Mediaboss Marketing

Finally, in Thursday's presidential debate, immigration was introduced as an issue. Amnesty was mentioned (the challenger, Joe Biden, said he was in favor of it but did not use the word), but the main focus was on the policy of zero tolerance (which ended more than two years ago), and the whereabouts of the parents of 545 children whose parents were subject to it. The issue has elicited more noise than light, raising the question whether the majority of those parents want reunification.

Biden pounced on the issue, asserting: "Parents were ripped their kids were ripped from their arms and separated. And now they cannot find over 500 sets of those parents and those kids are alone. Nowhere to go, nowhere to go. It's criminal. It's criminal." This echoed a statement his campaign released, which described the situation as a "moral failing".

Trump, for his part, asserted: "Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they're brought here and it's easy to use them to get into our country."

This is a deeply emotional subject, and one that is personal to me as a father. My son is now a man, but even now, if he were "lost", I would move heaven and earth to find him. But there are some parents who could choose to have their children remain in the United States than with them in their home countries, for a couple reasons I will describe below.

Some background is in order, though, both distant and more recent.

First, the distant. I was an associate general counsel at the former INS when the Elian Gonzalez issue was brewing, and saw it first-hand. The five-year-old Gonzalez was with his mother on a boat travelling from Cuba when the boat capsized. His mother drowned (as did 11 others), but Gonzalez, floating in an inner-tube, was saved by fishermen on Thanksgiving Day 1999 and brought to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

He was released from the hospital the next day into the custody of his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, and other relatives in Miami. Gonzalez's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, (who lived in Cuba) and the Cuban government requested the boy's return, but an asylum claim was filed by his Miami relatives, and a court and media battle ensued.

His family in the United States did not want to let the boy leave, but his father was allowed to come to this country to retrieve his son. The decision was eventually resolved in Juan Miguel Gonzalez's favor by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. Elian Gonzalez was seized by INS agents from the home of his Florida relatives in a pre-dawn raid on April 22, 2000, but it still took two months for the boy and his father to be allowed to return to Cuba.

It was a case that sharply divided America. Many believed that young Elian should be with his father, regardless of where his father was. Many others, however, believed that he should remain in America instead of being sent to Castro's Cuba. Reno's actions and those of the INS are still a touchy issue.

Second, the more recent. Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which makes illegal entry is a crime, does not contain any exceptions for aliens who arrive in the United States with children, and the threat of criminal prosecution is a powerful deterrent to illegal entry (as I have previously explained). Despite these facts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have traditionally not prosecuted alien parents entering illegally with minors as a matter of policy.

Coupled with the 2016 decision in Flores v. Lynch (which mandates the release of all children from DHS custody within 20 days meaning that the parents usually get released as well), that non-prosecution policy gives parents a powerful incentive to bring their children with them and travel as "family units" (FMU) on the hazardous journey to enter the United States illegally. Want proof? FMU entries increased 600 percent between FY 2017 and mid-FY 2019.

That journey is extremely dangerous, as I have explained in the past, and one bipartisan federal panel found in April 2019 that the trek is particularly damaging for the children involved:

Migrant children are traumatized during their journey to and into the U.S. The journey from Central America through Mexico to remote regions of the U.S. border is a dangerous one for the children involved, as well as for their parent. There are credible reports that female parents of minor children have been raped, that many migrants are robbed, and that they and their child are held hostage and extorted for money.

As for Trump's point, the Texas Tribune reported in March 2019 that most migrants to the United States hire smugglers known colloquially as "coyotes" who "bribe cartels and corrupt cops and immigration agents along the way." According to a 2018 UN study, "smuggling is a big business with high profits" specifically valued at $3.7 to $4.2 billion to North America from the southern border of Mexico in 2014-2015.

Nor are those coyotes simply innocent travel facilitators, as the Obama-Biden administration's National Security Council explained in July 2011:

The vast majority of people who are assisted in illegally entering the United States and other countries are smuggled, rather than trafficked. International human smuggling networks are linked to other trans-national crimes including drug trafficking and the corruption of government officials. They can move criminals, fugitives, terrorists, and trafficking victims, as well as economic migrants. They undermine the sovereignty of nations and often endanger the lives of those being smuggled.

That de facto non-prosecution policy ended on April 6, 2018, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a "Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry".

When migrant parents were criminally prosecuted, they passed into the custody of DOJ for what were reasonably brief trials.

Under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), however, that meant that the minors with them in DHS custody became "unaccompanied alien children", and DHS was therefore required to send them to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for placement in shelters until a sponsor could be found for them in the United States. I explained that process in length in February 2019 congressional testimony.

More than 2,500 minors were separated from their parents under the zero-tolerance policy before President Trump addressed it by executive order on June 20, 2018, directing DHS to maintain custody of those prosecuted through that process (unless the parent posed a danger to the child's welfare). Most have been reunited with their parents, but there were criticisms (to put it mildly) of the policy and the manner in which it was implemented.

One of those critics was the DHS Office of Inspector General, which released a report in September 2018, finding: "DHS ... struggled to identify, track, and reunify families separated under Zero Tolerance due to limitations with its information technology systems, including a lack of integration between systems."

Another critic is my colleague Mark Krikorian, who recently stated: "The resulting child-separation fiasco was amplified and distorted by a hostile media, but the original disarray could have been avoided with less haste and more planning."

Which brings me to the 545 children mentioned in Thursday's debate. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a court filing, said that "that they have been unable to contact parents of 545 children who were separated at the border by the Trump administration, leaving the children living with sponsors throughout the United States."

The Wall Street Journal reports that up to two-thirds of those parents most of whom are from Central America are believed to have been removed from this country.

DHS, for its part, has defended its efforts and pushed back on those claims. According to ABC News, DHS spokesperson Chase Jennings has said that his department and HHS "have 'taken every step to facilitate the reunification of these families where parents wanted such reunification to occur.'"

Note the last clause there. Jennings contended on Twitter:

So, needless to say, there are some discrepancies in this matter. Here are the questions to ask: How many parents have the federal government and/or the ACLU been unable to locate? The parents of 545 children, or some lesser number (such as the difference between 485 and 545 of 60, or any)? Are the 485 children referenced by Jennings included in the ACLU's number? If so, have their parents made the decision that Juan Miguel Gonzalez declined to make 20 years ago, and opted to have their children remain with family members in the United States?

The latter scenario is certainly more than plausible. The idea of bringing children illegally to the United States is to enter and remain with them in the United States. If the parents were unable to remain, perhaps they opted to have their children remain in this country without them.

There are two reasons I can think of for them to have done so: (1) To have their children live in the relative comfort, safety, and affluence of the United States (with free education, to boot). (2) The possibility that, if their children are allowed to remain in this country, those parents will be able to reenter this country at some point in the immediate future.

Another important question even assuming that the parents of 545 children have not been located is how many of those parents have been removed? The closer that number gets to zero, the likelier it is that they don't want to be located by DHS, HHS, or anyone else. Because, if they are, they run the risk of being removed.

I am reminded of an anecdote (I have referenced before) told by Abraham Lincoln about a traveler who was out riding his horse when a furious storm came up, darkening the skies. A bolt of lightning shook the ground. The traveler fell on his knees, praying: "A little more light, Lord, and a little less noise."

As a father, when it comes to the welfare of children, I want as much light as possible. With less than two weeks before the 2020 general election, however, I am afraid that all that I am going to get is the noise.

Read the original:
More Noise than Light on 545 Children - Immigration Blog

Members of both parties agree that President Donald Trump inspires strong reactions from voters.

You either love him or you hate him, said Beva Miles, chair of the Republicans of Spokane County.

The polarization, well documented in national political polls, has led election observers to wonder whether there are any undecided voters left in a presidential contest that has occurred as traditional outlets of voter outreach have been curtailed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

But Washington voters have switched parties in the past, and at least one national poll watcher has suggested that Spokane County may go blue for the first time in more than two decades.

An examination of presidential voting in Spokane County showed numerous precincts in and around Hillyard as well as western portions of Spokane Valley switching from supporting Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump four years later.

At the same time, several precincts in south Spokane, mostly south of 37th Avenue, switched from Republican Mitt Romney in 2012 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Numerous polls have showed that white voters in particular have become more divided in recent years in how they vote for president.

College-educated whites are leaning to Democrats while those without a college degree are leaning more toward Republicans.

Democrats have focused on increasing the turnout in 2020, rather than trying to dissuade Trump voters, said Andrew Biviano, the former chair of the Spokane County Democratic Party and a candidate for Spokane County Commissioner in 2016.

He pointed to Wisconsin, which Trump won four years ago after Obama carried it in 2012.

But Trump won Wisconsin with 2,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney amassed in 2012, indicating that it was lower turnout, not enthusiasm for Trump, that was key to his victory in the Badger State.

Thats true in a lot of other states around the country as well, Biviano said.

Biviano said he thoroughly canvassed the neighborhoods west of the Hillyard main strip four years ago, an area that had historically supported Democrats. When he knocked on the doors of people he believed would be solid supporters, he found Trump voters instead.

For a white person without a college degree, the chances of it being a Trump supporter just were so high, Biviano said.

Many of the people in that category belonged to trade unions, groups that had consistently voted Democrat. But those people were now supporting the Republican partys nominee.

Sue Bergman, owner of The B & B Junk Company on the corner of Market Street and Olympic Avenue since the mid-1990s, said she believed the area has always had a conservative bent.

Thats been reflected in the clientele of her shop, especially after the 2016 campaign.

Im more likely to vote person rather than party, said Bergman, 73, who said Trump wasnt her first choice four years ago but that shed grown to respect his abilities a bit more.

Others groups have been swayed to support the president despite past Democratic votes.

Michael Sessions, 38, moved to Spokane from Seattle earlier this year. A supporter of President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Sessions said he voted for Trump in 2016 largely due to what he felt were broken promises by the Democratic president.

We paid $512 a month for insurance we couldnt use, Sessions said of his family under the Affordable Care Act.

We tried to go to the doctor one time. But it wasnt covered.

Sessions said Trump had done a better job than Obama on curtailing illegal immigration and in support of veterans, noting that his GI Bill assistance was reduced while Obama was in office.

The polarization of the president has worked the other way in Spokane County, as well.

Katie Walsh, 32, voted for Romney in 2012. She voted third party in 2016, one of nearly 29,000 Spokane County voters who did so. In that election, fewer than 20,000 votes in the county separated Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Walsh said this year shes voting for Biden.

Education, accessibility and medical care are three of the things that I look at where a candidate stands, and I dont like where President Trump stands on those issues, Walsh said.

Walsh said she knew less about the third-party candidates in this election year, and that she viewed Biden as the lesser of two evils when casting her ballot.

For the most part, Miles said she expects voters in Spokane County at the presidential level to stay true to their party.

For a county with three Republican county commissioners and an 11,000-vote margin in 2018s Congressional contest in favor of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers over Lisa Brown, that would make it unlikely Biden becomes the first Democrat to carry the county since Bill Clintons re-election in 1996.

Miles said she believes there will be more moderates likely to vote for Republican gubernatorial candidate Loren Culp than for Trump.

Ballots are due to the Elections Office Nov. 3.

Continued here:
Obama-to-Trump, Romney-to-Clinton: How will Spokane County shift in 2020? - The Spokesman-Review

Joe Boscia| For The Times

First, voting is both a privilege and an obligation. To not vote is an abrogation of our responsibility as a citizen, and jeopardizes the type of elected government officials our nation needs. So please vote.

Second, it is not enough to just cast a ballot. Our vote must be an informed one. And that means doing our homework ahead of time. People who say they will decide when they get into the voting booth are uninformed and poor citizens. There are too many politicians pushing the need to make it easy to vote, but they never stress the requirement to vote intelligently.

No one should tell us who to vote for. That should be our choice. But that also means we should not just vote the way our parents or friends do, or simply along straight party lines. Our first president, George Washington, warned against political parties, because they become too powerful, and create permanent politicians, instead of citizen representatives. That prophecy has certainly come true. We have term limits for the office of president, but desperately need it for Congress.

Our presidential choice this year is between two very flawed candidates, so what should we do? I suggest we look at issues, and not the person. Read the party platforms, and look at the candidates past records. And look at their current stand on issues. Have they flip-flopped from what they said and believed in the past?

Will they and the people backing them bring you the kind of America you want to live in?

Here is a list of issues to consider. It is not all-inclusive. You may want to change the order around or add issues. But think about each issue carefully, and how each candidate will address it. Then make your choice.

This really is the most important election in a lifetime. So do a good job of being a responsible citizen.

Supreme Court picks. Will the candidate pick justices who will follow the Constitution as written, or make rulings based on their own beliefs or todays social opinions? Will the justices try to create laws from the bench, rather than leaving that to Congress? Remember, the picks will influence America for decades, as justices serve for life. This also applies to other federal judges they appoint.

National defense and terrorism. Is the candidate strong in these areas and will build an effective, balanced, and right-size military? Will he/she be tough on opponents and terrorists, not afraid but not precipitous in the use of force, but once used, use it overwhelmingly, and not incrementally?

Law and order, crime and drugs. Is the candidate strong against crime and drugs, and believe that there is no excuse for looting, burning and harming police, while still against unwarranted police actions? Does he/she believe that drug pushers need to be strongly dealt with, and drug users discouraged, or that these are non-violent crimes that should be leniently treated?

Governments role. Does the candidate believe the government is the servant of the people or the answer to all problems? Does he/she believe the federal government should be small, and leave many roles to the states, or build a bureaucracy of unelected government employees?

The economy. Does the candidate believe our private enterprise, capitalist system is the best, with the federal government only inserting itself when there are excesses, or believe the federal government should dictate the economy?

Does the candidate promote real jobs growth of well-paying positions created by the private economy, or phony stimulus programs that do not create long term, well-paying private sector jobs?

Does the candidate advocate a high minimum wage, in spite of evidence that it cuts jobs, especially for those at that job level?

Social issues. Is the candidate socially conservative and believes in the traditional family and morality as constant, or social activism and situational morality? Is the candidate for the rights of unborn children or womens choice?

Race relations. Does the candidate denounce intolerance, bigotry, and racism, while emphasizing that minorities have responsibilities to address the breakdown of minority families, absence of fathers, crime, antagonism toward police, etc.? Does he/she profess that all lives matter?

National debt and the deficit. Does the candidate have a viable plan to substantially reduce both, but especially the deficit, and is the candidate strongly committed to doing so? If not, he/she is mortgaging our future.

Immigration. Does the candidate believe anyone should be allowed into the country, no matter how they get here, or where they come from, or that illegal immigration needs to be stopped once and for all? What is his/her plan for the millions of illegals already here, especially the violent criminal ones? Does the candidate want to give free college education and healthcare to illegals, while you pay for yours? Does the candidate support Kates Law?

Sanctuary cities. Does the candidate condone sanctuary cities, or believe they need to be dismantled?

Government regulation. Should the government do more or less regulating our lives and businesses? Does the candidate believe that the increased regulations are stifling business growth, or necessary? Does he/she use environmental regulations in such a way as to kill business?

The environment. Does the candidate believe that while we have responsibilities to protect the environment, government actions must be balanced with common sense, restraint, and protection of business, the economy and society?

Personal integrity. Is the candidate a person of strong personal integrity, whose personal and professional life is above reproach? There is no such thing as personal performance being irrelevant to professional actions, such aslying, cheating, untrustworthiness, etc.

EEO/AA. Does the candidate believe that EEO and AA efforts are reverse discrimination and no longer used for their original intent, or they are still necessary?

2nd Amendment. Does the candidate support the right to bear arms, with reasonable limits, or that guns, not people, cause crime? Does he/she support actions like an assault weapons ban in lieu of the real problem of illegal gun sales and use, especially in our inner cities?

School choice. Does the candidate believe that the best way to stimulate better schools is to create competition through school choice, teacher performance systems, and parents who encourage learning? Or does he/she want to keep the ineffectual status quo, because the candidate is beholden to the teacher unions?

College environment. Does the candidate believe college is a learning environment where students should be exposed to ideas from the conservative and liberal sides or a protected place where activist professors and students impose their ideas on everyone and brook no disagreement? Do the colleges encourage teaching professors, or publishing and activist professors?

College tuition. Does the candidate promote college as a right that should be free, and college loans waived or lessened, or a privilege that should be equally paid for? Does the candidate believe that the cost of college is to a large degree the fault of college administrations that hike tuition all out of proportion to inflation, and spend money on sports that should be spent on academics?

Unions. Does the candidate support and seek support from unions, especially teacher and public employee unions?

Joe Boscia, a former infantry officer, is a resident of Beaver.

View post:
Guest Op-Ed: Deciding your vote: Some thoughts on voting in upcoming election - The Times

This years protests in Portland and Bend, Ore., have many wondering how the Beaver States increasingly radicalized left will cope if President Trump is re-elected. After the 2016 election, a group of Oregonians submitted a petition for a ballot measure asking voters to consider secession. It went nowhere, but this year could be different. A 2017 Zogby poll concluded that a plurality of Americans (39%) believe states have a right to secede, so perhaps the idea isnt far-fetched.

Rioters in Portland laid siege to the citys federal courthouse for more than two months this summer. Mayor Ted Wheeler, who failed to control the chaos, is facing a serious re-election challenge from Sarah Iannarone, an avowed antifa supporter, who has outraised him and could win the nonpartisan contest.

But Portland isnt the only place in Oregon that seems to be drifting further from what passes for normal in the U.S. Consider the hysterical reaction of locals and election officials in Bend when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempted to take two illegal aliens into custody in August. Hundreds of protesters blocked ICE buses, and a 12-hour standoff ensued before agents could remove the men.

Bends political establishment defended the protesters. Ive never been so disgusted by my government and so proud of my community, tweeted John Hummel, Deschutes Countys district attorney. Bends Mayor Sally Russell added: In no way do I support ICE. Nor can our Bend Police Force, because Oregon is a sanctuary state and it is illegal. ...ICE is a Federal agency and frustratingly we have no power over the Executive Branch of our country.

ICE hasnt detailed the charges against Marco Zeferino and Josue Cruz-Sanchez, whose detentions triggered the standoff, other than to say they have violent criminal records and re-entered the U.S. unlawfully after prior apprehensions. But both men have arrest records reported by local media. Mr. Cruz-Sanchez pleaded guilty in 2018 to fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) and felony coercion for injuring and threatening his partner. In February 2019 he was arrested for burglary and a parole violation and pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal trespassing. Three months later, he pleaded not guilty to fourth-degree assault charges related to a separate incident.

Read the original here:
If Trump Is Re-Elected, Oregon Could Be Headed for a Crackup - The Wall Street Journal

Take it from someone who has been fighting the open-borders lobby for more than 30 years: If you think President Trump hasnt delivered on his immigration and border security promises, then you need to take a closer look at the record.

This administration has made incredible progress toward ending the toleration for lawlessness and mass unchecked migration that defined American immigration politics for decades.

Remember the situation that prevailed before Trump, when the Obama-Biden administration effectively gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in direct contravention of the law with a couple strokes of a pen called DACA and DAPA. Those blatant abuses of executive authority were basically ignored, even by establishment Republicans.

Despite its popularity among the Republican base and Americans as a whole, the attitude in Washington was one of unconditional surrender. Recall that in 2013, only some last-minute heroics in the Senate prevented a full-scale, irreversible amnesty. Even the knowledge that this weaknessconvincedtens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children to walk to our border alone, convinced they would be given permisos to enter the United States, did nothing to shake Washington out of the open-borders consensus.

Then came Donald Trump, and almost overnight, the issue was at the very forefront of the American political consciousness. As soon as it got a fair hearing, the immigration issue catapulted a Republican to the White House.

Unfortunately, some of the people who were motivated to vote based on immigration and the border in 2016 have allowed themselves to become disheartened by the open borders lobbys demoralization campaigns, which are designed to create the impression that President Trump hasnt kept his promises.

That couldnt be further from the truth.

Over the past three years, the refugee racket has been utterly crushed, to the open dismay of the globalist NGOs and resettlement experts who got richfloodingthe American hinterland with hundreds of thousands of unvetted people from some of the worlds mostdangerousplaces. In 2020, refugees are capped18,000, thelowestsince the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 opened the floodgates to the Third World.

Before President Trump, the people responsible for this travesty wereleveragingtheir connections in the Obama administration to tell states and towns all over America that they had no choice but to accept tens of thousands of military-aged Syrian men. Today, these refugee grifters are on the ropes. They and their friends in the left-wing media arefuriousthat they areno longer ableto override the wishes of American communities. And theyre desperately hoping for a Biden-Harris administration that would put them back in business.

Before President Trump, the ACLU and an army of immigration lawyers were turning our asylum laws into a secondary immigration system that could be used to circumvent limits put in place by Congress. Effectively limitless numbers of people could present themselves at the border, make a declaration of credible fear of persecution for anever-growinglist of social ills in their home country, and count on being caught and released into the United States.

Under President Trump, this farce has beendealta mortal blow. This administrations Remain in Mexico policy, along with agreements with Central American countries, haveput a stopto it. Genuine Central American asylum seekers now can stay in Mexico, safe from the political persecution they claim to face in their home countries. If American immigration courts find their claims valid, we are happy to allow them in just as the law is supposed to work.

We were also promised a wall, and a wall is what were getting. Itshappeningright now. You canseeit for yourself, verified by third parties: more than 340 miles built and standing, with more than 500 additional miles planned and paid for. And its working. The so-called caravans of 2018 and 2019 areoverand our border is more secure than ever.

For decades, Americanssaidthey wanted immigration levels to go down or stay the same, and we were consistently ignored by the Washington establishment. Thats over.Net migrationto the United States is just over half what it was in the last year of the Obama-Biden administration. The proportion of foreign-born people in the United States isfallingfor the first time since the disastrous 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.

If you care about enforcing our immigration laws, rest assured President Trump has followed through as no president has before him. He has the open-borders lobby on the run.

Tom Tancredo is a former U.S. presidential and Colorado gubernatorial candidate who represented the states 6thCongressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1999 to 2009.

More here:
Trump turned tide against immigration run amok | Opinion - coloradopolitics.com