Filed under: Bureaucracy, Canada, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Law, Media Bias, Mexico, National Security, Politics, Progressives, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Secretary John Kelly, The National Interest
John Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has issued two memoranda directed to the federal agencies that are involved in implementing executive orders or immigration. The memoranda are clearly intended to tell ICE and the Border Patrol and other agencies that the United States laws on immigration are now going to be enforced.
It’s not all going to happen overnight, new resources will be required including the hiring of 10,000 new ICE officers and agents. The memorandum titled “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” makes it explicitly clear that it is the president’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. We have a president who takes his oath of office seriously. This should not be news, but in the wake of Barack Obama’s abdication, it is. Kelly’s memoranda reads, in part:
Except as specifically noted above, the Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. In faithfully executing the immigration laws, Department personnel should take enforcement actions in accordance with applicable law. In order to achieve this goal, as noted below, I have directed ICE to hire 10,000 officers and agents expeditiously, subject to available resources, and to take enforcement actions consistent with available resources. However, in order to maximize the benefit to public safety, to stem unlawful migration and to prevent fraud and misrepresentation, Department personnel should prioritize for removal those aliens described by Congress in Sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235(b) and (c), and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Victor Davis Hanson points out the complications. Activists portray illegal immigration as a tale of the desperately poor from south of the border seeking a new productive life in the U.S., but the Mexican government keeps taxes low on their elites by exporting their own poor citizens who will send remittances back to Mexico—some $25 billion from Mexican citizens working in America—to support the Mexican economy. Mexico’s approach to immigration enforcement on their own southern border is sterner, and perhaps you remember the U.S. military member who got confused at the border crossing into Mexico, got into the wrong line and ended up in a Mexican prison for his error. And of course the Mexican government is having fits at President Trump’s tweets.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly were in Mexico today to meet with the Mexican government. The current initiative is focused primarily on those illegal aliens who threaten national security, border security or public safety. But being here illegally is unlawful.
President Obama wanted to use illegal immigrants’ numbers to change the demographics in districts currently unfavorable to Democrats. Which makes the attempts to conflate illegal aliens and illegal immigrants and legal immigrants in the public mind clearer. If most people don’t understand the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college vote, that makes it easier to change the vote by changing the population of a district. Thus, most of those who violated our immigration laws got a pass.
That is coming to a halt. “DHS no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. Any illegal immigrant encountered in the course of normal law -enforcement operations will be subject to deportation.” In other words, our laws will be enforced. It is only in America that deporting aliens or those who have overstayed their visas is a big deal. In virtually every other country immigration enforcement is an uncontroversial part of national life. Canada deports about 13,000 people annually. Australia deports 10,000 people annually, and they intercept illegal boat migrants by denying them any claim to refugee status by not allowing them to land.
The vast majority of Americans oppose the idea of sanctuary cities. A new Harris poll shows that 89% of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting illegal immigrants, and the president has broad public support for cracking down on sanctuary cities. American Hispanic citizens are no more favorable to illegal aliens than the rest of us.
Is it possible that the Democrats are on the wrong track here? It would seem so, but if they have a death wish for their party, who am I to interfere?
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Latin America, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Jeh Johnson, Will They Be Deported?
Secretary Jeh Johnson is the new chief of Homeland Security. This morning David Gregory tried to get a straight answer to a simple question about the influx of illegal immigrants on the Southern border.
“Will the Illegal Children Be Deported?”
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Immigration, Law, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Congressional Budget Office, Department of Homeland Security, The Path to Citizenship
Back in February, Bloomberg Businessweek had a headline that proclaimed “While Nobody Was Looking, The Border Got Secured.” Reporter Elizabeth Dworkin said “Obama has poured money and resources into border security. In his first term, he spent $73 billion on immigration enforcement. That’s more than the budgets of all other federal law enforcement agencies.” Well, yes. In his first term Obama squandered money right and left. Dworkin depended on falling numbers of illegals apprehended, but doesn’t count the ones who got away. President Obama has also tried to claim that the border is “secure.”
Janet Napolitano visited the border south of San Diego and announced “I believe the border’s a safe border. That’s not to say everything is 100 percent.” Well, yes, it’s not 100%, that’s why ICE agents are suing Secretary Napolitano and Homeland Security and the Obama administration for not letting them do their jobs.
The Heritage Foundation noted:
Last week, government watchdog Judicial Watch issued a report that shows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was abandoning ordinary background checks due to a surge in amnesty applications as a result of President Obama’s executive action last year.
If DHS cannot manage a few hundred thousand temporary amnesty applications, it is scary to think about how it will handle 10 million or more amnesty applications that would occur as a result of the Senate’s immigration reform bill.
Under the Senate’s immigration bill, the majority of the estimated 11.5 million unlawful immigrants would get provisional immigrant status after passing a background check. Not going to happen if DHS can’t keep up with the sudden surge. ICE admitted in March that it has released more than 2,000 unlawful immigrants, including serious offenders. ,Since those released are no longer confined in immigration jails, who knows if they will turn up for their court hearings.
The U.S Judicial Conference, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary has issued a scathing letter on the enormous costs and problems the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill would create for the court system involving enforcement, legalization, immigration courts and E-Verify.
The talking points about the “path to citizenship,” offer many barriers that illegal immigrants must pass to receive “earned legalization,” but the barriers have no teeth, the path is phony, and the record of adherence to the rules— by the administration— is bleak.
- They must pass background checks. DHS does not have the ability to handle present amnesty applications, a surge of 11 million is impossible.
- They must learn English. The 1986 law required this, but in practice attendance at a handful of classes was sufficient, INS weakened the requirement after the law was passed, last time, and exempted many.
- They must pay back taxes. Those who have been working off the books have no history with the IRS about back taxes. The requirement is that illegals must come clean with the IRS, but if there’s no record? So the idea is sign up and we’ll send the IRS after you? That’s sure to work.
- They must pay a fee and a fine. Mr. Obama called it a ‘penalty’, but a fee is meant to cover the cost of administering amnesty. How much? To be decided by DHS. The fine or penalty was $500, then another $500 six years later, and if a person wants to switch from provisional status to green card status, there’s another $1,000. Lots of exceptions and waivers. If you came in under age 16, you don’t have to pay, or if you’re under 21, or on welfare. The original bill grants non-profits $150 million to help illegals apply for amnesty.
- They must go to the back of the line. Those approved for provisional legal status immediately get a work permit, Social Security account, travel documents, drivers licenses, many public benefits, and state level benefits. Those who receive amnesty are better off compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the U.S. legally. Amnesty, thus, is a powerful incentive to encourage illegal immigration. Why wait around to do it legally? We would be sending the message illegal entry is a legitimate path to US citizenship, The Border Patrol chief recently testified to Congress that even the discussion of amnesty has increased illegal immigration.
What has changed in the hastily rewritten Hoeven-Corker version, I don’t know, but you can be sure that it is all window dressing. The administration has just spent almost 5 years demonstrating that an administration does not have to abide by the rules if they don’t want to.
The Congressional Budget Office foresees a net increase of 10,4 million legal immigrants through 2023 on top of the 10 million expected under current law. Add another 4.8 million new illegals and we could be looking at more than 25 million new immigrants in the next ten years. We have never had immigration on that scale. Never. If millions of Americans cannot find work, what are all the new people going to be doing? Lowering wages and increasing unemployment? The CBO also finds that even with stronger economic growth the bill would decrease the wages of working Americans, especially the least well off.
Here’s another interesting factoid. Sharia Law allows adherents to take the Oath of Allegiance which begins “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty to which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen… ” and lie about it. Sharia trumps American oaths, and one is free to lie to unbelievers.
Truly promising, isn’t it?
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Law, Liberalism, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Department of Homeland Security, End Run Around Congress, Obama Administration
In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to stop the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.” Don’t you love the names liberals dream up to hide, confuse, and disguise what they are actually doing.
Their aim is always more Democrat voters at the polls. But they want to disguise that by something that demonstrates how nice Democrats are. Here is how it would work., according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in the Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government. The agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative who is a U.S. citizen.
According to the law, such aliens must return to their native country, and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they have to enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Aside from the obvious security issues, changing the rules in this case is rewarding bad behavior. It makes no sense.
According to DHS, the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relations. They didn’t quite say “ripped from the arms of their loved ones.” The proposed changes, first announced in January, will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. Citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
DHS also claims that relaxing this rule will “create efficiencies for both the government and most applicants.” What makes this more “efficient” is unknown.
This is obviously a part of the Obama Administration’s plan to go around Congress and accomplish what Congress would not pass, by regulation and rule changes. Obama has things he wants to accomplish and he does not see why he should be constrained by annoyances like the separation of powers, or an understanding that the three branches of government are equal branches.
The Department of Homeland Security only takes action against a “small portion” of foreigners who overstay their visa —like the 9/11 terrorists—em and allows hundreds of thousands to enter the U.S. without proper authorization from them under a provision that already relaxes scrutiny for 36 countries with whom we have special visa waiver agreements.
It’s as if nothing was learned from the 9/11 attacks nor from terrorist attacks in other countries. Most visitors comply with the rules, but an estimated 2% don’t, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). But that 2% translates into 364,000 travelers. Only half the countries that have visa waiver agreements with the U.S. are fully compliant. Last year a federal audit reveals that nearly half of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants actually entered the U.S. legally but never left after their visa expired.
It is my impression that many liberals, secure in comfortable lives, do not take terrorism seriously. And once we got Osama bin Laden, wasn’t that the end of it? It is on the left that you find disarmament, gun control, peace studies, and efforts to slash military spending. In their Utopia, after redistribution of income when everybody is more equal, there won’t be any more wars and we don’t need all those armaments. If we just get rid of all our weapons, won’t everyone else follow our lead?
The Homeland Department has a lot to answer for, since they’re not doing Security any more.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Freedom, Humor, Progressivism | Tags: Department of Homeland Security, Grope or Scatter, Sunny T.V.
With the Thanksgiving holiday coming up, you may need to plan ahead for your travel. Here’s Sunny on Sunny TV with travel advice about the TSA problem.
Filed under: National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Airport Security, Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
Dear Secretary Napolitano,
A Federal Flight Deck Officer posted a series of cell-phone videos on YouTube, critical of airport security in the San Francisco airport, in an effort to call attention to a security problem. He is now under investigation by your Transportation Security Administration.
Within days of the videos appearing on You Tube, a team of four federal TSA agents and two sheriff’s deputies appeared on the pilot’s driveway, to confiscate his federally issued handgun and badge.
You have this incident all backwards. The proper approach is to see promptly that ground crew at airports are as thoroughly checked out as the flight crew. Surely it is not just passengers who require intrusive pat-downs and scanning.
This pilot, a federally appointed and federally armed Flight Deck Officer, is not the threat. He was appointed to his job because he is a responsible and trustworthy pilot. Because he is a responsible pilot, he is entrusted with a weapon with which to protect passengers and flight crew. He simply pointed out that it is silly for him and his fellow pilots to have to go through security each time they board a plane, when ground crews gain access to the same plane by simply swiping a card at an unmanned door.
The correct response is gratitude, and perhaps a letter of commendation and even a raise, for pointing out a flaw in security arrangements that needs prompt attention. The old saying is:”Don’t attack the messenger.”
Most old sayings are folk-wisdom that form some of the guardrails of life. The person who carries a message, however embarrassing that message might be to you, is not the enemy. You were alerted to the possible enemy. You chose to attack the messenger instead.
You might want to rethink that.