A Drunk Sits at a Bar….

You’re a bartender and a guy sits at the bar ordering drink after drink for 3 hours and you continue to pour for him long after it is obvious he’s drunk. He finally leaves the bar, gets in his car, and while driving home hits a car head-on and kills 4 members of a family. Who is responsible for those deaths?

Certainly, the drunk is. But in most venues, so is the bartender. You’d be charged as well.

Juan Ramon Vasquez — an illegal immigrant who was deported  — returned to Philadelphia, was arrested and plead guilty for returning after being deported. ICE requested Philly hold him to be picked up for deportation. Mayor Jim Kennedy (because Philadephia had been proclaimed to be a Sanctuary City) refused an ICE deportation hold and released Vasquez. He then raped a little girl, was found guilty, and is serving a sentence. Of course, that little girl will never be the same. Outrage?

If the bartender who continued pouring drinks for the drunk who killed those family members was complicit in that crime, shouldn’t Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kennedy be complicit in that little girl’s rape? He should have been prosecuted for refusing to hold Vasquez which led to a felony rape that would not have happened if the Mayor had simply followed federal law.

It’s ironic that our nation with the greatest justice system on Earth, though established to be governed by the “rule of law” now has a ruling class of politicians who thumb their noses at laws they do not like and refuse to enforce. Regarding illegal immigration, we have statistics that show the numbers of federal prosecutions of illegal immigrants for felonies, but we have no idea of the validity of the numbers or how many illegal immigrants who commit crimes skate through the system paying nothing for their crimes. We are told only about a few of the most heinous acts of just a few.

The American public as a whole is shocked when these stories slip through the media filters and are played out on a national stage. But that doesn’t happen too often. Why? Because the Mainstream Media are “in the tank” for acceptance of illegal immigration and illegal immigrants, even at the cost of “a few crimes.” In fact, liberal media outlets go after President Trump viciously for instructing U.S. immigration officials to go after offenders and for the prosecution of every offender.

Here’s an example of one such case. The Washington Post published the following story regarding stepped up illegal immigration enforcement policy changes under President Trump immediately after taking office:

“A week after he won the election, President Trump promised that his administration would round up millions of immigrant gang members and drug dealers. And after he took office, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers surged 40 percent. Officials at the agency commonly known as ICE praise Trump for putting teeth back into immigration enforcement, and they say their agency continues to prioritize national security threats and violent criminals, much as the Obama administration did.

But as ICE officers get wider latitude to determine whom they detain, the biggest jump in arrests has been of immigrants with no criminal convictions. The agency made 37,734 “noncriminal” arrests in the government’s 2017 fiscal year, more than twice the number in the previous year. The category includes suspects facing possible charges as well as those without criminal records. Critics say ICE is increasingly grabbing at the lowest-hanging fruit of deportation-eligible immigrants to meet the president’s unrealistic goals, replacing a targeted system with a scattershot approach aimed at boosting the agency’s enforcement statistics. ICE has not carried out mass roundups or major workplace raids under Trump, but nearly every week brings a contentious new arrest.

A Virginia mother was sent back to El Salvador in June after her 11 years in the United States unraveled because of a traffic stop. A Connecticut man with an American-born wife and children and no criminal record was deported to Guatemala. And an immigration activist in New York, Ravi Ragbir, was detained in a case that brought ICE a scathing rebuke from a federal judge. ‘It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust,’ said U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, reading her opinion in court before ordering ICE to release Ragbir. ‘We are not that country,’ she said. ‘Immigrants whose only crime was living in the country illegally were largely left alone during the latter years of the Obama administration. But that policy has been scrapped.’

Notice that last phrase: “But that policy has been scrapped.” That scrapped policy was the Obama Administration policy to ignore illegal immigrants living in the U.S. that had not before committed crimes. What happened to their being here illegally is a crime making them subject to immediate deportation BECAUSE OF THEIR BREAKING THE LAW!

“Politically Correct”

“The President’s immigration actions and Muslim ban will make America less safe. As a prosecutor, I can tell you, it is a serious mistake to conflate criminal justice policy with immigration policy as if they are the same thing. They are not. I have personally prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I know what a crime looks like. I will tell you: an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. But that’s what these actions do. They suggest all immigrants are criminals and treat immigrants like criminals.”

These statements were included in a speech by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). She is almost certainly going to make herself available for a White House run in 2020 and has become one of the chief opponents of all things President Trump. Harris’ staff explained her claim as meaning “illegal immigrants are not guilty of a crime for crossing the border illegally, but simply violated civil law.” No, their crossing breaks a U.S. immigration law which is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor and not a felony. One would think a former prosecutor would know the meaning of the word “crime! Harris does know: it’s just politically correct for her to say illegal crossing the U.S. border is not a crime, they just shouldn’t do it.

Kamala Harris and fellow California Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein simply cannot find it in their hearts to push local, state, and federal authorities to enforce immigration laws. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Did you hear the outcry from Dianne Feinstein when in her hometown, Kate Steinle was gunned down at Fisherman’s Wharf by a 5-time deported illegal immigrant? Crickets. Feinstein stood silently by while Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon in the killing of Steinle. He was deported 5 times before his 6th arrest for being in the U.S. illegally. He was NOT deported the 6th time because the city of San Francisco had taken the title of “Sanctuary City,” and therefore refused an ICE deportation “hold” notice for Garcia and released him. 32-year-old Kate Steinle paid with her life for Sanctuary City status for San Francisco when Garcia walked out of jail and found that gun and used it.

Pelosi was recently spotted in El Paso touting to a group of Hispanic the glory of voting for Democrats in November so to take back the House of Representatives to allow her as Speaker to marshall the U.S. Government to once again open the southern border to any and all illegals:

Summary

It is sad that the United States at its core is under assault from the inside. Under attack is the very backbone of the Nation that made us different from every other country. Without the rule of law, the U.S. will look just like Venezuela, Cuba, and European socialist nations. It is becoming more and more obvious that is what Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, Schumer and company want to see happen.

But on second thought, maybe that’s not true. Maybe the quartet is just trying to come up with any way possible to take back control of Congress. They have experienced the rush that power gives one who is the ultimate government official in charge. Both Pelosi and Schumer have led their respective Congressional chambers. They both know the fat-cat benefits that come with the House Speaker and Senate Majority titles: private government jets, huge House and Senate office and staff budgets, unlimited expense accounts, junkets with lobbyists from everywhere, cush jobs for friends, relatives, and campaign donors and craved-for Congressional appointments of those to whom they feel obligated. Yes, with power comes all the goodies D.C. has to offer. And Pelosi and Schumer don’t have it. Fighting FOR illegal immigrant safe status in the U.S. is just a means to their objective: get the immigrants legal and with the right to vote and convince them that for a lifetime, they owe all they have to Democrats.

What would fix this problem the right way? Congress needs to fix Immigration Law! We could spend days discussing whether or not members of Congress really want to fix immigration laws — but that would be based on opinion. Right now I am not certain there is sufficient political will to pay what the price would be for their political careers in either Party to go down that road. But it COULD be fixed with legislation — it SHOUD be fixed with legislation!

Lost in all the immigration noise is this: what would Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer AND Barack Obama think about Sanctuary City status and ignoring ICE deportation holds IF Kate Steinle was THEIR daughter? Or is Kate’s death and the virginity of that little girl in Philadelphia simply the justified price to pay to regain and maintain their political power?

Play

The TRUTH of Illegal Children’s Detention

Do like I did: conduct a computer search using this line: “How many children were separated from accompanying adults and detained during the Obama Administration?” You’ll be shocked as I was to find almost universal statements that such did not happen under the past Administration. And each story stating this quickly jumped on the recent travesty of approximately 3000 children separated from adults upon illegal U.S. entry under THIS Administration.

So how did the Obama Administration handle the problem?

Mainstream Media still does not believe American citizens are capable of or will take the time to do a little research — even on such a controversial issue. But this American citizen did.

It seems that conveniently, the Obama Department of Homeland Security either did not keep accurate records of such separations or those records are buried somewhere far away from the light of certain exposure if discovered. Remember this: Obama himself bragged about the huge number of deportations his Immigration officials initiated on his watch — far more than have occurred in the first year of the Trump Administration. Knowing that begs a question: “Were all of those deportees adults that brought no children?” And even a second question: “How could the Obama Administration under such circumstances — and there surely was a vast number of juvenile children with their parents and other adults — not deal with children caught-up in those detentions?”

Rather than just take for granted that all members of the Obama Administration were Mother Teresa models whose driving purpose was to keep every illegal child with their illegal parent(s), I decided to do a little digging. What I discovered was a little different than the perspective left by the Obama folks when they cleaned out their office.

The “Rest of the Story”

“The Obama administration’s strategy was to expedite deportations of refugee children oftentimes without a lawyer, and jail refugee mothers with children as a deterrent,” said Matthew Kolken, an immigration lawyer whose clients include children seeking political asylum. “Yes, Trump’s zero-tolerance policy is concerning, but it isn’t a huge departure from what we saw under Obama, as 52 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration-related crimes when he left office.”

In late May, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that it had obtained thousands of government documents that showed evidence of “the pervasive abuse and neglect of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection” during the Obama presidency, from 2009 through 2014.

“These documents provide a glimpse into a federal immigration enforcement system marked by brutality and lawlessness,” Mitra Ebadolahi, ACLU Border Litigation Project staff attorney, said in a report about the abuses. “All human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of their immigration status — and children, in particular, deserve special protection.”

“Like so much else in immigration, this administration has taken weapons that Obama’s folks loaded and left on the table on the way out and then they picked these weapons up and started firing, and that’s what’s happened here,” Free said. “The previous administration created and stood up this infrastructure and refused to demand accountability from the people that were responsible for running it, and now you have its predictable consequence in the hands of this administration.”

Human Rights Watch documented inhumane conditions at various family detention facilities. “Women and children must frequently go without showering while in these cells, regardless of the length of time they are held,” the report said. “In some cases, holding cells lack toilet paper or do not provide sanitary pads or tampons for women and girls who are menstruating.”

Charles Kuck, a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told Fox News the outcry over the treatment of children arriving at the border is, in some respect, mind-boggling. “This is not new,” Kuck said. “What is new is how we’re handling it publicly.”

A major reason for the outcry, Kuck said, is the knee-jerk tendency to lash out at this president’s actions and put them in disproportionate perspective. “Everyone in [immigration law] was screaming from the rooftops about Obama” detaining families, Kuck said. “Obama said they had to enforce the law so that conservatives in Congress will fix the law.”

Obama administration officials also argued they had to implement tough enforcement for the sake of providing a deterrent. They considered separating children from parents as they weighed how to deal with the Central American surge, but decided against it, The New York Times reported.

“It was the practice of the Obama administration to abuse refugee children, and refugee mothers with children,” Kolken said. “I don’t really care which type of abuse or abuser people find more abhorrent, because it is all abuse, and it is all abhorrent.”

Immigration authorities say detention is necessary because many people who are released pending an immigration hearing never show up to court. Many advocates for more lenient policies have pushed for alternatives — such as ankle monitors — to detention for asylum seekers and others who are not deemed a danger to the public.

“It’s exponentially worse when the children are taken away,” Kuck said, adding that the real solution is congressional action to fix immigration. “The pressure is on Congress. But one side wants to return them, and the other side deems that unacceptable.”

Bullet Points

  • Why no incessant drumbeats of war against President Obama by the Media for his Administration’s detaining young children separated from parents?
  • Why then does this same Media cry daily against Trump and all Conservatives for not caring about children, the jailing of children, and the travesty of not allowing everyone from any other country into the U.S.?
  • Why has there been NO mention of the conditions in which those illegal children were kept under Obama — including being held in cages?
  • Does the fact that NO members of Congress introduced legislation to fix those problems for those children and their parents fall at the feet of the Obama White House or members of Congress for responsibility?
  • Why hasn’t Congress taken action to resolve this issue — under Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and now Trump?

Summary

It’s obvious that this president hasn’t and will not get any breaks from the Mainstream Media. When all three of the major TV networks have been rated as providing bad “Trump” news 90+ percent of the time, Americans are forced to dig for truthful news about our government on their own.  Know what: that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

More and more I am finding Americans who while watching and listening to “attack tv and radio,” realize that the stories the Media is dishing out do not parallel what these Americans are seeing in their own lives: lower taxes, lower unemployment, pay increases, new companies with new jobs, and respect from foreign governments unseen for at least 8 years. What has changed?

Quite a bit under this President. And Americans understand that the policies and attitudes that were emitted from the Obama White House have been vacated by this President and replaced with good reports of good things for the U.S., and through the U.S., good things for other countries, too.

Barack Obama before he really got started with his promise to “initiate fundamental change to this country” was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That was a symbolic gesture at best but was based on NO substantive accomplishments by Mr. Obama. And “accomplishments” went downhill for him after that prize award. Immigration issues were a thorn in his flesh — even if the Mainstream Media pretty much gave him a pass. But “Truth will out.” And it did. The “could do no wrong” leader discovered that governing a nation — THIS nation — could not be accomplished successfully by simply being cool and suave while giving “good” speeches.

Americans now have a benchmark to use in Obama — Trump accomplishment measurements. In many categories, President Trump has already accomplished far more than did O in 2 terms. But let’s not judge this President’s success or failure in office just yet: let’s wait a few years. Why? You’ve heard and seen Democrat pundits reward Obama for ALL of the economic success in the last 18 months. Of course, they do so in error. But let’s wait a while to see if Trump can achieve even more of his promises from his 2016 campaign.

Regarding illegal immigration: something definitive and comprehensive MUST be done. Immigration laws are antiquated, unbending, and unacceptable. Americans want the illegal immigration problem addressed and resolved. Most Americans agree that “illegal” means “illegal!” And people who do illegal things break the law. Americans expect all who break laws to receive whatever penalties accompany each law broken. Until those laws are changed, Americans expect U.S. immigration laws to be enforced. Without enforcement of laws, what purpose does having laws at all serve?

How to fix illegal immigration? There are two ways that will work separately, or preferably together. These two are the only viable options that could fairly and comprehensively solve the problem:

  1.  Congressional revision of current immigration laws with a comprehensive replacement or revisions. No one but Congress can possibly make that happen. AND THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO DO! Why hasn’t that already happened? Partisan Party Politics.
  2. Close U.S. borders completely: allow NO illegals into the country. This too is a tough one — but if implemented could be effective. “If” all illegals who are contemplating coming into the U.S. illegally knew that they would not be allowed in period unless completing one of the legal ways to emigrate to the U.S., they would stop attempting to break-through our borders. This would save millions of dollars these illegals are forced to pay smugglers AND save illegals’ lives. Many are lost from the grueling conditions that prevail when human traffickers and smugglers transport them through deserts in 100+ degree temperatures to cross the U.S. border illegally.

What Honduran mother would send a child with a human trafficker to attempt an illegal crossing of the U.S. border knowing that being stopped short before gaining illegal entry or immediately taken back across that border when discovered was going to happen EVERY TIME? They wouldn’t.

Part of the legislative “fix” cries for a major streamlining of the process that is antiquated and ineffective.

Congress needs to act, and act now. U.S. Presidents can only apply a temporary fix with an Executive Order. And we’ve seen this President struggle to enact such successfully because of certain court action taken by immigration specialists.

It takes Congress.

Congress MUST act, and act NOW! Children’s lives are at stake.

Play

A Border Wall: Is it Worth It?

Discussions of the practicality, need for, and cost of the proposed border wall are ongoing, even if they are not the hot “topic-of-the-day” right now. Political distractions make us concentrate on other issues, but — make no mistake — even if those border wall conversations are not front and center, they are ongoing.

Chief in these discussions is the cost of illegal immigration to Americans. There are heretofore credible individuals and groups who make the claim that illegal immigrants — because of their working in the U.S. and paying federal, state, and local taxes while here — more than pay for any costs to taxpayers. In many cases, those claims have been simply accepted simply because it sounds somewhat plausible. Those illegal immigration supporters have never offered any statistical proof of their claims. But now there are facts of the “net” costs of illegal immigration to the U.S., and even though many illegals do contribute to the nation financially through taxes and through their spending, there is NO net financial plus for their being here. In fact, the truth is far from that.

Let’s push this conversation forward with facts and drop all conjecture. The Centers for Immigration Studies (CIS) exhaustively researches all things immigration-related and a few months ago shared a portion of their current statistical analysis of illegal immigration costs, the fiscal viability of a proposed border wall, and significant other details of immigration’s impact on U.S. taxpayers. Immediately below you will find a synopsis of some CIS research. At the bottom of this report, I am attaching the full report for any to download and use personally or in your immigration conversations with others.

Illegal immigration in the U.S. is front and center during this national political season as we ramp up for the 2018 mid-terms. When taking political positions on every important issue, it is critical for Americans to be armed with facts. Not knowing something doesn’t mean someone is stupid. Not knowing something and doing nothing to get the facts IS being stupid! Let’s look at FACTS:

The “Findings”

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as “net present values,” which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $15 to $25 billion cost of the wall.

Among the findings:

  • There is agreement among researchers that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education.
  • There is also agreement that immigrants who come to America with modest levels of education create significantly more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
  • A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. Averaging the cost estimates from that study and combining them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.
  • The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.- born descendants. If we use the NAS projections that include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each.
  • If a border wall prevented 160,000 to 200,000 illegal crossings (excluding descendants) in the next 10 years it would be enough to pay for the estimated costs of the wall.
  • Newly released research by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) done for the Department of Homeland Security indicates that 170,000 illegal immigrants crossed the border successfully without going through a port of entry in 2015.
  • While a significant decline in crossings from a decade ago, it still means that there may be 1.7 million successful crossings in the next decade. If a wall stopped just 9 to 12 percent of these crossings it would pay for itself.
  • If a wall stopped half of those expected to successfully enter illegally without going through a port of entry at the southern border over the next 10 years, it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion — several times the wall’s cost.
  • In addition to crossing the border surreptitiously, aliens join the illegal population primarily by overstaying a temporary visa. A southern border wall would not address this part of the illegal flow.
  • A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.
  • To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of “net present value” (NPV). This concept, which is commonly used by economists, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants will create in the future.
  • The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. But this means the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers, given their education levels, is possibly $140,000 to $150,000 each in their lifetimes if the NPV concept is not used.

Summary

Wow! I knew illegal immigrant costs had to be extensive, just because of the personal costs of living in the U.S. my family sustains. These numbers — if they continue at current levels — are staggering.

Here’s the most important factor for Truth News Network followers: Democrats are making illegal immigration almost their entire 2018 election platform. Why? They have no other story to tell that could possibly result in Congressional, state, and local victories at the polls. They currently have the mystery of illegal immigration costs in their favor. Democrats are good at messaging — even if their messages are partially or totally untrue. In this case, the stories being sold by Democrats and other liberals to all who will listen regarding the tremendous benefits to the U.S. of having open borders are patently false in total!

Please download the .pdf of the NAS study. It includes not only complete statistics, it documents their findings and conclusions with sourcing explanations. FACTS ARE GOING TO BE MANDATORY FOR AMERICANS TO MAKE INFORMED ELECTION CHOICES!

camarota-wall-costs

Play

Illegal Immigration Family Separation: Mostly Media “NOISE”

I hate to spend any more space and/or time discussing the obvious partisan, Leftist, venomous, vitriolic lies being spewed by the Media regarding illegal alien interception at the southern border that have sometimes resulted in children being separated from adults who sometimes are those children’s parents but who sometimes child traffickers. Of course, everything wrong with this (according to the Leftist Media) lies at the feet of this President. After all, HE makes the laws, HE hates immigrants — especially children — and HE chose to purposely “rip babies out of the arms of their mothers” and “put immigrant children in cages.” Of course, everything I just said has been parroted again and again by the American “Truth-Sayers” who consider themselves to be the purveyors of all things righteous for the U.S. — ESPECIALLY regarding how to treat illegals who invade our borders.

The lunacy of the Leftist Media pundits is no better illustrated than by the cover picture of the new TIME Magazine — illustrated best by the picture of a really small girl.

Journalist Kevin Ryan said it best:

“There’s been quite the trend of misleading photos in the media lately. The viral photo of a child crying in a cage was not actually from a government detention facility, but was instead staged by protesters at a Dallas demonstration. The numerous pictures of kids crowded onto mattresses behind chain link fences WERE at a detention facility… during the Obama presidency.

And now the most iconic photo of the whole family separation controversy turns out not to be from a family separation at all. The photo of a little girl looking up and crying as her mother is apprehended by border patrol has been presented by nearly every major media outlet as an example of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, in which illegal immigrants are arrested at the border and sent to jail, separating them from their children.

The Washington Post: “By now, millions of people have seen a photo of a 2-year-old girl screaming while a U.S. border agent pats down her mother. Taken last Tuesday, the image has become a symbol of the Trump administration’s new ‘zero tolerance’ border policies, which have caused hundreds of children to be removed from the parents who brought them here.”

The New York Daily News, with a photo of the girl on its cover:

“Callous.
Soulless.
Craven.
Trump.
2,000 children ripped from parents at border in just 6 weeks.”

The New York Times featured the photo several times in stories about family separations, including on its front page.

And now Time magazine has put the photo on its cover, with the crying little girl depicted alone, separated from her mother, looking up at a heartless, uncaring President Trump. “Welcome to America” the caption reads. Except, according to her father, that little girl was not taken from her mother.

Denis Hernandez said his wife Sandra and daughter Yanela were never separated by border control agents and remain together, housed in a family residential center in Texas and are doing ‘fine.’

In fact Hernandez says his daughter was taken by his wife, against his wishes, leaving behind their three other children. He says his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a “better future” but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.

‘I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that?’ said Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes.

Sandra took 2-year-old Yanela from their home in Honduras on June 3rd, for an 1,800 mile trek through treacherous desert and drug cartel-occupied territory, across the Rio Grande in the middle of a night on a rubber raft, and over the border, where they turned themselves in to the first U.S. agents they found. She paid $6,000 to a coyote – someone who smuggles people across the border.

That’s when John Moore, an award-winning photographer for Getty Images, took the now famous photo. Moore had been at the river, under an agreement with Border Patrol, for seven hours by then. And although he had taken many photos, he did not yet have the ‘one he needed.’

‘I still had no picture that conveyed the emotional impact of family separations,’ he said.

And technically, he still doesn’t, as Sandra and Yanela Hernandez were never actually separated.

 

SOURCES:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Father-two-year-old-face-child…
https://www.yahoo.com/…/father-says-little-honduran-girl-ti…
https://www.cbsnews.com/…/border-patrol-agent-involved-dra…/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/i-wanted-to-stop-her-cryi…/
https://www.nytimes.com/…/poli…/family-separation-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/…/raices-charity-border-immigrants.…

 

Illegal Immigration Bullet Points

 

Immigration Law, Definitions, and Brief History in “Modern” USA

If you do not have a Visa, a Green Card or citizenship in the United States and are currently living in the country, you are subject to deportation. Getting deported is a very serious aspect of immigration law; it is the process of the United States government removing illegal immigrants from the country. Deportation may eliminate your ability to secure a visa in the future. The United States Government may deport you for the following reasons:

  • If you enter the United States while being deemed “legally inadmissible” by the immigration laws of the federal government
  • Entering the country without a legal visa
  • Failure to renew a conditional permanent residency visa
  • Aiding an illegal immigrant with entering the country
  • Conviction of a criminal offense
  • Endangering national or public security
  • Participating in a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas.  The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law.  To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and non-immigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S.  Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit.  The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States.  The IIRIRA eliminated the term “entry,” replacing it with “admission.”  An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa.  The IIRIRA also employs the term “arriving alien” to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS.  The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism.  Within the Department, three different agencies – U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – now handle the duties formerly held by the INS.  Currently, the CBE handles the INS’s border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS’s deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and asylum seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants.  Under the Refugee Act, the term “refugee” refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions.  Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group.   As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer.   For refugees who have “firmly resettled” in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission.  The government considers refugees “firmly resettled” if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States.  The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear.  A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test.  The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality.  Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning.  The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deferred Action (DACA/DAPA)

Deferred action is an administrative relief from deportation; DHS temporarily authorizes non-U.S. citizens to remain in the U.S.  Through deferred action, a non U.S. citizen may apply for employment authorization for the duration of the temporary stay.  Recipients of deferred action grants, however, cannot claim lawful status during that time, but they are considered lawfully present in the U.S.  In other words, they are not accruing unlawful presence, which could later render them inadmissible to the U.S. if and when they apply for permanent legal status.  DHS grants deferred action on a case-by-case basis.

In June 2012, the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The program aimed to grant deferred action to those under 31 as of Jne 15, 2012, who entered the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday and continuously resided in the U.S> without lawful status since at least June 15, 2007.  The policy rationale was to prevent deportation of young adults and children, who grew up as Americans yet did not voluntarily enter the U.S. without lawful status.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address illegal immigration and to prioritize deporting felons not families.  The executive actions expanded the DACA program by extending the period from two to three years, removing the age requirement, and easing the continuous residency requirement (continuous residency since June 15, 2007 changed to January 1, 2010).  The executive actions also introduced the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.  The DAPA program permits parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (LPR) to apply for deferred action if they have continuously resided in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and had a U.S. citizen or LPR child as of November 20, 2014.

The expanded DACA and DAPA programs, however, are on hold due to a pending Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas.  USCIS is not currently accepting applications for the expanded DACA or DAPA programs.

 

“Some operations have taken place that have been focused on individuals, deporting individuals that have recently crossed the border. That is consistent with the kinds of enforcement priorities that the president and the secretary of homeland security discussed more than a year ago,” Earnest said at the daily briefing for reporters. “Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws.”

Johnson said the batch of deportees were among immigrants who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since May 2014. That’s when the U.S. began experiencing a surge of families and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Officials say such crossings decreased by early last year, but began to pick up again in recent months.

Obama Administration officials expressed concern with the spike in the number of families and unaccompanied children apprehended at the southern border — particularly since illegal migration tends to slow down during colder months. In October and November 2015, just over 12,500 families were apprehended, compared with 4,577 during the same two months in 2014. Meanwhile, 10,588 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the southern border in October and November 2015, according to federal officials — more than double the number of minors who tried to cross into the United States during the same period in 2014.

The proposals to increase deportations appear to have stirred some dissent within the Obama administration. Just before Christmas, unnamed “people familiar with the operation” disclosed the plans to the Washington Post — a highly unusual leak about planned law enforcement actions. The disclosure of the planned raids drew immediate criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley condemned the planned actions, while front-runner Hillary Clinton issued a more muted statement through a spokeswoman, who said Clinton had “real concerns” about the plans. Word of the planned raids also highlight a political predicament for Clinton, who endorsed quick return of illegal immigrant children in 2014 but is also trying to court Latino voters.

 

Play

Democrats LOVE Illegal Immigration

It appears to be true. But, hold on: it looks like some “Establishment Republicans” may be in the tank with Democrats. Two versions of comprehensive immigration bills are set to be introduced, debated, and voted on in the House of Representatives this week. Will they show up on the floor? Listen today to get the skinny!

DHS Secretary Nielsen details the truth of illegal immigration and the treatment of children by border agents. Watch this press briefing. 

https://youtu.be/qYvZqPGedo0

Play

Amnesty

am·nes·ty
noun: “
an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses; an amnesty for political prisoners; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”

We will here this word often in the next month or two in combination with “Immigration Reform.” Accomplishing true immigration reform is critical to this Congress to complete before the mid-terms in November. Why? Listen today to find out what is at stake, what plans Congress has, and where our ongoing immigration dilemma actually lies today. Enjoy!

 

Play

Discharge Petition: What is It?

The U.S. House of Representatives is frantically trying to get 218 signatures on such a petition. What is it? How does it work? What are they trying to accomplish with it? Answers to these and other questions coming right up! Thanks for listening.

Play

MS-13: Illegal Immigrants or “Animals?”

President Trump was accused by the Mainstream Media of in a White House round table calling ALL illegal immigrants “Animals.” As often occurs, the MSM got it wrong — many feel on purpose. The President with that remark referenced ONLY members of the MS-13 gang — a vicious and violent gang that originated in El Salvador that systematically tortures, rapes, sometimes hacks off victims limbs and ev n decapitates victims. 

Let’s look closer at MS-13 and it’s impact in the USA. 

Play

Immigration Explosion!

It’s time for Americans to receive the truth about Immigration: legal AND illegal immigration into the United States. How many legal immigrants do we bring in? How does that compare with the rest of the World? What is the timeline for legal immigration? Listen to today’s broadcast for this information and much more.

Play