A massive anti-deportation infrastructure has emerged to try to protect illegal immigrants from President Trump’s crackdown, with advocacy groups coaching potential deportees on how to massage encounters with police, and lawyers and judges working to shield them from charges that would make them priorities for deportation.
A video released Monday by a coalition of advocates instructs illegal immigrants not to open the door to federal agents, what proof to demand if they are being arrested and what to say if accosted outside their homes.
Meanwhile, attorneys are working to lower charges from some illegal immigrant criminals, hoping to blunt their crimes so they don’t show up as high-priority deportation targets.
The latest instance was in California, where an immigrant from India was accused of abusing his wife. The Santa Clara prosecutor told The Daily Beast that he reduced a felony assault charge to a felony accessory after the fact charge in order to spare the man a sentence that would have made him a deportation risk.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions lashed out at the prosecutor last week, calling his action a perversion of the criminal justice system.
Click to Read More
(A video released Monday by a coalition of advocates instructs illegal immigrants not to open the door to federal agents, what proof to demand if they are being arrested and what to say if accosted outside their homes.)
Wouldn’t it be nice if all persons here legally, alien and citizen alike, had such advice and protection?
What does this cost? Who is paying for it? Qui bono? (Who benefits?)
(from Free North Carolina)
- In 1990, the “Gayssot law” was passed, stipulating that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited”. Since then, it has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.
- The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity. All history textbooks are “Islamically correct.”
- In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated only by Muslim doctors, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.
February 2, 2017: A “no-go zone” in the eastern suburbs of Paris. Police on patrol hear screams. They decide to check. While there, a young man insults them. They decide to arrest him. He hits them. A fight starts. He accuses a policeman of having raped him with a police baton. A police investigation quickly establishes that the young man was not raped. But it is too late; a toxic process has begun.
Political correctness is killing Europe, literally!
AND, it will kill the United States.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
(from Judicial Watch)
JW Files Suit For ‘Refugee Travel Loans’ Information
Tightening our immigration and refugee programs is a matter of national security (despite what some out-of-control judges may think), and it is also a matter of cost.
In this regard, we have filed a lawsuit against the State Department for records on the number of “Refugee Travel Loans” issued by State’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration to the United Nation’s International Organization for Migration from 2010 to the present.
We are also seeking the number of loans defaulted upon and the amount of money written off on each defaulted loan. We filed the suit on January 24, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-00157)).
Judicial Watch filed the suit after the State Department failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 5, 2016, seeking the following:
- All records reflecting the number of Refugee Travel Loans furnished by the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) per year; the number of travel loans that are defaulted upon per year; and the amount of money written off per defaulted loan.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provides funding for aid and relief work abroad and the bureau’s admissions office handles settling refugees in the United States. According to the agency’s website, it spent nearly $545 million “to provide new beginnings to the world’s most vulnerable refugees” in 2016 and more than $2.8 billion to “humanitarian assistance overseas.” It provided $103 million directly to the UN’s International Organization for Migration.
The International Organization for Migration, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, has an annual budget of $1.4 billion and (as of 2014) a staff of 9,000 throughout the world. According to the International Organization for Migration website, the organization provides interest-free loans “furnished by the Department of State” to “all refugees arriving in the United States:”
All refugees arriving in the United States are offered interest-free travel loans by IOM. Refugees who accept these travel loans are required to sign a promissory note prior to departure, committing themselves to repayment of the debt within 46 months after arrival in the United States.
IOM arranges for refugee travel using funds furnished by the Department of State, and is mandated to subsequently effect collections on behalf of the Department of State. Repayments made by refugees toward their loans are returned to the Department of State for use by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to defray the cost of future refugee travel.
In July 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution making the International Organization for Migration part of the UN.
Even The Washington Post reported that the nine resettlement agencies contracted by the State Department to help resettle refugees in the U.S. actually make more than $5 million a year in commissions on refugee debt collection.
The State Department has stonewalled our request for refugee loan information and associated taxpayer losses for a year – an unlawful delay that screams “cover up.” This is an opportunity for the Trump State Department to come clean and clean up this refugee welfare program.
And there’s a lot more for the Trump administration to clean up when it comes to “refugee loans.” In June 2016, Judicial Watch reported:
The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers, records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The cash is distributed through a program called Microenterprise Development run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement.
HHS is not the only government agency doling out huge sums of cash for this cause, though its focus on refugees appears to be unique. Others, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to various microenterprise causes. For instance, in one recent year alone USAID spent $223 million on microenterprise development activities, according to figures released by the agency. The USDA also allocates large sums to provide loans and grants to microenterprise development through a special “Rural Microloan Revolving Fund” and the DOL regularly pours lots of money into various microenterprise projects that are promoted as workforce investments in areas with high rates of poverty.
So the debate about refugees is more than about keeping dangerous refugees out, but there is also the matter of asking just how much it costs to make politicians to feel good about themselves by using our tax dollars to provide special assistance to these foreign nationals.
I have no problem with legitimate, vetted refugees or immigrants following protocols for legal residency and eventually even citizenship. I used to know a guy who, with his family, escaped Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali’s tyranny, to arrive here, become a citizen, and open a liquor store. He practically hugged every customer who walked in!
And I remember wondering where Lee Harvey Oswald got the ‘Traveler’s Aid'(CIA) funds of $200, after renouncing his U.S. citizenship and living in the Soviet Union. And was allowed to return back to the United States after purportedly giving away military secrets to the Russians. With nary a hitch.
Much has changed since the 1960’s.
And not for the better.
Yep. Costs too much, difficult terrain, yatta yatta…
Mr. B, however, shows us otherwise:
Unless, of course, you are in Turkey.
Maybe our Mexicans are smarter than their Syrians?
The problem isn’t the wall. It’s the will to build it.
Educated people need to balance the need to protect the Republic from drug smuggling, human trafficking, arms smuggling and terrorism with the need to protect our sovereignty and freedom here.
In short, a passive method (such as a wall) beats running willy-nilly all over the Southwest, looking for yet another border breach, and searching people and vehicles without warrants. And airplane and drone surveillance. (Yeah, it’s that pesky Fourth Amendment, again!)
Of course, philosophically, they need to look at WHY it’s so difficult to construct said wall, WHY the administration frowns on border enforcement, and maintaining a national cultural unity. Assimilation? WHY is that frowned upon?
And WHY aren’t we concerned with the Canadian border? I’d bet folks come in that direction, as well!
Qui Bono!? (Who benefits?) Who benefits from NOT enforcing border security, cultural cohesiveness and promoting assimilation? And from allowing the smuggling to continue unabated, while playing at enforcement?
(Hint – It’s not just the illegal aliens…)
Is this a valid comparison?
from Free North Carolina (in part)
Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient Captain Humayun Khan died heroically. But his exceptional courage in Iraq and his Muslim father’s post-Democratic convention histrionics on TV do not erase the security threat posed by killer warriors of Allah infiltrating our troops.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask all the forgotten Gold Star moms and dads who have lost their children because politically correct pushovers at the Pentagon looked the other way at the Muslim military menace.
Don’t take my word for it. Just re-read the ignored warnings issued by Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan, the vengeful mass murderer who gunned down 13 service members—including a pregnant private first class who lost her life and her child—and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009.
More @ V DARE
Let me see. Not only are we not vetting Muslim immigrants into the United States, but we are looking the other way in the name of political correctness in our military – to their detriment!
Isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemies defined as something heinous? I can’t remember…
from Free North Carolina)
Properly vetting would-be immigrants’ religious beliefs is not only legal — it would be wise and prudent. Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.
But…But…RACISM! BIGOTRY! No Wall! Yadda, Yadda…
But ‘they’ don’t let facts get in the way of their agenda.
AGAIN – political correctness will be the death of us.
What more can be said regarding the terrorist attack in the South of France? What do we know? A Tunisian emigre, armed with one pistol, two fake assault rifles. And a fake grenade. And a truck. Chose to use the 19 ton refrigerated truck as an ‘assault vehicle’.
84 dead, another 202 injured.
And while he didn’t use either the real or fake weaponry, in largely gun-prohibited France, it took the usual solution – a call to the men with guns to stop the terrorist.
ISIS claimed responsibility.
I see two solutions here. One short term, and a second longer.
- Allow the French citizenry to arm themselves.
- Severely restrict or cease entirely immigration from Muslim countries. And deport those already in country who have not been carefully vetted.
AND, promote doing the same in all other nations, including the United States!
Before it is too late.
Of course, this will never happen. Especially here, where illegal aliens make up as much as 33% of the service industry work force.
I heard on the ‘news’ the other night that one-half of one percent (0.5%) of Islamic folk are estimated to be radicalized. This translates to one million people World-wide!
Imagine if this were a regular army?
Instead, they are agents-provocateurs (agents of change – outside agitators in the very least)! Community Organizers?
Saboteurs and terrorists.
Free people need to be able to defend themselves. Period.
Two folks are sitting adjacent in a jumbo jet, flying over the South of France.
One looks out the window and remarks, “That’s Nice.” – Bennett Cerf
(Apologies. This is GUFFAW in AZ, after all. Had to lighten the mood.)
Image: AP Photo/Amel Emric
Bullets are cheaper and more effective than tear gas canisters.
Bullets and bombs are merely war’s last recourse. The actual front of most conflicts occurs in the vacuum between men’s ears. One gains a deep appreciation of this fact when watching the rapid social effects that result from orchestrated media onslaughts. The images and narratives carpet bombed daily into mentally defenseless targets demonstrate the undeniable power of air superiority.
And when spiritual fortifications have been flattened, antagonists put boots on the ground. That’s what’s happening now in unmoated areas of the West. But eventually even the dullest clucks begin to understand that virtue signaling on migration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Conspicuously accommodating 100 brown people is a boast, while 100 million is a eulogy. And most prefer their praise served warm.
So what we are seeing presently in Europe is a people slowly realizing their moral vainglory is best taken in moderation. Unfortunately for them, that doesn’t much address the designs of a billion or so global refugees fleeing the war in Syria. You don’t simply lock the door after other people have decided they want in.
For once a large enough number of outsiders determine your house is precisely what they want, seeking your permission loses much of its appeal. That’s when fences start falling, tear gas starts wafting, and it dimly begins to dawn that invasion doesn’t require the Red Army.
Here’s one piece on the siege of Indomeni.
This is on the frontiers of Europe. (Not to mention the chaos already inside London, Paris and Germany)
And the current American administration has essentially told the Border Patrol to stand down. And has cut their numbers and budget.
Is this the future image on our borders?
No, of course not.
We are already looking the other way…
(from Brock Townsend)
One of the most appalling aspects of the current refugee crisis is that persecuted Christian across the Middle East are being completely ignored in favor of Muslim migrants. And when even the world’s most prominent Christian figurehead does nothing to help, but instead worships at the altar of multiculturalism and its “new world order,” what hope is there for Middle East Christians fleeing genocide?
A disturbing report claims that when Pope Francis found out that two of the 12 Muslim refugees he recently planned to take back to the Vatican turned out to be Christians, he “dropped them like a hot potato.”
Roula and Malek Abo, a Christian brother and sister duo who hail from Syria, say they have been “let down” by the Pope after left them behind at a Lesbos refugee camp. They were promised a new life in Italy. According to blogger Geoffrey Grider:
Holy Father, I’m confused? You seem to be more socialist than Catholic, and now more Muslim? Or, at least, more political? (Not that other Pope’s haven’t been political…)
I’d make a list, but it would be REALLY long!
Perhaps, this was just about a photo op?
(Full Disclosure – I was baptized Catholic, but raised away from The Church, largely under the influence of my Presbyterian step-mother. My Father pretended not to care, but was a Catholic in secret. So, I’ve never been confirmed in The Church, and don’t follow the infallible Papacy as God’s Word.)
And then, there’s the whole ‘render unto Caesar’ thing…