Refugee Admissions Into U.S. Plunge 83% In First Two Months Of FY18

As monthly refugee admissions into the United States lap the last few months of Obama"s administration, the stark changes enacted by the Trump White House are more apparent than ever with admissions down a staggering 83% in the first two months of fiscal 2018 (October and November) compared to the first two months of fiscal 2017.

As CNS News points out, a total of only 3,108 refugees were admitted in October and November down from the 18,300 refugees who were admitted in October and November of last year.

The most striking change between the refugee admissions in the initial two-month period of this fiscal year and last fiscal year was the relative differences in size of the contingents from Syria, Somalia and Iraq.

In Oct.-Nov. 2016, 2,259 Syrians (97.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 percent Christian), 2,463 Somalis (99.9 percent Muslim) and 2,262 Iraqis (75 percent Muslim, 17.3 percent Christian, 7.4 percent Yazidi) were resettled.

 

In Oct.-Nov. 2017 the numbers had dropped to 33 Syrians (66.6 percent Muslim, 33.3 percent Christian), 126 Somalis (100 percent Muslim) and 76 Iraqis (84.2 percent Muslim, 10.5 percent Christian, 3.9 percent Yazidi).

 

Among the 3,108 refugees admitted since FY 2018 began, the five largest contingents came from Bhutan (805), the Democratic Republic of Congo (627), Burma (347), Ukraine (290) and Eritrea (281).

 

The religious breakdown of those 3,108 refugees was: 59.6 percent Christian, 15.4 percent Muslim, 9.6 percent Buddhist, 7.6 percent Hindu, 4.7 percent Kirat and 0.9 percent Jewish.

 

By contrast, the five countries represented most strongly among the 18,300 refugees resettled by the Obama administration in the U.S. during the first two months of FY 2017 were the DRC (4,236), Somalia (2,463), Iraq (2,262), Syria (2,259) and Burma (1,509).

 

The religious breakdown of those 18,300 refugees was: 48.1 percent Christian, 43.6 percent Muslim, 2.4 percent Buddhist, 1.7 percent Hindu, 0.9 percent Kirat and 0.3 percent Jewish.

Meanwhile, fourteen months after the Obama administration backed a push at the U.N. for global responsibility-sharing for refugees and migrants, the Trump Administration has pulled out of the initiative with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley saying it “is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

Now the administration is also withdrawing from a U.N. initiative called the Global Compact on Migration.

 

In a statement Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. would continue to engage at the U.N. but in this case it “simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”

 

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal.”

 

Haley said Sunday the New York declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump administration’s immigration principles.”

 

She said no country has done more that the U.S. in providing support for migrant and refugee populations across the globe, “and our generosity will continue.”

 

“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

Of course, it"s just a matter of time until Chuck Schumer and/or Nancy Pelosi tell us that Trump"s efforts to not outsource decisions regarding American sovereignty to the U.N. is just more evidence of the inherent racism plaguing the current administration.

The Legal System Is Failing America When It Comes To Immigration

Authored by Scott Greer via The Daily Caller,

The illegal immigrant who fired the gun shot that killed Kate Steinle was able to beat a murder charge this week.

Jose Garcia Zarate, a five-time deportee from Mexico and convicted felon, walked away with only a gun conviction after his legal team convinced the jury their client accidentally fired a gun three times and had no intent of killing anyone.

The Steinle case has attracted national attention ever since her murder occurred in 2015 in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. The murder became the focal point in the debate over illegal immigration, showing the dangers of sanctuary city policies and how America can’t secure its borders from convicted felons with multiple deportations.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump highlighted the murder several times on the campaign trail for why America needs to get tough on illegal immigration and eliminate sanctuary city policies.

There was always a political element to the case, and that comes into play as to why a San Francisco jury sought fit to let Zarate go free without even an involuntary manslaughter charge.

The prosecution team does warrant some of the blame for why that occurred. As RedState’s Sarah Rumpf argued, prosecutorial overreach trying to get a harder to prove first-degree murder charge bears some responsibility for the exoneration of Zarate for Kate’s killing.

However, that factor can’t be solely responsible for the not guilty verdict for an illegal immigrant who somehow accidentally fired off a gun three times with no malicious intent in mind.

San Francisco is a very liberal area and jury selection, according to Zarate’s defense team, was ensured to better benefit their client.

“We are very pleased with the jury,” said Matt Gonzalez, the lead defense lawyer for Zarate, upon the completion of jury selection.

 

“We have such great diversity built in in San Francisco and I think we have a jury that understands a lot of the concerns about the defendant receiving a fair trial.”

That diversity was reflected in the jury consisting of three immigrants, at least one of whom’s primary language was Spanish. Potential jurors were quizzed about their thoughts on immigration, Latinos, guns and crime when being taken into consideration.

Gonzalez also asked them how they would be fine with a verdict that came out contrary to President Trump’s wishes.

While the judge presiding over the case urged the jury to leave aside their opinions on immigration and guns and focus on the facts, it was always hard for this case to escape from politics.

Juries don’t always make the right decision, as anyone who is still upset by O.J. Simpson walking free can attest. The Steinle case seems to be emblematic for how America’s legal system seems incapable of adequately dealing with immigration issues.

Zarate should’ve never been in the country to begin with, yet a San Francisco prison let him go free while under a sixth deportation order three months before Steinle’s murder. All thanks to sanctuary city policies.

And this isn’t the only case where the legal system failed to find justice for illegal immigrant crime.

In October, a Texas woman who lost her husband and two children to a car crash caused by an illegal immigrant expressed outrage that the man responsible only received a two-year sentence for the crime.

In May, an Oregon circuit court overturned the conviction for an illegal immigrant who ran over and killed two girls playing in a leaf pile. The court bought the driver’s story that she didn’t realize she ran over anything as she drove away from the scene of the killing.

That reversed conviction was not for vehicular homicide, but for the driver being found guilty of failing to perform her duties as a driver. The courts also managed to dismiss her deportation case over the incident.

There’s also the example of San Francisco feeling embolden to continue to defend their sanctuary city policies, which give protection to illegal immigrants from deportation, after the Steinle verdict.

A convicted felon who will apparently fire off guns without thinking isn’t exactly the poster boy you want for your policies, but San Fran seems comfortable with that association.

Then again, the city should feel emboldened by how the courts continue to strike down the immigration orders of the president.

Even more important than the individual cases of leniency given to illegal immigrant criminals is how the courts are presently shaping our country’s immigration policy.

The White House has sought to punish jurisdictions that refuse to follow federal immigration law, yet courts have blocked the administration’s attempt to do so. In November, a U.S. district judge in California ruled the administration could not reduce federal funding to sanctuary cities because it “will cause them constitutional injuries.”

Earlier the same month, another U.S. district court judge argued from the bench that the Department of Justice was wrong to say a city was failing to meet law enforcement requirements by giving protection to illegal aliens.

Even more expansive than these court arguments on sanctuary cities is the legal system’s opinion on who the government can bar from entry into the country.

Increasingly, the courts have inched towards the opinion that the federal government cannot restrict immigration from any part of the world. The various versions of Trump’s travel ban have been knocked down by the courts for the alleged reason they discriminate on the basis “of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

In spite of the lengthy legal history of America restricting immigration based on national origin, judges have taken the initiative to make their own interpretation of migration policy. No matter how many times the Trump administration revises the executive order to prove it is not a Muslim ban, the courts still find it too discriminatory to take effect.

By declaring that the government cannot restrict immigration based on national origin, judges are declaring any attempt to limit migration is inherently racist. This thinking operates under the delusion that there is some hidden open borders clause in the Constitution.

We must take in any and all newcomers to the country because the Statue of Liberty poem says so. It doesn’t matter whether they come here legally or illegally, we must unquestionably welcome these immigrants or we are no longer America.

Many Americans find this argument ridiculous, as a large percentage of our country supports immigration reduction. But courts don’t have to answer to the people, and judges have used their power to impose their own will on immigration policy.

From the leniency shown to illegal alien criminals to preventing the president from enforcing immigration law, America’s legal system is proving it cannot be trusted to side with the interests of the nation’s citizens.

Fortunately, Trump is reshaping the federal judiciary with conservative picks and one hopes thatrestores sanity to the courts soon.

Until then, try not to be killed by an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city. A jury may find it’s more important to send a message to the president than find justice for your murder.

The Excuse is Immigration, But Federal Checkpoints Violate Everyone’s Rights

Via The Daily Bell

Federal agents set up shop in New Hampshire last week. They ran a Constitutionally-illegal checkpoint, violating the Fourth Amendment rights of countless Americans.

The big reward? They arrested 25 illegal immigrants, seven of them children. More than half of those detained had overstayed visas. That means they came to the U.S. legally in the first place and did not leave when their visa expired.

What could have spurred this callous disregard for the law? Well, a personal anecdote could shed some light on the situation.

A friend of mine from Brazil had a six-month visiting visa to the United States. He would come and stay with his uncle who had permanent residency. The way the rules work, it that my friend could use the visa as often as he wanted to travel to the United States, but couldn’t stay for longer than the six month period.

It was literally completely legal for him to fly to Brazil, spend the night, and fly back to the United States the next day. Then he could stay for another 6 months.

Being a rule follower, he did what the law said and flew back to Brazil where he stayed for about four months. The ticket to get back to the U.S. cost about $1,000. But when he arrived, he was denied entry to the United States. He was sent back to Brazil, and his visa was suspended for five years.

Why did this happen? After all, he followed all the rules. Officials said if he was staying 6 months at a time, he must have been working. Yes, because he stayed within the legal limits of his visa, the federal officials surmised that he must have violated the conditions of his visa.

Perhaps this unpredictability of U.S. Customs creates an incentive to overstay visas. Maybe the $1,000 plane tickets make it tempting to overstay a visa. Because maybe even if you follow the rules, you will arbitrarily be denied anyway, wasting your time, burning your money, and being separated from the rest of your family still in the States. Speaking of family, maybe the fact that many of the detained immigrants have kids in school in the U.S. means it is a ridiculous burden to make them leave every six months.

Yes, they broke the law. They broke complicated and restrictive immigration laws.

But why is it so important to follow immigration laws, while immigration officials completely disregard the Fourth Amendment?

Great job! Agents enforced immigration law by breaking Constitutional law. They stopped every car on I-93, without suspicion or probable cause. Generally, occupants of the vehicles are asked whether or not they are an American citizen.

If they refuse to answer, exercising their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, that is considered evidence of a crime, and they are detained for further questioning and possible search. Exercising a right is used as evidence of a crime. That is the point we have gotten to in the U.S.A. police state.

Using these illegal stop and search tactics, police found evidence of other crimes as well, unrelated to immigration.

The checkpoint also resulted in the seizure of two pounds of marijuana, as well as smaller amounts of cocaine, mushrooms and hash oil, all of which were seized from U.S. citizens, according to the Woodstock Police Department. In addition to the immigration detentions, 32 arrests were made for a range of infractions.

So there you have it, Americans’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated so that federal agents could prosecute victimless crimes. The only true victims in this whole checkpoint situation were all the people stopped by the agents.

Perhaps you aren’t concerned with the illegal immigrants’ treatment. What you should be concerned about is the convenient excuse increased immigration enforcement gives federal agents to trample your rights.

The harder they go after illegal immigrants, the more Americans will be ensnared, and have their rights violated. They will be stopped at checkpoints, subjected to illegal searches, and forced to be a witness against themselves.

This is how the government operates. Whether it is under the guise of a drug war, illegal immigration, or terrorism, their guns are truly only aimed at one target. The American people.

200 Years Of Immigration - Who Came To America, And When?

The United States has a long-standing history of being a “nation of immigrants”, and today the country is home to roughly 46.6 million residents that were born outside of the country. Courtesy of Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins, here are three maps and data visualizations that give us some history of who came to America, and when it all happened.

200 YEARS OF IMMIGRATION

To begin, this video from Metrocosm shows immigration to the U.S. starting from 1820. Each dot represents 10,000 people.

At first, immigration is coming almost exclusively from Europe.

But by around 1900, immigration from Russia, China, Canada, Turkey and Japan picks up – but then WWII devastates global mobility, and immigration to the U.S. grinds to a halt.

After WWII, it is the Cold War era, but the rate of arrivals slowly picks up again. Immigration eventually peaks between 1990-2000 after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Asian and Mexican immigration is also particularly strong around this time.

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

Here’s another look – this time, it’s a data visualization from Insightful Interaction using data from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics from 1820 to 2015.

Similar peaks in immigration near 1900 and 2000 can be seen. The dip from WWII is even more pronounced when visualizing the data this way.

The boom in newcomers from Mexico is also evident in the 1990s, though it has tapered off significantly in recent years.

MADE IN AMERICA

Over time, more people start feeling like their roots are tied to America, rather than having ancestry from somewhere else.

This final visualization from Overflow Data that shows the percentage of people in each state that claim to have American ancestry:

People in the country’s heartland and southern states are more likely to identify as having American ancestry, while folks along the coasts and northern states tend to see themselves as having ancestry from other parts of the world.

The highest rates of self-identification happen in Kentucky (17.6%), Tennessee (16.0%), and Alabama (16.4%). The lowest can be found in Hawaii (1.5%), D.C. (2.0%), and California (3.1%).

San Francisco's 9th Circuit Appeals Court Rules Against Trump 'Revised' Travel Ban

In perhaps the least-surprising news of the day, a second federal appeals court on Monday ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban. The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, followed a string of recent rulings rejecting the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

The new order’s 90-day suspension of entry from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen was more limited and subject to case-by-case exceptions. It omitted Iraq, which had been listed in the earlier order, and it removed a complete ban on Syrian refugees. It also deleted explicit references to religion.

As The New York Times reports, the new ruling affirmed a March decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the Federal District Court in Hawaii.

Judge Watson blocked major parts of the revised order, saying they violated the Constitution’s ban on a government establishment of religion.

Judge Watson wrote that the statements of Mr. Trump and his advisers made clear that his executive order amounted to an attempt to disfavor Muslims.

“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion,” Judge Watson wrote.

The administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of a similar decision issued last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va..

And right on the heels of the 9th Circuit;s ruling, Reuters reports that the state of Hawaii on Monday urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to grant the Trump administration"s emergency request seeking to revive his plan to temporarily ban travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.

Lawyers for Hawaii, which challenged Trump"s ban in court and won a nationwide injunction blocking it, said in court papers his executive order is a "thinly veiled Muslim ban."

Monday is the deadline for the ban"s challengers to respond to the administration"s request that the order be allowed to go into effect. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people challenging the ban in a separate Maryland case, is due to file its own response later on Monday.

Hawaii"s court papers mentioned a series of Twitter posts that Trump wrote on June 5, after the administration sought Supreme Court intervention. Trump described the order, which replaced an earlier Jan. 27 order that also was blocked by courts, as a "watered down, politically correct" version of his original plan.

Hawaii"s lawyers said that Trump has made "a series of barely veiled statements linking the orders to his promised Muslim ban." If he had not done so, the order may not violate the Constitution, the lawyers said.

We are sure the President will have something to "tweet" about this shortly.

New York Towns, Cities Follow AG's Order To Ignore Sessions, Adopt Illegal Alien Sanctuary Laws

Via Judicial Watch,

Weeks after the chief law enforcement official in New York State issued “legal guidance” to help municipalities provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants, nearly a dozen have followed through with the attorney general’s order to skirt federal law. The goal, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is to provide local governments with a tool to “protect their immigrant communities, regardless of new federal enforcement practices.” Those that have followed Schneiderman’s directive range from sleepy towns like Newburgh to larger cities such as Rochester as well as Albany, the state capital.

Schneiderman issued the decree in response to the Trump administration’s proposed immigration enforcement policies. The document states that its purpose it to describe the legal landscape governing the participation of local authorities in immigration enforcement and to “assist local authorities that wish to become sanctuary jurisdictions by offering model language that can be used to enact local laws or policies that limit participation in immigration enforcement activities.” Utilizing so-called “model language” has become a key tool for sanctuary cities, counties and states that want to avoid losing federal funds under new Trump administration measures that punish local governments for not cooperating with federal authorities. Just last month Judicial Watch reported on a California town that found a creative way to implement a stealth sanctuary policy with “model language” that avoids using certain trigger words.

New York stands out because it’s the only state in which the top law enforcement authority, a veteran elected official, is actively encouraging and assisting local governments to violate the law. Some have faced resistance from citizens, though the majority have passed stealth sanctuary measures with little opposition since Schneiderman launched his campaign to protect illegal aliens in the Empire State. In the upscale town of Irvington, situated about 20 miles from Manhattan, the Board of Trustees issued a Statement of Tolerance days after the 2016 presidential election to guarantee that people of all races, religions, orientations and countries of origin are safe within its boundaries. “It seems there are many in our nation who are not currently feeling welcome nor safe,” the statement reads. “We want everyone to know that the Irvington Board of Trustees will never tolerate discrimination of any kind in our Village.” The city lists a phone number of the local police and encourage anyone who witnesses “any form of discrimination or intimidation” to call immediately.

Last month Irvington unanimously passed a resolution making it a sanctuary city and lawmakers credit the attorney general’s legal guidance. Now the mayor and several trustees are used as propaganda by the attorney general’s office to promote more illegal alien sanctuaries in the state. In a statement issued by the attorney general, Irvington Mayor Brian Smith says this: “We relied on the guidance of the AG’s office in crafting the wording of the resolution, which has the complete support of our police department. Irvington proudly stands as the first Westchester municipality to pass such a resolution and looks forward to having others step forward.” Under the new measure, which reportedly will soon be adapted by other communities in the county, Irvington will not honor detainer requests from federal immigration enforcement agencies.

One Irvington resident who continues challenging the sanctuary measure is an attorney who argues that the village is protecting criminals and endangering the lives of citizens. Her name is Lauri Regan and she reminds Irvington lawmakers in writing about a recent Maryland case in which two illegal immigrants raped a 14-year-old girl in a high school bathroom. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for one of the rapists but, because Montgomery County offers illegal immigrants sanctuary, it was ignored. Regan fears the same will occur in her hometown of Irvington. In one electronic mail Irvington Mayor Brian Smith tells Regan that he fails to see a link between the Maryland case and the new Irvington policy and in another he writes that “we do not want undocumented immigrants to fear interacting with our police department.”

Trump Admin Cracks Down On Visas For Coders

As Nasdaq reaches ever record-er, record highs, it seems the ability to create a "Hello World" app is no longer enough to warrant an H1-B visa according to new guidelines from the Trump administration.

As The Hill reports, the new policy guidance that would make it harder for companies to use the H-1B visa program to bring foreign computer programmers into the U.S. A policy memo from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services changes the way the agency will process visa applications for computer programming positions, making companies jump through extra hoops to fill those jobs with foreign workers...

The memorandum also does not properly explain or distinguish an entry-level position from one that is, for example, more senior, complex, specialized, or unique.

Furthermore, the memorandum also did not accurately portray essential information from the Handbook that recognized that some computer programmers qualify for these jobs with only “2-year degrees.” While the memorandum did mention beneficiaries with “2-year” degrees, it incorrectly described them as “strictly involving the entering or review of code for an employer whose business is not computer related.”

...

Based on the current version of the Handbook, the fact that a person may be employed as a computer programmer and may use information technology skills and knowledge to help an enterprise achieve its goals in the course of his or her job is not sufficient to establish the position as a specialty occupation. Thus, a petitioner may not rely solely on the Handbook to meet its burden when seeking to sponsor a beneficiary for a computer programmer position. Instead, a petitioner must provide other evidence to establish that the particular position is one in a specialty occupation...

Companies use the H-1B program to import workers for highly skilled positions that are difficult to fill. The Trump administration, however, has alleged that tech companies and IT outsourcing firms have abused the program to the detriment of American workers.

The lottery for companies to apply for 2018 visas opened on Monday. Interestngly, as livemint reports, a feature film about the difficulties facing an Indian temporary work-visa holder waiting for permanent residency will be screened in 25 US cinemas on Friday, with backing from Silicon Valley investors, fuelling an already heated immigration debate.

Advocates of immigration often cite H1B success stories like Sundar Pichai of Google and Satya Nadella of Microsoft. But the work visas are controversial and critics say companies that use them the most — information technology services companies with the bulk of their operations in India — are hurting American workers by undercutting salaries and taking away jobs.

Workers who want to gain permanent residence are treated like indentured labor, said Vivek Wadhwa, Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering. If they change jobs or take a promotion, they lose their turn in line, so they end up doing menial jobs during the most productive years of their lives, he said.

“I call this one of Silicon Valley’s darkest secrets,” said Wadhwa, who is also a director of research at Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering.
 

This Time It's Going To The Supreme Court: Hawaii Judge Blocks Trump's Second Travel Ban

In the latest legal setback for the President, moments ago Trump’s latest attempt to temporarily bar new immigrants and refugees from six Muslim-majority nations was blocked by a Hawaii Federal Judge, pushing the young administration toward a second defeat on one of the president’s core campaign platforms.

U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson froze the order nationwide

As part of Watson"s ruling, the Judge even cites Trump"s own comments in blocking his new immigration order, saying they "betray the Executive Order"s stated secular purpose"

As the WaPo reports, Watson was the second of three judges to hear arguments Wednesday on whether to freeze the ban. A federal judge in Maryland said he also could rule before day’s end after a morning hearing, and the same federal judge in Washington state who suspended Trump’s first travel ban was set to hear arguments starting at 5 p.m. Eastern.

The hearing in Hawaii came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state itself. Lawyers for Hawaii alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damages the state’s robust tourism industry.

They pointed particularly to the case of Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii, whose mother-in-law’s application for an immigrant visa was still being processed. Under the new executive order, lawyers for Hawaii said, Elshikh feared that his mother-in-law would ultimately be banned from entering the United States.

The ruling means the 90-day ban on new visa approvals won’t be enforced beginning Thursday, as originally intended by the White House. According to Bloomberg, this time the ruling by the judge in Honolulu will almost certainly be appealed by the Trump administration and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, just as many predicted would happen after Trump"s original travel ban was blocked by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in February.

According to Bloomberg, the judge is one of three across the U.S. who spent Wednesday weighing whether to impose a temporary halt on the president’s second travel ban, which was tailored by administration lawyers to stand-up to the legal challenges that imperiled its predecessor. Revisions to the order weren’t enough to convince him that the ban was free of religious discrimination.

Democratic state attorneys general and immigrant-rights groups have led the charge to block Trump’s renewed push to make good on his campaign promise to curb immigration in the name of protecting Americans from potential terrorist attacks. Supporters of the order contend critics fail to understand the expanse of powers that Congress affords the president in dealing with matters of immigration and national security. The new order temporarily blocks visa approvals for immigrants and refugees from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan.

Unlike the last time a judge blocked Trump"s immigration order, so far there has been no tweet in response.

'Rogue' Border Agents Resist Trump Orders, Continue Obama's 'Catch-And-Release' Policy

Authored by Brendan Kirby, originally posted at Lifezette.com,

Some border patrol stations have been slow to carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement executive order and instead have continued former President Barack Obama’s “catch-and-release” policies, according to a union official.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told LifeZette that he raised concerns Thursday with U.S. Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello. He said he is confident that issue soon will be corrected.

But Judd said as recently as Thursday, some border patrol stations were still releasing border-jumpers, often without even issuing notices to appear in immigration court hearings. Obama’s policy was to release anyone claiming to have been living continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 2014, if they did not have criminal records or active warrants.

“We’re still walking people out the door,” Judd said. “The catch-and-release policy is still in place in some sectors.”

Judd said it was a minority of sectors that have been resisting Trump’s new directives. He laid the blame at the feet of U.S. Border Patrol managers, not front-line officers.

“This is not the administration’s fault. This is Border Patrol’s fault,” he said. “It varies from sector to sector. Some sectors still are operating under the Obama administration’s policies. And that’s troubling … It’s just been very willy-nilly.”

Asked about the status of Trump’s marching orders, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Carlos Diaz wrote in an email to LifeZette, “CBP has worked towards implementing the measures mandated by the Executive Orders since they were signed.”

Judd said some managers have been waiting for specific written guidelines to filter down from the Department of Homeland Security. He said he considers that unnecessary since the president’s executive order is crystal clear. He said anyone apprehended by border patrol agents should be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities. That agency and immigration judges are charged with deciding whether someone should be deported.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said she was not aware that the president’s executive order had not been fully implemented three weeks after he issued it.

“It actually surprises me. But if that’s the case, certainly the administration is going to need to look into that if they’re going to be undermined,” she said. “That’s got to be nipped in the bud.”

Vaughan, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer, said it often takes time for new policies to be fully embraced. This especially is true during the transition from one administration to the next, she said, because the outgoing administration often has promoted managers who agree with its policy goals.

She noted that Obama, himself, faced bumps in the road on the way to implementing enforcement directives mandating a lighter hand. She said union officials enforced the letter of their collective bargaining agreement requiring training before new policies are adopted.

“It’s not unusual for people who are in disagreement with change to dig in their heels and take a stand,” she said. “I certainly saw that at the State Department where implementation of law and policies could differ based on the views of different managers and different posts.”

Joseph Guzzardi, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, said it was disappointing that some border patrol officials appear not be onboard with the new policies.

"It would be surprising to me because Border Patrol has been hugely in support of Trump when he ran," he said. "I have been down to the border and talked to Border Patrol agents and got the clear impression that they were eager to enforce immigration law."

Judd said he expects a "compete change" after his conversation with Vitiello but added that the policies already should be fully implemented.

"It should not have had to be me who informed him," he said.

Trump Administration Toughens Asylum Rules, Speeds Deportation Process

Amid judicial blockages, and rogue border agents, it appears the Trump administration is still trying its best to follow through on its campaign promises to crackdown on illegal immigration. As Reuters reports, The Department of Homeland Security has prepared new guidance for immigration agents aimed at speeding up deportations by denying asylum claims earlier in the process.

Following last week"s apparent crackdown on DREAMers, Reuters reports new guidelines, contained in a draft memo dated February 17 but not yet sent to field offices, directs agents to only pass applicants who have a good chance of ultimately getting asylum, but does not give specific criteria for establishing credible fear of persecution if sent home.

The guidance instructs asylum officers to "elicit all relevant information" in determining whether an applicant has “credible fear” of persecution if returned home, the first obstacle faced by migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border requesting asylum.

Three sources familiar with the drafting of the guidance said the goal of the new instructions is to raise the bar on initial screening.

The administration"s plan is to leave wide discretion to asylum officers by allowing them to determine which applications have a "significant possibility" of being approved by an immigration court, the sources said.

Furthermore, as The Wall Street Journal reports, parents and others who help children travel illegally to the U.S. would be subject to deportation or prosecution under new Trump administration policies being completed, according to a second leaked memo prepared by the Department of Homeland Security.

The draft memo also indicates people from countries other than Mexico trying to cross the southern U.S. border illegally could be returned to Mexico to await legal proceedings, while others would be held in detention centers.

The memo directs that those apprehended at the border be detained, or jailed, until their cases are heard, unless they first establishes a “credible fear” of persecution, or meet other limited exceptions.

Leon Fresco, who headed the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation under President Barack Obama, predicted many of these policies would meet resistance from courts, which are already reviewing smaller changes implemented under the previous administration.

He said he was particularly struck by the change in how children would be handled.

“It is a complete 180 to move from a policy that focused on unaccompanied minors being placed into safe locations while their removal proceedings were pending to placing the custodians of unaccompanied minors into removal proceedings,” he said. Even the smaller Obama version “is already the subject of pending litigation in Los Angeles federal court and is likely going to be viewed with great skepticism by that court.”

*  *  *

Of course, as a reminder, these immigrants are illegally entering the country and this is what the American people voted for.

Reality Check: "Immigration Can Never Be An Effective Way To Deal With The Suffering People Of The World"

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

The most oft cited reason by opponents of President Trump’s immigration policies for why America should open its borders to the millions of impoverished and persecuted individuals around the world often center around humanitarian reasons. As a rich country with plenty of land mass, we should be able to take in anyone and everyone who may be in need, right?

While that notion, like Marx-Engels’ ideas for taking from those who have the ability and giving to those who need, may seem great on paper, successfully implementing such policies in the real world is starkly different.

According to Census Bureau statistics, some 1.3 million foreign-born individuals legally immigrated to the United States in 2014. That figure doesn’t include the nearly one million immigrants that enter the country illegally each year. Those who support open border immigration have said that we need to take in even more people.

But according to journalist Roy Beck, taking in one million people per year makes almost no difference in the grand scheme of things because for every million we bring into the United States, another 80 million people yearly are born into countries with extreme levels of poverty, violence or war. According to Beck, even opening our borders to five million more people per year would do nothing to stem the the real problems.

In what is one of the most viewed immigration policy videos on the internet from Numbers USA, Beck ingeniously utilizes gumballs to demonstrate why open borders simply will not work. As well, he provides a seemingly novel solution that has for decades fallen on deaf ears:

We never get ahead of what’s happening in these countries… Don’t you see? Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to deal with the suffering people of the world… they have to be helped where they live…

99.9% of them will never be able to immigrate to a rich country… there is no hope for that… they have to bloom where they’re planted… the only place that 99.9% of these people can be helped is where they live… let’s help them there.

In short: taking in millions of immigrants doesn’t even make a dent.

So for those utilizing immigration as justification for violent protests and kinetic civil war, or for those who follow such narratives blindly based strictly on emotions that are devoid of any rational thought, we encourage you to consider the reality of bringing in millions of immigrants from impoverished countries.

And don’t just consider the non-effect of such policies as they relate to the global humanitarian situation, but consider the implications this has on America’s resources, as well as our citizens, who will be burdened with heavy taxation to cover the costs.

Even if we went by the most radical proposals in Washington, which are to actually double our immigration to two million year… which would totally overwhelm our physical, natural and social infrastructures, we couldn’t even make a visible difference.

Tucker Carlson Challenges Head of Refugee Placement Agency (HIAS) to Explain American Values

HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) head, Mark Hetfield, debated Tucker Carlson this evening on the merits of accepting refugees into the country -- declaring it was the responsibility of the United States to accept anyone in need -- citing the plight of jews in 1921 and how we, as a nation, horribly failed them -- which contributed to the death toll during World War 2.
 
Tucker called him out for applying a straw man, revisionist, argument -- asking Mark to explain what are "American values" and how many refugees are we supposed to take in, considering there are upwards of 60 million, globally.
 
I am sure you could imagine where this went.
 

 
It"s important to note that organizations like HIAS make a living off admittance of refugees into the country. They aren"t honest brokers on the subject matter, since their livelihoods are dependent on government funds quantified off a number of refugees entering the country. In recent years, they"ve enjoyed solid growth, with revenues surging from $25m in 2012 to $40m in 2015, according to their 990 form filed with the IRS.
 
More to that end, the directors of HIAS have enjoyed a prosperous living off the recent influx of refugees, allocating upwards of $17m (~50%) of revenues towards salaries and compensation.
 

 
At the end of the day, they"re crony capitalists, sucking off the tit of government handouts -- fueled by idealogues.
 

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Austin Becomes Ground Zero For Sanctuary City Battle As Texas Governor Vows To Cut State Funding

Late last week, according to the Austin American- Statesman, the newly elected sheriff of Travis County, Texas, Sally Hernandez, vowed to limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials saying that she would only honor immigration holds for suspects booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and "continuous smuggling of persons".

Traditionally, the county has honored nearly all requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold a suspect booked into jail when agents have wanted to investigate their status further.

However, effective Feb. 1, sheriff"s officials will honor so-called immigration holds or "detainers" placed by federal authorities only when a suspect is booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and "continuous smuggling of persons."

Otherwise, federal agents must have a court order or arrest warrant signed by a judge for the jail to continue housing a person whose immigration status is in question, according to Hernandez"s policy, which she released Friday.

"The public must be confident that local law enforcement is focused on local public safety, not on federal immigration enforcement. Our jail cannot be perceived as a holding tank for ICE or that Travis County deputies are ICE officers," Hernandez said in a video announcement.

Of course, the declaration from Hernandez drew an immediate reaction from Texas Governor Greg Abbott who promptly promised to cut state funding for the rogue Travis County and take steps to enact "stiffer penalties" as well.

The Governor"s Office will cut funding for Travis County adopting sanctuary policies. Stiffer penalties coming. https://t.co/yYxeXql3xL

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) January 20, 2017

According to Vocativ, the Travis County Police Department receives $1.8 million in annual grants from the state of Texas.  That said, at roughly 1% of their overall police budget, we suspect the the funding shortfall won"t be a sufficient deterrent for Travis County"s defiant new Sheriff.

Abbott, a Republican, has threatened to withhold nearly $1.8 million in state law-enforcement grants following Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez’s decision to buck state law and no longer honor all jail detainers sought by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A detainer is a request to state and local jails to notify federal agents when they are about to release an undocumented immigrant from custody.

“This is not a pronouncement of sound public policy; it is a dangerous game of political Russian roulette — with the lives of Texans at stake,” Abbott wrote in a letter to Hernandez on Monday. “Unless you reverse your policy… your unilateral decision will cost the people of Travis County money that was meant to be used to protect them.”

Of course, Trump also repeatedly vowed during his campaign to cut federal funding for sanctuary cities, a move that he is expected to officially confirm later today, along with a series of other national security initiatives, during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

With that, it seems the time has come for many of America"s liberal cities to: (a) get used to policing their streets with smaller budgets or (b) actually start enforcing laws.