. This certainly doesn’t support the concept of anarchy as advocated by some people in this country today.

So, the moral question becomes, do we believe in adhering to the Rule of Law, or do we prefer mob rule?

SOCIOECONOMICS

The United States was founded as a free enterprise system which is an economic system where government places few restrictions on the types of business activities or ownership by citizens. This is based on the concept of Capitalism which is a celebration of the individual’s right to try and succeed, requiring a sense of risk. In contrast, the Democrats are embracing Socialism which concentrates on the rights of the group overall, controlled by government, thereby suppressing individual initiative and risk. Unlike Capitalism which allows for failure, there is no such sense of loss in Socialism, nor sense of victory. Essentially, everyone receives a trophy, win or lose. The two socioeconomic programs are as different as night and day, and are simply incompatible.

Under Capitalism, the individual is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor, such as financial rewards. This is an important benefit derived from risk. Under Socialism, there is no such concept, and instead of the individual benefiting, the wealth is evenly distributed to the work force, regardless if they earned it or not. In other words, a weak worker benefits at the same rate as a strong worker.

Democrat Socialists believe in free entitlements for everyone, such as college education, food and housing, transportation, health care, and jobs. This may sound enticing, but they have no clue as to how to pay for all of this other than higher taxes, thereby causing a redistribution of the wealth, which is anti-Capitalist.

The moral question thereby becomes, which system should America embrace? Republicans defend Capitalism, Democrats prefer Socialism.

GLOBALIZATION VS. NATIONALISM

This election is also about adopting a position of Globalization or Nationalism. Globalization, as supported by Democrats, involves the cultural integration of trade, capital, and immigration among the countries of the world. This tends to force countries to lose their identity and become subservient to others. Consequently, we are seeing a push back in the form of Nationalism as in President Trump’s policy of “America First,” and “Brexit,” representing the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.

Nationalism respects the sovereignty of a country, meaning their ability to manage their own affairs independently. Globalization loosens these restrictions to promote equality of nations and cultures, a form of Socialism. Nationalism respects the rights of the citizen, Globalization respects the rights of everyone, regardless where they are from. Consequently, this has led to the immigration problems plaguing the United States and Europe. In a nutshell, it means caring for anyone crossing our borders. Whereas under Nationalism, immigrants must lawfully apply to be accepted, respect the rule of law, and adapt to society, Globalization is just the reverse.

So, the question becomes do we want to be a sovereign country, where the rule of law is respected, or do we want to have open borders and an amalgamation of cultural laws? Add on to it, the provision for housing, education and healthcare for anyone on our shores.

As mentioned, politics is morality in action, as it leads to the the laws, rules, and regulations of a body of people, thereby representing their interpretation of right and wrong. To learn about politics and government is to learn morality. The founding fathers felt strongly about this. So much so, in 1828 the text book, “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States” by Arthur J. Stansbury, was introduced to teach students government and morality. Having the students learn their rights and freedom was considered important in the early days of this country.

Republicans believe government exists to serve the people. Democrats believe the citizens are subservient. This, of course, represents conflicting interpretations of morality.

On November 6th, we will again determine what is right and what is wrong.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLE: 4 Democratic Midterm Ads That Spectacularly Backfired

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. This column with images is republished with permission.

Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers of Illegal Immigration … But The Left Attacks Him For The Picture It Creates.

President Trump has publicly expressed concerns about the nature and nationality of the individuals heading towards the U.S. in the supposed “Caravan of Migrants.”  Consequently he ordered that the military provide active duty members of the Army to assist with efforts to secure the U.S./Mexican border.

Trump warned that embedded within that organized mob of foreign nationals are members of transnational gangs such as MS-13 and individuals from the Middle East who may be involved in terrorism.

The talking heads on the supposed “journalists” from the mainstream media, and such brilliant television personalities as the panel on the television program “The View” have derided the president, claiming that he had no justification for making those statements and, essentially accused him of lying to fire up his base of right wing conservatives.

In reality, President Trump is connecting the dots, but the globalists and the radical Left don’t like the picture that the connected dots create, so they attack him.

By now this tactic of attacking the President is not a surprise. If President Trump were to say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is likely that the Radical Left would trot out a supposed astrophysicist who would find a way to claim that the President was wrong.

Each day the President is given a security briefing where he is provided with intelligence from the intelligence community. It is entirely likely that during those briefings the issue of the nature of the foreign nationals heading to the United States was a topic.

Of course I am only speculating about whether or not the President’s Daily Briefing has provided President Trump with information about the nature of the members of the caravan.  What is not speculation is the fact that the Border Patrol has been encountering and arresting illegal aliens from countries from around the world who attempted to enter the United States without inspection when they were apprehended.

Additionally, my article, Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S. addresses a hearing that was conducted on April 17, 2018 by the House Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, on the topic, “State Sponsors Of Terrorism: An Examination Of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”

Here is an excerpt of the testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:

In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe; and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.

This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.

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

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

On April 17, 2018 the Washington Free Beacon published a report with the unambiguous and disconcerting headline, Iranian-Backed ‘Sleeper Cell’ Militants Hibernating in U.S., Positioned for Attack.

On March 21, 2012 the House Committee on Homeland Security that was then chaired by New York Congressman Peter King, conducted a hearing on the topic, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.  The Huffington Post published a report on the hearing, Peter King: Iran May Have ‘Hundreds’ Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S.

On April 21, 2010 the Washington Times published a disturbing report predicated on a Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military operations in Latin America, Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela. Here is an excerpt:

The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.

On March 18, 2015, during the Obama administration, The United States Institute for Peace published a primer on Iran, Iran’s Influence in Latin America, that began with the following excerpt:

On March 18, the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere held a joint hearing about Iran and Hezbollah’s involvement in Central and South America. The committees discussed Iran’s attempts to expand its influence in Latin America during the last 30 years, as well as the Islamic Republic’s alleged involvement in attacks in Peru and Uruguay and the mysterious death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman. The following are excerpted statements from the subcommittee chairmen and testimony of the witnesses.

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Jeff Duncan

“Given the impending deadline for nuclear negotiations over Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program, I believe it is critical for the U.S. to re-examine Iran and Hezbollah’s activities in our own neighborhood. Congress has conducted sustained, rigorous oversight on this issue with multiple Committee hearings, classified briefings, and the passage of legislation I authored, the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act, into law in 2012. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration continues to ignore this threat even while Iran and Hezbollah expand their reach. Following a September 2014 Government Accountability Office report that found the State Department failed to follow this law, the Administration has taken no concrete action to address these problems.”

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

“Iran and Hezbollah’s history of involvement in the Western Hemisphere has long been a source of concern for the United States. Given the nature of transnational criminal networks existing in Latin America and the rise of terrorism ideology being exported worldwide from Middle East, it is disturbing that the State Department has failed to fully allocate necessary resources and attention to properly address this potential threat to our nation. It is well known that Iran poses a security threat to regional affairs and has expanded its ties in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Ecuador. The United States needs a comprehensive understanding of Tehran’s efforts in Latin America in order to thwart any potential risk to our allies and U.S. national security.”

While the thousands of aspiring illegal aliens who have become a part of the caravan now heading north have captured headlines and much attention as they make their way northward, in point of fact, each and every day, 24/7, illegal aliens enter the United States by evading the inspections process at ports of entry along the northern and southern borders of the United States, by stowing away on ships or finding other means to evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry.

Other aliens enter the United States legally, through the inspections process as temporary (non-immigrant) visitors and then remain in the United States after their authorized period of admission expires and/or otherwise violate the terms of their admission.

No one really knows how many illegal aliens are actually present in the United States but as written in a recent article, Twice As Many Illegal Aliens In Us According To MIT.

I would compare the impact to the United States of the onslaught of the thousands of aspiring illegal aliens in the caravan to a person trying to shovel out his driveway during a blizzard getting hit by a snowball.  That snowball may well get his/her attention, but the vast majority of the snow in his driveway is the result of hours of constant snowfall.

The biggest issue where the caravan is concerned is that by surging at the border, the Border Patrol may well find itself overwhelmed.  This is the most dangerous part of the problem, that the Border Patrol might not be able to deal with the huge numbers that suddenly confront them.  The Adjudications Officers will also likely be overwhelmed when these aliens proclaim that they are seeking asylum.  With limited resources to detain these asylum seekers and with limited resources to interview them and then conduct investigations into their claims for asylum, many of these aliens will either not be stopped or will have to ultimately be released.

It has been estimated that only about 2% of aliens who are released ever show up for their immigration court dates.  98% disappear into communities across America.

These aliens demonstrate little fear of repercussions for not appearing when ordered. In the game of “hide & seek” that they play with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), there are precious few ICE agents who are available to try to find them and take them into custody when they fail to show up.  Furthermore, if they can make their way to the increasing number of supposed “Sanctuary Cities” that have been created around the United States by Democratic mayors and Sanctuary States created by Democratic governors, they know the their chances of escaping detection by ICE increases exponentially.

Of course the Republicans who refuse to provide funding for the Border Wall and for adequate numbers of ICE agents also adds to the immigration crisis, making certain that illegal aliens have no reason to fear the consequences of their violations of our borders and our laws.

John Adams was right, “Facts are stubborn things!”

RELATED ARTICLES:

The True History of Millstone Babies

Official Says Majority of Caravan Made Up of Single, Adult Males

American University Students Asked to Guess Who Made Statements on Illegal Immigration [VIDEO]

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The edited featured photo is by scott dukette on Unsplash.

Podcast: The History of Birthright Citizenship in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether the children of illegal immigrants born here are citizens or not. Amy Swearer, a legal analyst at The Heritage Foundation, joins us on the podcast to share that fact and more about the history of birthright citizenship in the U.S., and whether it’s appropriate for President Donald Trump to use an executive order to declare that children of illegal immigrants born here aren’t citizens. Plus: We talk about the best Halloween movies.

We also cover these stories:

  • Trump is looking to sign an executive order that would get rid of birthright citizenship.
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan says, “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”
  • Whitey Bulger, the notorious Boston mobster, was pronounced dead Tuesday at a federal prison in West Virginia, one day after being transferred there.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The True History of Millstone Babies

On the Street: What Americans Think About Birthright Citizenship


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


EDITORS NOTE: This podcast with images is republished with permission. Photo: Alexander Drago/Reuters /Newscom.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

On the Street: What Americans Think About Birthright Citizenship

The True History of Millstone Babies

By the Numbers: 4 Key Points About Birthright Citizenship

Podcast: The History of Birthright Citizenship in the US

Birthright Citizenship: What You Need To Know

RELATED VIDEO: Former Senator Harry Reid’s 1993 “No Sane Country” remarks on birthright citizenship – CSPAN.


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


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

The Left Goes Full Open Borders

It wasn’t long ago that both sides of the aisle believed America’s border laws should be enforced.

As President Donald Trump pointed out on Twitter, even former President Barack Obama, at least rhetorically, said that illegal immigrants couldn’t be let into the country en masse and without restrictions. (He said that as a senator.)

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” Obama said.

This dynamic has dramatically shifted, as the American left now increasingly sees any level of border enforcement as beyond the pale.

The migrant caravans originating in Honduras and heading north to the U.S. border are testing just how far the left will go in embracing this new narrative.

The position Obama held just over a decade ago is now considered offensive in some circles. Some are even demanding that the U.S. let the caravan into the United States.

“Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees,” Cambridge, Massachusetts Mayor Marc McGovern said, according to the Boston Herald. “These are people who really are facing real problems and we have to let them through.”

The left is sending a message that concern over unchecked immigration is illegitimate.

Yet this is out of step with the American people in general.

Americans are clearly divided when it comes to the issue of immigration. Some want more high-skilled immigrants, others don’t. Some think a wall is necessary for border security, others don’t.

But one thing that Americans tend to agree on, strongly, is the idea that we have a right to control our border and determine who comes into the country. This belief flows from the concept that we are a sovereign nation that must maintain law and order for the safety of everyone.

The idea that thousands of people can just arrive at the border, demand entrance to the United States, and possibly force their way in by overwhelming U.S. authorities offends our idea that America is a nation of laws, and it undermines the idea that the American people have the right to set their own immigration policies.

America has very specific laws regarding legal immigration and asylum—which generally only applies in cases of state-based repression. Allowing a gaggle of thousands of people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing would only encourage more of this sort of tactic.

This worry is fueled by an increasingly aggressive left-wing stance that any level of border enforcement is tantamount to racism and nativism. This view is no longer held by just a few radicals. It is increasingly the stance of more mainstream progressives and Democrats.

Earlier this year, the call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, morphed into a mainstream movement embraced by prominent Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

One can see how this public position actually encourages more illegal immigration, including the massive caravans.

As The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for Latin America, Ana Quintana, noted, many of these migrants have been manipulated by South American left-wing parties into believing this is their path to the United States.

It’s a political tactic used to sow chaos, and unfortunately puts lives at risk—including the migrants who travel thousands of miles through dangerous locations to get to the U.S. border.

“This caravan antic is right out of the left’s disorder and chaos playbook,” Quintana wrote. “The timing before the U.S.’s midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental. It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”

We are paying the price of the world believing we won’t enforce our border laws.

The issue now at stake with the caravan is not merely immigration, but whether the United States is in fact a sovereign country—whether the American people have the power to decide their immigration laws, and whether our government will enforce those decisions.

All of this shows just how far progressives have moved away from the mainstream when it comes to immigration.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Military to Deploy 5,000 Troops to Border


VIDEO: A Mob of Thousands Descends on U.S. Border Demanding Entry

Art Del Cueto, VP of Border Patrol Counsel and ICE Agent, joins Grant Stinchfield to discuss why this caravan of immigrants moving towards our southern border is just one of the many examples that proves the need for stricter border policies.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left Goes Full Open Borders

San Francisco Taxpayers Spent $6,122.44 Each to Register “Undocumented People” to Vote

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

VIDEO: Armenians Brawl with Blacks and Hispanics in California High School

Armenians?

You learn something new every day.

Did you know that the center of the Armenian immigrant community in America is located in Glendale, California and that we are still bringing Armenian ‘refugees’ to the US to be placed mostly, where? in California, in and around Glendale where there are obviously ethnic and racial cultural clashes going on.

According to wikipedia, Glendale has the highest concentration of Armenians in the US.

Glendale, just a few miles away from Downtown Los Angeles, has a population of about 200,000, of which, according to some estimates, 40% is Armenian.

Thanks to reader ‘ganjagrandma’ for sending this story from the Atlanta Black Star.

It is several weeks old, but this news about racial and ethnic tensions at Glendale’s Hoover High sure didn’t make the national news.

So much for the mythical American melting pot!

Shocking Video Shows Brawl Parents Described as a ‘Race Riot’ at California High School

Several students have been disciplined after shocking footage of what concerned parents called a racially-motivated melee between dozens of teens at a Glendale, California high school.

Students involved in last Wednesday’s brawl at Hoover High School were remanded to separate rooms Monday and spoke little during “restorative circle” sessions with school counselorsaccording to KTLA.

The fight reportedly erupted during lunch period Wednesday, starting as a dispute between two students and quickly growing to involve dozens. That’s when police arrived to restore order, as the fists continued to fly.

No serious injuries were reported.

Parents said their kids tell them there’s been mounting racial tension on campus between Armenian students, the largest ethnic group at the school, and members the football and baseball teams who are mostly Black and Latino, among other ethnicities.

Ah, the joys of diversity.

More here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and videos is republished with permission. The featured image is courtesy of NBC News KTLA.

Trump has a plan to stop the migrant caravan, will announce Tuesday

Screenshot (1502)

Ready or not, here we come! Photo: Time magazine.

I have to say: this is the newest news I’m seeing.  Since the whole issue is in flux (and perhaps more so after the shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh where we heard the shooter may have been angry over the caravan as well as HIAS’s role in it), things could change any minute.

But, here is what Neil Munro reported at Breitbart yesterday:

WashPo: Trump Will Announce Anti-Caravan Plan on Tuesday

President Donald Trump will announce Tuesday how he will use his extraordinary powers over legal immigration to block the caravan and other asylum-seeking economic migrants, according to the Washington Post.

“A draft of the proposal reviewed by The Washington Post says the president can use his authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to declare certain migrants ineligible for asylum for national security reasons,” the Post reported.

The little-used powers are in Section 212(f) of U.S. law, at 8 U.S. Code § 1182:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any 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.

But pro-migration advocates say that 212(f) clause cannot stop illegal migrants from jumping over the border wall into the United States and then use U.S. and international law to apply for asylum.

These advocates say migrants — even those with invalid cases — are protected by the constitution’s Fith Amendment once they get onto U.S. territory. The clause — “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” — allows migrants to get court hearings, despite Presidential opposition, the advocates say.

However, U.S. law does not require that asylum applicants be allowed to stay in the United States while their legal claims are considered by the courts, countered Christopher Hajec, the litigation director for the Immigration Law Reform Institute.

President Trump has the legal authority to deport classes of migrants to an outside location where they can safely live until their appeals are heard, he said. Migrants would be allowed to appeal for asylum in court cases conducted via video, he told Breitbart News. “Some might get asylum,” he added.

Much more here.

Remember readers that asylum is the other side of the refugee coin.  The only difference is the means of getting here.

If we fly them they are called refugees, if they get here on their own steam they must apply for asylum (refugee status).  Then, if the migrant is granted asylum, he/she gets the benefits that refugees we transport here receive.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

San Francisco Taxpayers Spent $6,122.44 Each to Register “Undocumented People” to Vote

Pennsylvania synagogue killer was angry about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society…

New Hampshire: Another refugee woman running for political office with compelling personal story

Italy: three migrants arrested in teen’s death, fuels Salvini’s anti-immigrant message

EDITORS NOTE: This Refugee Resettlement Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image of President Trump is courtesy of the White House.

The Democrats’ 5-Point Pitch For Voters Summed Up

Remove all of the nonsense spun up daily by the media, peel back the coverage spin, and what is revealed is a series of five Democratic positions that are, not to put too fine a point on it: Absurd and unpopular.

And most Americans find them to be absurd, damaging, crazy, annoying or all of these.

Of course, the shifting polls are showing this. As Americans are paying more attention to political positions and actions, particularly those swing voters who are not too involved with politics generally but who will vote in November, we’re seeing a swing toward more Republican support.

The GOP is now broadly thought to be able to pick up two to three Senate seats, after the Democrat-Media Establishment made a real push to retake the Senate. And the House, which was at one point a foregone conclusion to flip Democratic because of normal midterm responses to the party in power, the (former) unpopularity of the President, and the polls, now appears to be in play with the actual possibility that Republicans could maintain control.

The violence done by Democrats against the bedrock American principle of a presumption of innocence and concept of fairness during the Kavanaugh hearings certainly pushed some swing voters away from Democrats. And the roaring economy surely is moving politically middle Americans toward Republicans.

But the actual issues Democrats are running on are also driving away those in the middle as they actually become aware of them.

Here’s a quick look at those:

  • TRUMP: The primary animating issue Democrats have led with in their agenda is fueled by Trump hatred, and it means stopping, investigating, crippling and if possible removing Trump. But most Americans don’t really want that. And this shows. Despite the ongoing onslaught of negative reporting on President Trump by the media and the daily drumbeat of criticism, Americans feel pretty good about the country and the direction of the country. Astonishingly, given the comparative media coverage, Trump’s approval rating is now at an all-time high of 47 percent — two points above President Obama’s at this exact same point coming up on the midterms.
  • IMMIGRATION: In a nation with more than 20 million illegal aliens, and a massive caravan of now 14,000 Guatemalans and other foreigners marching toward the U.S. southern border (“coincidentally” right at election time,) the Democrats want to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. This is deeply unpopular because it is rightly seen as deeply stupid and counterproductive. Democrats fight every effort to secure the border and to control immigration. In practice, they are pushing for de facto open borders. Again, a disastrous policy in a country with generous welfare provisions. This general open-border stance, along with the abolishment of ICE, is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.
  • MEDICARE: Democrats are in the starting gates and ready to bust out to spin up a quick $20 trillion entitlement called “Medicare for All,” which will not only be more than $20 trillion, but which would rob those who worked a lifetime and contributed to Medicare — while buying their own health care insurance — of true Medicare coverage when their turn comes. It would throw everyone into government healthcare, grind to a halt medical innovation in this country (which means medical innovation in the world,) require crippling tax increases and end with rationed care. This last part is why older people, who had paid in through their lifetimes, would not receive the level of care they paid for others to receive. Basically, it destroys Medicare. When American voters understand this, the polls turn sharply.
  • SOCIALISM: The Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party is promoting the idea of Democratic Socialism, a colossal expansion of the welfare state in which Medicare for All is only a portion, and would require the nationalization of the healthcare industry and much more, and of course massive tax increases. Millennials may not fully grasp the destruction this would wreak on the American economy and American way of life, but most voters do.
  • GUNS: Democrats not running in red districts or states have given up on the 2nd Amendment. Their efforts at banning undefinable “assault weapons” and attempts to whittle away at Americans’ gun rights have now turned into an increasingly full-throated call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Yes, repeal it. Americans are very divided on assault weapons, particularly after an egregious mass shooting. But there is little support for ridding the U.S. Constitution of the 2nd Amendment.

When the unpopularity of these five points are combined with the #walkaway movement and the shift in black voters’ support for President Trump, it suggests that the vaunted blue wave may never materialize — media hyperventilating aside. And part of it will actually be policy-based.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Franck V. on Unsplash.

UnidosUS, Former La Raza Group, Pushes For Open Borders For Refugee Caravan

La Raza is at it again. Known now as UnidosUS, they are telling the American people that the only humane response to the migrant/refugee caravan traveling through Central America is to throw open our borders.

CNN reports that many people in the caravan have broken Mexico’s border laws. The caravan is allegedly aiming to get into the U.S.

This is another case of UnidosUS putting its partisanship ahead of what’s best for America — including the rule of law. Let’s be clear: nobody wants to see impoverished people believing they have no choice but to flee nations like Honduras. But if the U.S. is really as bad as UnidosUS claims… then why is UnidosUS encouraging the current migration to our southern border?

Remember, UnidosUS has long pushed for unlawful sanctuary city policies and has a history of using racially charged rhetoric to score political points. It makes us wonder if corporations like Coca-ColaWalmartFord and others are hoping you don’t find out about their support for UnidosUS and its liberal immigration agenda.

The following companies and nonprofits support UnidosUS:

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.

VIDEO: Human Traffickers and Criminal Elements in Caravan

Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network to discuss the migrant caravans and the investigative trip Chris Farrell took to Guatemala.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Caravan got its start with open-borders group

When you learn an open-borders group organized the ‘caravan’ to the U.S-Mexico border….

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

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.