Canada Blames Their Illegal Immigration Problem On The US

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hilariously blamed the United States for Canada’s illegal immigration of asylum seekers. The announcement that the US was to blame provoked a lot of questions for Trudeau in his country’s Parliament yesterday.

Trudeau thinks the US is to blame because Nigerians are requesting and obtaining visitor visas to come to the United States.  Once in the US, they are promptly heading to an obscure, unofficial border crossing on the northern end of New York state. Once there, they cross into Canada illegally and request refugee status.

More than 26,000 asylum seekers have crossed illegally into Canada from the United States to file refugee claims in the past 15 months, walking over ditches and on empty roads along the world’s longest undefended border.

According to Hot Air, up until now, the Canadians have claimed it as a point of pride to quickly accept and resettle the new arrivals while bashing President Donald Trump for his “immigrant unfriendly” policies. But now Canada is running out of room and resources to take them all in and the Prime Minister would like the US to do a better job of screening them.

Of course, once Trudeau announced that he was blaming the US and their visitor visas for his problems,  it provoked a lot of questions for Trudeau in his country’s Parliament yesterday. People were demanding answers as to how the situation has gotten so far out of hand and what Trudeau planned to do about it. All he seemed to have for an answer is that it’s the fault of the United States.  There’s currently no plan to solve the problem Trudeau is complaining about.

Trudeau wants the legal authority to turn back thousands of asylum seekers crossing the border illegally. According to Reuters, Canada wants to amend a bilateral agreement to allow it to block border-crossing refugee claimants however, they say that the United States is not cooperating.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement or STCA, asylum seekers who arrive at a formal Canada-U.S. border crossing going in either direction are turned back and told to apply for asylum in the first country they arrived in. Now Canada wants that agreement rewritten so that it would apply to the entire border, and not just formal border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is reviewing Canada’s proposal but has not made a decision.

Soros Defeated After Attempting To Rig Hungarian Election And Spending MILLIONS

George Soros has suffered a rather humiliating defeat after pumping millions of dollars into a Hungarian election he attempted to buy. Soros, who was born in Hungary and desperately wanted a hardened fascist to win the election, is now out millions of dollars as Viktor Orbán won with a whopping 70% of the vote.

Viktor Orbán is known as an “anti-globalist” painted with the same broad brush as president Donald Trump. Prime minister Orbán has also successfully cut illegal immigration to Hungary by 99% after building his wall on the border.

With the votes counted, Europe Elects is sharing stats which show Fidesz, the party founded by Prime Minister Orbán while he was a young anti-Communist dissident, has won not merely a decisive majority but an outright super-majority, along with minor allied parties. This will allow changes to the national constitution. Hopefully, those changes will be for more the better of the people, and not the expansion of liberty-trampling governments – something Soros has championed for decades.

Landslide for Orban’s Fidsez. 70% of votes for Right or Far Right = major headache for Brussels. https://t.co/l7Y95x6Vq2

— Andrew Neil (@afneil) April 8, 2018

The results will be extremely disappointing for top bureaucrats in the European Union and activists working for so-called civil society NGOs funded by billionaire open borders campaigner George Soros, who had been hoping for an upset defeat, or for Fidesz to lose its super-majority, at least. This is certainly a bloody nose to the globalists and elitists who want to control the entire population. 

Hungarian Government Slams Anti-Brexit Plot: ‘Why Do We Say “Stop Soros”? Just Ask the British People.’ https://t.co/Ph9nHLcUdM

— Jack Montgomery ن (@JackBMontgomery) February 10, 2018

With Orban’s success, Soros is likely reeling from his discomfort that his globalist control over society is slipping, and quickly. Orban has become increasingly popular because of his strong defense policies with regards to his country’s borders. Unlike the open arms of Sweden and Germany that led to disastrous results, Orban successfully all but stopped illegal immigration and the violence that has come with it.

It was a victory guided by a common theme pushed by Orban: “Stop George Soros.” And once again, Orban was successful and Soros is left licking his wounds with his tail tucked between his legs. Nothing is more comforting than seeing billionaire global elitist Soros take a loss.

AZ Lawmaker: ‘We Might Need To Build A Wall Between California And Arizona’

It sure doesn’t seem like Arizona approves of California’s sanctuary cities and one GOP Lawmaker hammered that point home. Marth McSally, in what was likely a tongue in cheek moment, proposed building a wall around California to protect the state of Arizona from their neighbor’s disastrous policies.

McSally announced her bid for Senate to replace Senator Jeff Flake (R) earlier this year. Flake is retiring at the end of this Congress. Other candidates in the primary include former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former state Senator Kelli Ward (R).

When first hearing her quote, one could assume she wanted Arizona protected from those feeling the housing crisis and high taxation in California.  But  McSally, a congresswoman representing Arizona was referring to the “dangers of the southern border” and the sanctuary cities that California has allowed to infect the Golden State. Sanctuary cities are municipalities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

“As we look in Arizona, we often look into the dangers of the southern border,” McSally said during a round-table discussion about “sanctuary cities” Tuesday at the White House. “But if these dangerous policies continue out of California, we might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well to keep these dangerous criminals out of our state,” she said, smiling, and perhaps a little sarcastically.

She added that California can’t just “provide sanctuary for these criminals and think that it’s only impacting California dangerously.” McSally’s comments come on the heels of the announcement that the federal government is suing the state of California (state government) for failing to enforce their laws.

The Trump administration’s “America First” policy is a thorn in the side of many states that use illegal immigrants as votes to elect far-left Communists.

California’s governor, Jerry Brown (D), was upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was in the wake of the federal lawsuit over sanctuary cities.  Try not to choke on California’s hypocrisy.  Never forget that the state (and Democrats in general) loves laws, just not the laws of others.

“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reciprocate that comment,” Brown responded.

California Governor To Trump DOJ: ‘This Is An Act Of WAR’

California Governor Jerry Brown said that the lawsuit filed against California by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over recently passed state laws was an “act of war.” During a press conference with the California attorney general on Wednesday, Brown looked every bit the easily offended liberal.

The DOJ filed a lawsuit against the state of California on Tuesday, which alleged three recently passed California laws deliberately interfered with federal immigration policies.

Upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was.

“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reincorporate that comment,” Brown responded.

In the video below, you can hear Brown say that California and the federal government are now going to war with each other. With the states attorney general, Xavier Becerra by his side, Brown declares “this is basically going to war against the state of California.”

“No, we are state of laws,” Brown answered. “We want to observe the law now. The [U.S.] attorney general has basically thrown the gauntlet down and done it in a highly politicized way. Yeah, this is a very aggressive act on the part of the Trump administration, and it’s not right, and it won’t stand. And as I say, I’m sure this lawsuit will last has more longevity than the Trump administration itself,” Brown concluded.

Attorney General Becerra the gets a moment to speak as well, and with a straight face, says “here in California, we respect the law and the Constitution. We expect the federal government to do the same.”

Try not to choke on the hypocrisy.

National Identity Demands Restrictive Immigration (VIDEO)

 “My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body…may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

– George Washington

Honest onlookers must admit that major segments of society hate America and want to destroy what little remains of a Republic. The intent of forging a limited form of government with distinct separations of power is a major impediment to the culture of collective governance. The Bill of Rights stands in the way of the totalitarian model that globalists advocate. For these proponents of authoritarianism, civil liberties are not based upon natural law, but only exist as a moving target of convenience that disseminates relativism. Open borders and unchecked immigration is designed to pollute the population pool with foreign cultural heritages that have limited historic understanding in the essential tenants that established our country or command in the use of our language. Unobstructed migration hastens the deteriorated demographics that destroy our time-honored society with the inevitable collapse and replacement of constitutional protections.

The concept of the nation-state is under assault by the exponents of a one world government. Ruining the essence of any country is the basic objective of the world-wide implementation of imposing a centralized cultural imperative. Controlling government immigration policy receives varied national push back depending on the homogeneous character and intensity of each country. By eradicating the indigenous intensity and acceptance of preserving their own culture, the forces of societal purging propose a “PC” replacement merging into a restricted mongrelized jurisdiction. Yet, the complexity of this toxic brew never becomes a melting pot and certainly by no means assimilate into the original value system.

When did the political, academic, financial and mass media elites jump off the cliff and betray America? The timing can be argued, but start with The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, which provides a useful resource of the former immigration policies. A brief outline in changes is provided.

The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:

Established the basic structure of today’s immigration law.

Abolished the national origins quota system (originally established in 1921 and most recently modified in 1952), while attempting to keep immigration to a manageable level. Family reunification became the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.

Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.

For the first time, gave higher preference to the relatives of American citizens and permanent resident aliens than to applicants with special job skills. The preference system for visa admissions detailed in the law (modified in 1990) was as follows:

1. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.


2. Spouses and children and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens.


3. Members of the professions and scientists and artists of exceptional ability.


4. Married children of U.S. citizens.


5. Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens over age twenty-one.


6. Skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for which there is insufficient labor supply.


7. Refugees given conditional entry or adjustment — chiefly people from Communist countries and the Middle East.


8. Applicants not entitled to preceding preferences — i.e., everyone else.

As a paleo-conservative a break with our purist libertarian friends over their immigration position rejects their mistaken reliance that an open borders viewpoint is based upon a moral perspective. Actually the correct ethical imperative for any country is to protect the national identity of its citizens and society. That said, even Bryan Caplan acknowledges a crucial aspect in Why Should We Restrict Immigration?

Protecting American Liberty?

Most immigrants come from countries that are less free than the United States. Since even dictatorships are somewhat responsive to public opinion (Caplan 2008), we should expect immigrants to lean statist. Immigrants fleeing domestic repression might hold atypically libertarian views. But economic migrants presumably share the policy outlook of the typical voter from their country of origin. If enough statists come, won’t our democracy switch to the kinds of policies that immigrants struggle to escape? Economists—or at least economists with strong free-market sympathies—would call this a “political externality.” The only way to protect American liberty, you might conclude, is to strictly limit the liberty of foreigners to enter the country.

This is probably libertarians’ favorite argument against open borders. My own research confirms many of its underlying assumptions. In The Myth of the Rational Voter (Caplan 2007), I conclude that democracies choose bad policies because bad policies are popular, and bad policies are popular because voters have systematically biased beliefs about their effects. Almost all of my evidence admittedly comes from the United States, where high-quality public opinion data are most abundant. Still, if some countries have worse policies than others, the most plausible explanation is that some electorates are more biased than others. Libertarians seem to face a tragic choice between compromising their principles and retaining the liberty they already have.

Conversely, a critique of Samuel P. Huntington in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Charles R. Kesler in CRB cites a Clash of Civilizations theme in another Huntington book.

“Of course, despite their protestations, multiculturalists do not actually believe that all cultures are equally valid. With a clear conscience, they condemn and reject anti-multiculturalism, not to mention cultures that treat women, homosexuals, and the environment in ways that Western liberals cannot abide. Unless, perchance, such treatment is handed out by groups hostile to America; for Robert’s Rules of Multicultural Order allow peremptory objections against, say, the Catholic Church, that are denied against such as the Taliban. Scratch a multiculturalist, then, and you find a liberal willing to condemn all the usual cultural suspects.”

The multiculturalists have hijacked the heart strings of the manufactured guilt bleeding apologists, who have more in common with Marxist Dreamers than with our Founding Fathers. They are the most atrocious dissimulators of the true consequences from the barbarians and their fifth column allies for busting our borders.

Prolific immigration writer, Frosty Wooldridge pens in the essay, Time to Rescind 1965 Immigration Reform Act, an important assessment that few are willing to face.

“Since our leaders won’t stop this invasion of an ‘unarmed army’ of legal and illegal immigrants, it’s up to you. Our children face a dangerous future if we fail to take action. It wasn’t George Washington who beat the British army. It was every militiaman who shot from fence lines and trees. It wasn’t Ike who won WWII. It was every GI who slung a rifle over his soldier. Susan B. Anthony marched and Dr. Martin Luther King demonstrated. They, in their time, paid the price for defending America so we could enjoy our freedom. This is your time.

Call for rescinding the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. How should we replace it? Answer: total shutdown of all immigration. We don’t need any more immigrants. We cannot sustain any more immigrants. We won’t survive any more immigrants. Create a national debate in every city council, every community and every state in the nation. Let’s save our country before we won’t be able to save it.”

It is obvious that Congress will not repeal of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. Backed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy this single law has produced a debauchery that is destroying our nation. So much for the legacy of Senator Philip A. Hart and Representative Emanuel Celler.

Promoting a historic national identity places one squarely in the sights of the fake news presstitutes and the social cult warriors, who will bait the public into believing that any defender of the real Patriotic Cause is a bigot, a racist or a neo-Nazi. Nothing is further from the explicit record. The multiculturalists despise the Deplorables because they will not buckle to the forces of national betrayal.

Assimilation into our traditional society means that genuine integration requires a basic willingness to BECOME an American and learn what it actually means to be part of this country.

Back in 1834, Lyman Beecher, Leader of the Second Great Awakening, on English immigrants wrote: “What means the paying of the passage and emptying out upon our shores such floods of pauper emigrants — the contents of the poor house and the sweepings of the streets? — multiplying tumults and violence, filling our prisons, and crowding our poor-houses, and quadrupling our taxation, and sending annually accumulating thousands to the poll to lay their inexperienced hand upon the helm of our power?”

Since that era, the country has changed from European centric which is the indispensable foundation in Western Civilization thought and culture. Today the influxes of third world derelicts are rapidly turning America into failed nation-state. Pat Buchanan has it correct, The Suicide of a Superpower Will America Survive to 2025 is expeditiously approaching.

“The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation.” – Benjamin Franklin

The post National Identity Demands Restrictive Immigration (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Soro-Funded Activists Surround Democrat Chuck Schumer’s Home To Demand ‘Immediate Amnesty For All 12 to 30 Million Illegals Inside The United States’

Far-left open borders activists and illegal immigrants came together Tuesday to storm the home of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after the Democrat finally decided to put the American people ahead of illegal immigrants in voting to reopen the federal government without amnesty for millions of said illegals being included in the funding bill.

The Soros-funded protesters shockingly claimed that DACA itself was no longer good enough and instead demanded amnesty for all of the 12 to 30 million illegal immigrants inside the country as well as those already locked up in detention centers for entering the country illegally. In other words, full on open borders with no restrictions.

The group, “United We Dream” went as far as to block off streets in Brooklyn as they moved to surround Schumer’s home to demand what would amount to the end of the country as we know it, which just so happens to also be the goals of their benefactor, George Soros himself.

The protesters called for a “new” Dream Act which they apparently hope will include all illegal aliens residing inside the country.

If Chuck won’t let us Dream, we won’t let him sleep! Powerful chorus at @SenSchumer’s house demanding a clean #DreamActNow! @UNITEDWEDREAM @MaketheRoadNY pic.twitter.com/lPvR5Vqzn4

— Daniel Altschuler (@altochulo) January 23, 2018

“We are not politicians we are activists and it’s our job to demand action… the #Dreamers who are going to lose their status are going to play a short game with disastrous consequences. We will call @SenSchumer everyday!” – @bkindivisible #DreamActNow pic.twitter.com/8E5hhV7clm

— Elana Levin (@Elana_Brooklyn) January 23, 2018

Our organizer Patricia says we will not stop until we have a clean Dream Act because we are ALL immigrants! ✊#DreamActNow pic.twitter.com/3uzXsM4e86

— NY Communities (@nychange) January 23, 2018

#DREAMActNow #DreamActNow #DreamActNow pic.twitter.com/pWaTmoQPxK

— Working Families Party (@WorkingFamilies) January 23, 2018

No hate, no fear. Immigrants are welcome here! #DreamActNow #CleanDreamActNow @MaketheRoadNY @es_indivisible @bkindivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/jpXxbnRulB

— Indivisible Brooklyn (@indivisible_bk) January 23, 2018

Keep in mind, just flat out giving amnesty to upwards of 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. would have a transparent and immediate negative impact on the very people the Democratic Party used to pretend to represent before most shifted towards a globalist, anti-American agenda.

Breitbart’s John Binder noted:

Giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class, specifically black Americans and the white working class who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population.

Additionally, under current legal immigration laws, if given amnesty, the illegal alien population would be allowed to bring an unlimited number of their foreign relatives to the U.S. with them. This population could boom already high legal immigration levels to an unprecedented high. An amnesty for illegal aliens would also likely triple the number of border-crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The illegal aliens stormed the Democrats’ and Rubio’s offices after White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders encouraged the open borders activists to take their discontent with Democrats and the Republican establishment straight to the politicians themselves.

One has to wonder how many liberal politicians will bow to the demands of these hard-left open borders supporters and how many will actually decide to work for the American people they were elected to represent in the first place?

New Austrian Gov"t Promises "Sanctions" Against Migrants Who Don"t Integrate

Authored by Jacob Boejesson via The Daily Caller,

Austria’s incoming conservative government is taking a hard line on immigration by promising “sanctions” against those “refusing to integrate.”

Sebastian Kurz, 31, is set to become the world’s youngest leader after winning the parliamentary election in October with his People’s Party. Kurz will serve as chancellor with support from the populist Freedom Party.

A new platform unveiled Monday calls for faster deportations and a halt to illegal immigration. The main emphasis for migrants will be put on integrating to Austrian society by adopting local values.

Monthly payments to migrants will be cut to 365 euros ($432 USD) with the possibility of earning an “integration bonus” of 155 euros ($184 USD).

“We want to protect our homeland Austria as a liveable place with all its cultural assets,” the new government’s platform reads, according to The Local.

 

“This includes deciding for ourselves who can immigrate and live with us and ending illegal immigration.”

The new government has also proposed reforms that would allow authorities to access migrants’ cell phones to verify their identity and travel routes. Migrants may also be asked to hand over any cash and belongings as they enter the country to help fund their welfare.

An estimated 5,500 people marched against the new government Monday in the capital of Vienna.

Protestors shouted “Nazis out” and “Refugees welcome” in response to the Freedom Party’s role in the new administration. The protests were small compared to the last time the Freedom Party entered government in 2000, when an estimated 150,000 participated in demonstrations.

Homeless Swedes Out In The Cold

Authored by Bruce Bawer via The Gatestone Institute,

• One reason there are so many immigrants in Sweden, both legal and illegal, is that the country"s welfare system is a bonanza for foreigners. Far from not being covered by the system, immigrants often enjoy preferential treatment


• These Swedes should not be sleeping on the streets. The Scandinavian welfare states were founded on a compact between the citizens and their government: the people would pay outrageously high taxes, and in return their government would guarantee them a magnificent safety net should they get sick or get fired. But ever since these countries chose to open their doors to mass Muslim immigration, that compact has been broken.


• A state-employed paper-pusher who gives citizens something for which they have already paid can hardly feel particularly virtuous, whereas handing out free stuff to aliens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it can make that same government paper-pusher feel like a world-class Good Samaritan.


• Even more shattering is that millions of those Scandinavian citizens accept it. Marinated from birth in multiculturalism, millions of them dare not demand what they have coming to them -- what they have paid for, what they deserve -- lest they be viewed by others, and even by themselves, as bigots.

The other day, I reported about the Church of Sweden"s strenuous efforts to appease Islam. Now comes the news that from December 15 to March 15, churches in the diocese of Gothenburg will be used at night as shelters for the homeless.

Lovely idea. But there is a catch. The only homeless people who will be allowed in are foreigners -- either immigrants from elsewhere in the EU, who are by definition legal, or illegal immigrants from outside the EU. In other words, native Swedes need not apply, even though the initiative is being paid for by taxpayer money.

A man begs on the street in Lund, Sweden, July 23, 2013. (Image source: Sigfrid Lundberg/Flickr)

The argument for this policy -- which represents an expansion and formalization of a practice that began two winters ago -- is that it is designed to help people who are not covered by the Swedish welfare system. But this argument does not hold up. One reason there are so many immigrants in Sweden, both legal and illegal, is that the country"s welfare system is a bonanza for foreigners. Far from not being covered by the system, immigrants often enjoy preferential treatment. Last fall, for example, it was reported that several Swedish municipalities were passing over hardworking citizens who had waited several years to rent government-owned housing, and were giving the homes instead -- for free -- to unemployed, newly-arrived immigrants. Some Swedes actually stirred from their torpor and angrily criticized this policy, but the protest was to no avail: the Swedish Parliament had passed a law compelling local governments to put foreigners at the top of their waiting lists.

That the Swedish Parliament could pass such a law is, of course, a scathing indictment of its welfare system"s priorities. So is the fact that there are, as it happens, a great many ethnic Swedes living and begging on the streets of its cities, and -- in the winter -- huddling in the doorways of stores and offices, wrapped in layers of blankets at night, in hope of keeping alive in the subfreezing cold. The same disgraceful situation can be observed in the major cities of Norway and Denmark.

These Swedes should not be on the streets. The Scandinavian welfare states were founded on a compact between the citizens and their government: the people would pay outrageously high taxes, and in return their government would guarantee them a magnificent safety net should they get sick or get fired. But ever since these countries chose to open their doors to mass Muslim immigration, that compact has been broken.

Yes, the citizens are still being forced to pay for the welfare system -- but that system no longer has their backs. The people in authority, from the highest-ranking national leaders down to the lowest local bureaucrats, would seem to have forgotten for whom they work. In a way, it makes sense: After all, a state-employed paper-pusher who gives citizens something for which they have already paid can hardly feel particularly virtuous, whereas handing out free stuff to aliens who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it can make that same government paper-pusher feel like a world-class Good Samaritan.

What is even more shattering than this state of affairs is that millions of those Scandinavian citizens accept it. Marinated from birth in multiculturalism, millions of them dare not demand what they have coming to them -- what they have paid for, what they deserve -- lest they be viewed by others, and even by themselves, as bigots.

Fortunately, not all Scandinavians fit this description. When the alternative news website Samnytt reported that the churches in Gothenburg would be turning away homeless people who belong to that church in order to accommodate members of a religion that views Christianity as an abomination, dozens of readers reacted with outrage. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," wrote one. "The hatred toward ethnic Swedes knows no bounds," wrote another. A third suggested that the churches of Gothenburg will soon, in any case, be converted into mosques -- minarets and all.

At present, alas, that seems like the safe bet.

Trump Slams “Disgraceful Verdict” After San Francisco Jury Acquits “Kate’s Law”-Victim’s Killer

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

Update 2: Just as we suspected, President Trump has tweeted his opinion on this decision…

A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2017

Update 1: AP reports that U.S. immigration officials say they will deport the Mexican man found not guilty of murder in San Francisco pier shooting.

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, in a verdict that has shocked many in the Bay Area (and across America), a jury of six men and six women in sanctuary city San Francisco found illegal immigrant (and five-time deportee) Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty in the death of Kate Steinle.

Mr. Garcia Zarate had been homeless at the time of the shooting and had multiple felony convictions and five prior deportations to Mexico. He had been set free from jail only months before the shooting, in defiance of requests by federal immigration authorities, who had asked that he be held longer so he could be deported again.

The backlash to his release into the community crescendoed when Donald Trump invoked Ms. Steinle’s killing as he campaigned for president.

As The New York Times reports, Ms. Steinle’s death in July 2015 fed into a fierce debate over whether immigrants without legal status should be deported more aggressively, and over the role local law enforcement should play.

Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms.

Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident.

Zarate and his defense team maintained the argument that the suspect found the stolen weapon on the pier that day and it “just fired.”

The gun belonged to a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier.

The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident.

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier… but the stories of what happened copntradicted one another…

He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged.

But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.

He also told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.

But still, after six days of deliberation, the illegal Mexcian immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges and also found not guilty of assault with a firearm.

Garcia Zarate was found guilty of illegal firearms possession, which carries a sentence of 16 months to three years.

*  *  *

The public defender wasted no time in focusing his thoughts on President Trump and his administration…saying Zarate was “extremely relieved” by the outcome and that while Steinle’s death “was a horrible tragedy,” it was used as “political fodder for then candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.”

 Adachi added, “Despite the unfairly politicized atmosphere surrounding this case, jurors focused on the evidence, which was clear and convincing, and rendered a just verdict.”

In a response to the verdict, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement saying that despite California’s attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE.

“When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” the statement said.

“San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”

Sessions continued, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

Social media erupted with outrage at the verdict (with very few – if any attempting to defend the verdict)…

I don"t know any American citizen who is a 5x felon and could get away with killing someone with a stolen gun. #KateSteinle #KatesLaw #JoseZarate

— Ginger (@SpicyMustang) December 1, 2017

I seriously feel like buying my own damn bricks & building this damn wall myself! So flipping outraged by this unjustice! #BuildtheWall #KatesLaw

— Steff (@Steffs_tweets) December 1, 2017

May San Francisco rot in hell! #KatesLaw

— Mike (@Bigly45) December 1, 2017

Insist that KATES LAW is passed. When illegals have more rights and protection than American Citizens. This MUST STOP!!!!

— Diana Batissa (@DianaBatissa) December 1, 2017

SF city just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they dont care if YOU, or others get killed by their policies.
They will continue to shelter illegals and allow them to do as they please and dont care about the innocents hurt by them.
SICK!#KateSteinle #KatesLaw

— Constitutional-TQN (@TechQn) December 1, 2017

If Hillary Clinton were in office, we"d all be in danger. The #KateSteinle verdict is an endorsement of murder. There is no way to spin this, there is no defense, today the mask came off.

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 1, 2017

And even politically-correct politicians piped in…

Kate Steinle’s murderer not guilty? This is outrageous! A great injustice has been done. No Californian can feel good about their justice system today. I grieve from the bottom of my heart for the Steinle family who must be personally suffering from this injustice.

— Senator Jim Nielsen (@CASenatorJim) December 1, 2017

We suspect it will not be long before President Trump has something to say about this verdict.

Mapping The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration On Each State

Via HowMuch.net

There’s a lot of confusion and misunderstanding out there around the economic impact of illegal immigration in the United States. We decided to bring some clarity around the issue by mapping new numbers on the estimated costs of illegal immigration on a state-by-state basis.

Our viz takes data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) about how much illegal immigration costs in each state. FAIR takes into account a variety of different expenditures, like healthcare, education and refundable tax credits. We mapped these numbers across the United States according to a color-coded scale. Purple and dark red states have comparatively high expenditures, but the pink and blue states spend relatively less money because of illegal immigrants.

There are two interesting trends you can see from looking at the data in this way.

• First, states that spend the most on illegal immigration tend to be located close to Mexico. Looking at out map, the two states with the highest expenditures are California ($23B) and Texas ($11B), both sharing long borders with Mexico. In fact, there’s a cluster of dark red states stretching along the Southwest. States closest to the phenomenon pay the most as a result.


• Second, states with higher population levels tend to spend more than their less populated counterparts. You can see a group of high-expenditure states clustered around the Northeast, not to mention Illinois and Florida. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California and Texas are also the two most populous states in the country. High population levels and proximity to Mexico act like a double-whammy for illegal immigration expenses.

Now take a look at the places with relatively low levels of expenditures for illegal immigration, the light blue states. They are all located far away from the U.S.-Mexico border with relatively small population levels. West Virginia is perhaps an exceptional state, seeing that it is surrounded by red and dark red. We can speculate that this is likely due to the fact that West Virginia has a struggling economy which actually contracted last year.

We should add that the source for the numbers in our viz come from a partisan outfit. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) advocates for legislation designed to decrease immigration, and you can poke holes in their methodology. For example, suppose immigrants really are paying less in income taxes because of their illegal status. Forbes estimates that granting them amnesty would actually boost their state tax contributions by $2.1 billion. That’s the exact opposite conclusion than what FAIR would like you to believe.

That being said, here’s a list breaking down the States with the highest expenditures for illegal immigration according to FAIR.

1. California - $23,038,125,353

2. Texas - $10,994,614,550

3. New York - $7,489,141,357

4. Florida - $6,290,429,108

5. New Jersey - $4,466,838,574

6. Illinois - $3,220,767,517

7. Georgia - $2,487,719,503

8. North Carolina - $2,437,965,113

9. Maryland - $2,378,996,947

10.   Arizona - $2,314,131,964

Remember, these numbers only look at the net expenditures that states spend on illegal immigration, and they say nothing about other contributions to the economy. Any way you cut it though, whenever states are spending billions of dollars on something, it’s worth taking a hard look at where the money is going and why.

McDonald"s Bun-Supplier Loses 35% Of Staff To Immigration Raids

President Trump has made it widely known that he will not tolerate sanctuary cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Since taking office, he has threatened to slash federal funding to cities who do not comply with federal immigrations laws, along with ICE agents circumnavigating local authorities in a nationwide federal operation to arrest undocumented immigrants.

In the latest immigration raids, ICE agents targeted a Swiss supplier of hamburger buns for McDonald’s Corp., who said it’s Chicago bakery lost 35% or about 800 of its workers at the Cloverhill Plant.

The company is owned by Zurich-based Aryzta AG, who makes baked products for fast-food chains and supermarkets.

ICE agents pinpointed the Chicago bakery after its job placement agency went under federal investigation earlier this year.

Kevin Toland, Chief Executive Officer of Aryzta said on a call with analyst, “it’s proceeding very, very slowly because it’s like having a brand new factory and a brand new workforce. That’s presenting a lot of challenges, as you can imagine.”

According to Bloomberg, President Trump’s immigration raids are a major headache for U.S. companies who employ undocumented works. The challenges that Aryzta faces are likely to cause short term economic pain for the company, but on the longer end could cause its end products to increase prices directly impacting the consumer.

The raid on workers at Cloverhill is one of the biggest U.S. employment headaches reported by a European company so far as President Donald Trump has made curbing undocumented immigration a centerpiece of his presidency. Aryzta said it faces challenges in retaining staff in the U.S. and pressure to raise wages.

For employers, the loss of illegal immigrants can be expensive. Training a new workforce of American hires can increase the cost of labor and certainly cut into margins.

But in Cloverhill’s case, the cost of labor is relatively inexpensive not because of the illegal immigrants, but each of their factories (2) have highly automated production lines that involve minimal human interaction. Future wage pressures are not expected to threaten profitability too much due to automation, but in the intermediate timeframe a severe loss in margins is due to volume loss.

 

According to RT, the Chicago Immigration Court has never been busier since President Trump entered office. Across the United States, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, which signals immigration raids are just getting started.

The Chicago Immigration Court has 24,844 pending cases in its system as of this spring, according to the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. That is up from 13,000 pending cases in 2010. Nationally, the pending caseload has doubled since 2011.

 

According to EOIR, total orders for removal between Trump’s inauguration and the close of the fiscal year hit 63,634. At the end of fiscal year 2017, some 1,940 people were detained in Chicago, up from 1,669 at the end of the prior year. Most of them are of Mexican descent, statistics show.

 

The Trump administration set in motion sweeping changes in how the federal government dealt with those living in the US illegally. It is estimated there are 11 million immigrants living the US without legal status.

Italian Migration Crisis: The Big Picture

Via GEFIRA,

Gianandrea Galiani interviewed by Daniel Moscardi

Gianandrea Gaiani is the director of the highly respected online magazine analisidifesa.it and an expert on immigration. He is a regular contributor to a number of Italian newspapers and appears frequently on numerous TV channels as an on immigration and security topics. He’s also the author (together with Giancarlo Blangiardo and Giuseppe Valditara) of the recent book (in Italian) Immigrazione, tutto quello che dovremmo sapere (Immigration. All you need to know about”).

Gefira asked Gianandrea Gaiani in an exclusive interview about his views on the latest developments in the arrivals from Libya and Tunisia and the current approach of the Italian government. Outspoken and anything but politically correct, Gaiani hits the spot about the recent change of policy of the Italian government on the NGO’s code of conduct as well as Italy’s achievements and (so called) “partners” in Libya.

GE: What caused last summer’s change of course by the Italian government and its approach toward the NGOs and the arrivals from Libya in general?

GG: The answer is quite simple. The disaster for the PD (Partito Democratico), leader of the current government, at the June administrative elections, sounded an alarm, showing clearly that when it comes to immigration, many center-left voters steer clearly to the right. A swift change of course was badly needed, with the obvious intent of reassuring disenchanted and alarmed Italians that the government was in charge of the situation.

GE: The numbers show that the arrivals have diminished significantly but that’s just that. We are still very far from the pre-2011 numbers.

GG: That’s because the government, on the other side, has to keep being complacent to the industry of immigration. It’s a network that profits – and thrives – on new arrivals, and this network galaxy is NOT happy if the arrivals complete stop. And their votes are also badly needed by the current government.

GE: A network made of? 

GG: NGOs, Pro-migrants cooperatives, all the businesses catering to the migrants and last, but certainly not least, the ubiquitous Caritas and other Catholic Church’s organisations. We are talking about a huge pie made of billions of euro, and everybody wants a piece.

GE: What is the current situation in Libya?

GG: The coastal city of Sabratha was the theater of war between different militias for about two weeks in September. This has been hardly covered by mainstream media but we have reports that the two groups which are now in control of the city have received “counseling” from units of the French Army. The two militias are Ghorfat Amaliyet and the Wadi Brigade, and they are opposing the militia groups that were operating on behalf of Al-Sarraj, who had implemented a cooperation partnership with Italy. Italy was committed to financial help for villages and municipalities of the area under control of Al-Sarraj, but not military aid to armed groups of any kind.

Reportedly, upon seizing full control of the city, the militias discovered approximately 7.000 migrants packed in various buildings throughout the city. It is unclear whether the militias now in control will let them leave Libya towards Italy or they will relocate them somewhere else. The problem is, in my opinion, when you have the French and the British in the middle of operations like these.

GE: What do you mean by that?

GG: What I mean is that the French and the British are officially our “partners” but in reality they are acting very much against Italy’s interests in Libya. In fact, let me say, quite openly, that France and the UK are currently our worst enemies in Libya.

GE: Why?

GG: They simply will continue to operate, covertly or not so covertly, in order to make sure that Italy doesn’t have a leading role in Libya. It’s as simple as that. After all, the UK, France and the US knew all too well that the removal of Qaddafi in 2011 was a direct blow to Italy’s numerous interests in Libya, given the strengthened that the Italian government had under Berlusconi.

GE: How coincidental, shall we add, the recent malicious articles by Le Monde and the Financial Times, showing all this “humanitarian concern” about the migrants’ conditions in Libya who are now “held at bay” by (supposedly) Italian-paid militias…

GG: Let’s be pragmatic. In a situation like Libya right now you either send troops, which I see it quite unlikely, or you simply negotiate with those in control, regardless of who they are. If those in control are not exactly paladins of human rights, so be it. That is what any sovereign country concerned about its borders should do. As soon as Italy tries to regain (some) control of the situation, critics full of over zealous – and quite hypocritical – concern about the migrants “shameful conditions” in Libya appear overnight, ready to point their fingers at Italy as the culprit.

GE: Can you tell us more about the recent agreement signed between Italy and Niger?

GG: Niger – one of the poorest countries in the world – has asked Italy for logistic help in order to be more effective in patrolling its borders and eventually reduce the flow of sub-Saharans toward Libya. It is certainly a positive move but one that will hardly make a substantial difference overall.

GE: Why?

GG: Because the only effective move in order to really make a difference in order to significantly reduce the arrivals is to bring them back to the starting point. If they have to pay even more money to get back at sea towards Italy, with the risk of being deported again, they will start thinking: “is this worth it”?

GE: How do you do that?

GG: Given the absolute fact that practically 100% of those landing in Italy are illegal aliens as they are NOT running away from wars and political persecutions, the Geneva convention clearly states that NO country has the duty nor the obligation to welcome and give assistance to immigrants who pay criminal organizations to cross several borders. Now, it is a duty and an obligation to rescue human beings in a situation of distress at sea. That’s maritime law and the Italian Navy alone is perfectly capable of fulfilling that task without any phony “humanitarian” help from these NGOs that are there to fulfil “somebody else’s” agenda, certainly not on behalf of the Italian people.

But, once rescued at sea, these people must be brought back to the departing country. Now, this can be implemented as easily and as safely as possible. If the conditions of the “migrants” in that country of departure are not optimal for human rights or for their comforts, in that case we have an effective tool to curb this trend. People will start going home, especially given the fact that most of them are anything but poor – for African standards – and that no one is threatening their lives at home.

GE: The final question is – given the ongoing debate in Italy – about the Ius Soli law, that is the law that would grant immediate citizenship to many new immigrants.

GG: That is going to be the final blow to our society as we know it today. Those who are in favour of this law are quite careful in not mentioning the alarming situation in western EU countries. They don’t tell the general public that from France to Sweden, not to mention other countries, there are areas, so called no-go zones, that are practically off-limits to local law enforcement agencies, as the local Muslim communities have declared those areas under their control. We still don’t have that in Italy. Everybody knows by now that the left in Italy is pushing hard for this law because they think that, once naturalized, an immigrant will vote for those parties that granted him or her the citizenship. But with these hopes they are naive, or stupid at the same time.

GE: Why do you say that?

GG: Because as soon as they are citizens they will form an Islamic party, with all the related consequences. Now a foreign national suspected of ties or sympathies to terror groups can be deported from Italy, even if he or she are here legally. When they become Italian citizens where will they be deported to? The core of the problem lies in the massive brainwashing we have been subject to in western Europe about “multicultural societies”. Muslims are not interested the least in “multiculturalism”. They want their model, their values, in short their society to prevail and impose itself on the others. When the average Italian realizes this, it will be too late.

GE: Any message of hope at the end of this interview?

GG: I entertain hopes from Mitteleuropa’s countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and now Austria. They are defending their societies, their citizens, their values from this induced brainwashing that has already overwhelmed us in Western Europe. In fact, at present they are the last defence of our civilisation. I just hope they – in fact all the Visegrad group countries – will resist the incredible pressure from external forces.

Jeff Sessions Admits ‘Catch and release’ is still happening at the border: ‘It’s still unacceptable’

Sessions said the reality is that the government is being overwhelmed with the number of illegal immigrants still coming in, which is why catch and release is still effectively happening. [AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster]

By Todd Shepherd, Washington Examiner | 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions admitted Wednesday that the Justice Department and federal immigration officials are facing significant hurdles in trying to end the immigration practice known as “catch and release.”

Republicans have long complained about the federal policy that involves detaining illegal immigrants and then releasing them in the hope that they would turn up for their immigration court hearing. Thousands never showed up, which led the Trump administration in February to say they would move to immediately return those illegal immigrants to their home countries.

Despite that change, however, Sessions said the reality is that the government is being overwhelmed with the number of illegal immigrants still coming in, which is why catch and release is still effectively happening.

READ FULL ARTICLE

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

Trump Plans Massive Increase In Federal Immigration Jails, Report

Following a 43% year over year surge in illegal immigrant arrests between January 22, 2017 and September 9, 2017, the USA Today is reporting that the Trump administration is quietly reaching out to private prison operators with requests to house some 4,000 detainees of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

The Trump administration is planning an increase in federal immigration jails across the country for the thousands of additional undocumented immigrants its agents are arresting.

In recent weeks, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has put out requests to identify privately-run jail sites in Chicago, Detroit, St. Paul, Salt Lake City and southern Texas, according to notices published on a federal contracting website. It did not publicly announce its plans to house 4,000 more detainees at the facilities.

The detention expansion would represent the latest step in President Trump"s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.

And here is an example of one Request for Information posted to FedBizOpps.gov for an "existing, renovation or new construction" facility in South Texas.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to identify one or more facilities (existing, renovation, or new construction) to be turnkey ready and able to provide housing, medical care, guard services, meals, and the day to day needs for approximately 1000 ICE adult male and adult female detainees within 50 ground-commute miles of Interstate 35. If utilizing multiple facilities, there may be no less than 200 beds per facility. The preference is for facilities to be dedicated for ICE detainees exclusively, but shared facilities may be considered. ICE anticipates issuing a single award, indefinite delivery - indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for this requirement.

This RFI is issued to identify potential sources that can provide the physical structure, equipment, personnel, and vehicles in a properly staffed and secure environment under the authority of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. The intent of this RFI is to obtain market information in accordance with FAR 15.201(e) for planning purposes and to determine appropriate strategies to meet the Agency"s requirements. If the results of market research and other factors indicate that it is in the Government"s best interest, ICE may release Requests for Proposals (RFP) for these potential requirements in the near future. However, this RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a commitment to an RFP in the future. Responses to this notice are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in response to this announcement and information submitted in response to this RFI will not be returned.

Currently, ICE houses anywhere between 31,000 and 41,000 detainees each day in federal prisons, privately-operated facilities and local jails.

Of course, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies said it"s by no means a coincidence that 4 out of the 5 cities identified by the Trump administration for new detention facilities are in so-called "santuary cities" where local police forces have been instructed to not cooperate with federal ICE agents.

Trump supporters say the new jails are necessary to tackle an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which backs Trump"s immigration enforcement, noted that four of the cities identified for new jails — Chicago, Detroit, St. Paul and Salt Lake City — are all "sanctuary cities."

One of the core disputes is that some cities refuse to detain undocumented immigrants in their local jails for federal immigration agents.

"ICE cannot rely on local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with them in holding deportable criminal aliens, so they have to acquire their own space that they control," Vaughan said. "This is very encouraging."

ICE still has a long way to go before it can open any facilities. The notices invite private companies to provide information on possible locations, and whether it would be necessary to build new facilities or renovate existing ones.

Meanwhile, reports of the new facilities was welcome news to shareholders of GEO Group, one of the largest private pension operators in the country, which has rallied over 60% since Trump"s election and is one of the most likely recipients of any new awards.

Trump’s 70-Point Immigration Reform – Here’s A Better Way

The White House has rolled out the President’s 70 point plan to reform the immigration system. Will building a wall, hiring more officers and prosecutors, mandating E-Verify, and other enforcement measures help solve the problem? Or is there a better way?

_{»crosslinked«}

Somali Terrorist Charged In Canada Attack Was Previously Deported From The U.S.

Over the past year, amid Donald Trump"s crackdown on refugees and illegal immigrants, Canada has emerged as a willing safe harbor for those whose welcomes (and visas) in the US had expired. This past January, in response to Trump"s executive order on immigration, Canada"s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith,” adding that “Diversity is our strength."

To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017

Unfortunately, it has also emerged to be Canada"s deadly weakness. Recall that on Sunday, in a rare - for Canada - terrorist incident, a Somali man stabbed an Edmonton police constable late Saturday night before trying to ram a truck into a crowd of pedestrians while being chased by police through downtown Edmonton Saturday night. Ultimately, four pedestrians and the officer were injured when the U-Haul truck being driven by the suspect struck them.

A few days later, we now know that if only Canada had a slightly less porous border with the US, the attempted murder could have been avoided because as Reuters reports, the Somali refugee accused of stabbing an Edmonton police constable on the weekend and running down four pedestrians was ordered to be deported from the United States in 2011 by a U.S. immigration judge.

In July 2011, U.S. Customs and Border Protection transferred the suspected terrorist, Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, into the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, Calif., according to Jennifer D. Elzea, acting press secretary for the ICE office of public affairs. Two months later, on Sept. 22, 2011, an immigration judge ordered Sharif removed to Somalia. Sharif waived his right to appeal that decision.

However, under the previous administration"s lax regime, Sharif was released on Nov. 23, 2011, on an ICE "order of supervision" due to a "lack of likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future," Elzea said in a statement.  Sharif failed to report to the ICE enforcement and removal operations centre on his scheduled date, Jan. 24, 2012.

"Efforts by ERO San Diego to locate him were not successful," Elzea said, and since Sharif had no known criminal history at the time of his dealings with ICE, he was a low profile target.

Then, some time in 2012, Sharif crossed the border into Canada Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Monday in Ottawa. Goodale said Sharif arrived through a "regular port of entry" and obtained refugee status at the time, adding that - just like in the US - in 2012 immigration officials had no reason to red flag Sharif.

Then, in 2015, a complaint led police to probe Sharif’s alleged extremist ideology, but officers found no grounds for criminal charges after what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police described as an “exhaustive investigation.”

* * *

It"s not known at present whether Sharif made an asylum claim while in the United States. If he did, and that claim was rejected, normally Sharif wouldn"t be able to make a claim in Canada under the Safe Third Country Rule, said Calgary immigration lawyer Michael Greene quoted by CBC. But Canada has made exceptions for minors or people with family in Canada, Greene said. "An asylum seeker or potential refugee claimant, even if they"ve been in the U.S., can still in some cases make a refugee claim here," he said.

A spokesperson for the Office of the Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada confirmed in an email statement Tuesday that Sharif "entered Canada from the United States through a regular Port of Entry in 2012 and was found to be a refugee‎ later that year. "According to U.S. authorities, he was not detained for criminal activity," the spokesperson added.

"In general it is to be noted that only individuals who are inadmissible, including for serious criminality, would be ineligible to make an asylum claim. Being detained for immigration purposes in another country would not prevent someone from being able to make an asylum claim in Canada."

* * *

Fast forward to this week, when Sharif, who faces 11 charges including five counts of attempted murder, made a brief first appearance Tuesday in an Edmonton courtroom wearing an orange jail uniform. At his court appearance, Sharif had bruises on his forehead and cheek that Edmonton police said resulted during two vehicle crashes on Saturday night. A Somali interpreter helped him during the proceedings.

He had a Somali interpreter, although he did not speak. He occasionally looked down or clasped his hands in front of him and still bore facial bruises that police say he sustained while evading capture. A community leader, Mahamad Accord, who did not speak to Sharif but learned about him from the local Somali community, said Sharif was from a Somali ethnic minority and little known in the community.

Sharif’s lawyer, Chady Moustarah, said he had stepped in on short notice to help someone without representation but that the accused would have to find another lawyer going forward. Sharif remains in custody until his next court appearance, scheduled for Nov. 14.

* * *

Will the terrorist incident be a wake up call to Canada? It appears not: Canada"s Public Safety Minister Goodale said that events in Edmonton over the weekend in no way indicate that Canada"s screening process needs to be enhanced, or that the system failed.

Shock Survey: Less Than 1 Out Of Every 4 Republicans In Congress Support A Border Wall

It is time to flush the toilet in Washington D.C., because the professional politicians that we have been sending there just keep betraying us over and over again.  On Wednesday, I was absolutely stunned when I came across a brand new survey that was conducted by USA Today.  They asked all of the members of Congress whether they support a border wall or not, and less than one out of every 4 Republicans said that they did.  This is just another example of why the American people are so deeply frustrated with the Republican Party these days.  Most Republicans are spineless jellyfish that have been compromising for so long that they don’t really stand for anything anymore.

If President Trump had not promised to build a wall, he never would have won the Republican nomination in 2016, and he sure wouldn’t be the president of the United States today.  This is a point that Ann Coulter had made over and over again, and the fact that I strongly support building a wall is a big reason why she is supporting my campaign for Congress.  Conservatives all over the country want a wall, and that is why it is so disturbing to hear that most Republicans in Congress do not support building one…

President Trump has been adamant that he needs Congress to approve funding to start building his border wall, but Republicans on Capitol Hill are far less adamant about supporting it. When asked by the USA TODAY Network whether they support the president’s initial $1.6 billion budget request to begin construction, only 69 of the 292 Republicans on Capitol Hill said “yes.” Among the rest, three Republicans said they oppose the money, several evaded a direct answer, and the rest simply refused to respond to the question.

The USA TODAY Network asked the 534 members of the House and Senate whether they support the $1.6 billion down payment approved by the House and found fewer than 25% of Republicans willing to stand up for the plan.

Building a wall seems like such a no-brainer to me.  For decades we have had an immigration policy that is all mixed up.  We have made it exceedingly difficult to come in through the front door, but meanwhile we have been keeping the back door completely wide open.

Today, our system of legal immigration is a complete and total nightmare.  It is extremely confusing, it is very expensive, and it takes way too long.  I once helped someone through that process, and it was so convoluted that I could barely even understand it.

Meanwhile, we have kept the back door totally wide open and have allowed tens of millions of people to enter this country illegally.  So we are actually discouraging good people from coming into our nation legally, and meanwhile we have rolled out the red carpet for criminals, gang members, drug dealers and those that would like to take advantage of the system.

As I discuss in my latest book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters”, we need to make sure that everyone comes in through the front door.  It has been proposed that we can use “technology” and other methods to secure our borders, and I would love to see something that actually works.  But we do know that walls work, and we know that building a wall on the southern border would dramatically reduce illegal immigration and begin forcing people to come in through the front door.

I have previously written about the tremendous problems that illegal immigration is causing in communities all over the nation.  If we would just secure our borders, we could start significantly reducing levels of human trafficking, violent crime and gang membership, and so I don’t know why anyone would want to be opposed to doing that.

Unfortunately, when USA Today approached Republican members of Congress about a wall, most of them didn’t even want to take a clear stance at all…

The overwhelming majority of congressional Republicans refused to take a stance on the wall funding when asked by USA TODAY. Most simply declined to participate in the survey or refused to even respond to queries. Many others offered general positions about the importance of securing the border and requiring employers to verify the immigration status of their workers.

It is time for the era of politically-correct career politicians to end.

If a Republican running for Congress will not solidly commit to building a border wall, that individual does not deserve your vote.

You guys know where I stand, and I’m not moving.  I am committed to building the wall, and we need to elect others all over the nation that are also committed to building the wall.  I hope that you will help us, and I hope that as many of you as possible will get involved in our campaigns all around the country.

Individually, there is very little that we can get done, but collectively we can make a massive difference.

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews