Mediaboss Marketing

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

How to Increase Illegal Immigration Wall Street Journal (subscription) For years immigration restrictionists have claimed that they love immigrants and merely oppose illegal entry. Apparently that was a bait and switch. President Trump's first big restrictionist bill proposes to cut legal immigration by as much as half to ... and more »

See the original post:
How to Increase Illegal Immigration - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. cities that refuse to step up efforts to focus on crimes committed by illegal immigrants will not be allowed to participate in a new crime reduction training program unveiled earlier this year by the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday.

In making the announcement, Sessions singled out four local police departments that had expressed interest in the new Public Safety Partnership Program, saying they first had to answer a list of questions by Aug. 18 confirming they do not have any "sanctuary" policies to shield illegal immigrants from possible deportation by ensuring they will allow federal immigration officials access to local jails.

"Cities and states with so-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe," Sessions said.

The four police departments that must respond are Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; and San Bernardino and Stockton, California.

"Baltimore is a welcoming city. We do not enforce federal immigration laws," said Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, adding that when cities were initially selected for the program, there was no formal selection process and that Baltimore does not control the local jail.

Jarrod Burguan, the police chief of San Bernardino, said his department first expressed interest in a similar program during the Obama administration, and remains interested in participating. He added San Bernardino is not a "sanctuary" city, it does not control the local jail, and he will answer the department's questions.

Representatives from the other two police departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sessions' announcement reflects part of a broader policy push by President Donald Trump to crack down on illegal immigration.

He has urged Congress to support funding the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and the administration has moved to dramatically widen the net of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation.

The National Public Safety Partnership is a program launched in June that involves a three-year initiative geared toward areas with high rates of violent crime.

Twelve cities were selected when it was first launched.

Some municipalities have pushed back against the Trump administration's immigration policies.

A U.S. judge last month refused to remove a block on an executive order by Trump that would have withheld federal funds from sanctuary cities, which do not use municipal funds or resources to help advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez on Thursday called on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to stop making arrests in courthouses amid concerns it has a chilling effect on local policing and is sweeping up those with low-level misdemeanor cases.

Rachael Yong Yow, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency's arrests are carried out "on a case-by-case basis."

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington; additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; editing by G Crosse and Lisa Shumaker

Follow this link:
US Justice Department to cities: Focus on crime committed by illegal immigrants - Reuters

While introducing new legislation aimed at tightening up border security Thursday morning, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called President Trump "an ally" in fighting illegal immigration.

"We just happen to have, thank goodness, a president who believes that border security is important, and so we view him as an ally in this effort," Cornyn said at a news conference introducing the Building America's Trust Act.

The bill aims to increase law enforcement resources and add "infrastructure, like a wall system," along the southern border, according to Cornyn.

"This isn't a pretend border security bill, this is a tough border security and interior enforcement bill, and we intended it that way," Cornyn said.

Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump endorsed a bill with a similarobjective. The RAISE Act, introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and David Perdue, R-Georgia, aims to drastically reduce the number of immigrants entering the United States by establishing a merit-based points system for allowing immigrants into the country.

"We aren't just securing our borders for tomorrow, but we're looking ahead and locking in a framework that will last into the future," Cornyn said of the Building America's Trust Act.

If passed, the bill would authorize $15 billion in funding to go toward border security efforts over the next four years. Cornyn would not confirm if funding for the infrastructure portion of the bill would fall under Mr. Trump's promises that "Mexico will pay for the wall."

"We are members of Congress, and we are used to Congress appropriating the money," Cornyn said. "And we'll leave it to the president and his plan for how we recoup that at some point."

While increasing physical infrastructure along the southern border, the legislation also reinforces existing border security laws by requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to consult with local border authorities and ending catch and release through enacting "Kate's Law."

In June, the House passed "Kate's Law," which imposes tougher prison sentences on undocumented immigrants with "a serious criminal record" who have previously been deported and re-enter the United States.

"Today we're sending the message that we will defend our borders, we will enforce our immigration laws and we will deter illegal immigration," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The bill also holds sanctuary cities "accountable" through its provisions, which allow the federal government to withhold funding and grants from local governments who fail to comply with illegal immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities offer safe haven to undocumented immigrants who may otherwise be deported by federal immigration officials.

"My definition of a sanctuary city is a city that does not cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities," Cornyn said.

In an effort to garner bipartisan support for the bill, co-sponsor Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, referenced the deaths resulting from illegal southern border crossing efforts.

"If you're against the wall, if you're in the group of people that think we need bridges not borders, think about the humanitarian crisis that will continue if we don't increase situational awareness and operational control down there," Tillis said.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See the original post:
Sen. Cornyn calls Trump "an ally" in tackling illegal immigration - CBS News

Within the torrent of shoddy arguments that has been unleashed since the White House put its weight behind the Cotton-Perdue immigration bill yesterday, one line has stood out to me. Conservatives, this argument goes, have said they were only against illegal immigration, but now we find out they are against legal immigration, too. Politically, Im sure this slogan will have an effect. Logically, though, it makes little sense.

Simply put, there is no reason that ones views on illegal immigration and ones views on legal immigration have to conform unless, that is, one is against absolutely all immigration with no exceptions. If one is not, there exists an infinite amount of flexibility in how one cuts the cake. Most people who oppose illegal immigration do so because they think it undermines the rule of law, and/or because they believe that the existing polity gets to decide who joins it and on what grounds. In consequence, they oppose it flatly, completely, and without ifs or buts. They are, one might say against illegal immigration.

The question of legal immigration, by contrast, tends to invite a range of views. Some voters want only a few immigrants; some want an unlimited number; some want a points system, as in Canada or Britain; some want to prioritize family reunification; some want to privilege refugees or economic migrants or what you will. And while they differ on the particulars, all of these people believe the same thing at root: Namely, that we should have some legal immigration, and that, because Congress is in charge of the process, that such immigration is qualitatively different. Indeed, in our age of terrorism even open borders types tend to want some form of processing or evaluation at the border, even if they wouldnt end up turning many people away. All of these groups, one might say, are in favor of legal immigration.

In order to sell the line that the people who want to reduce immigration numbers are against legal immigration and thus that, having said they were only against illegal immigration, they have exposed themselves as liars or hypocrites or bigots one has to play a clever linguistic game by which for, with qualifications is transmuted into against in toto. That game, if yesterdays debate was anything to go by, is about to be played incessantly, and bring with it all the corrupting effects you might imagine. It is a trick that leads otherwise smart people to propose that any reduction in the numbers or any change in their makeup is a personal insult to the Statue of Liberty. It is a trick that leads immigrants such as myself to be told we want to slam the door behind us because we dont believe that 80-plus percent of the people moving to the United States should be admitted solely because they have a family member already here (which, Id note, is an argument against interest, given that any change would make it more difficult for me to bring over the rest of my family). It is a trick that leads the present status quo which was unpopular when ushered in in 1965, and which has been amended piecemeal for good and ill since to be regarded as some sort of inviolable, sacrosanct gold standard, any departure from which signifies the destruction of the American way.

It is a trick, moreover, that is going to lead to a great deal of anger and astonishment and frustration, as good people find themselves cast as Klansmen for debating a rubric thats more like Canadas, and numbers that, while diminished, would still be extremely generous indeed. There are good arguments against the Cotton-Perdue bill, and they should be aired and debated and respected. But if the reflexive response of those who advance them is, agree with me or youre against immigrants, we will get nowhere at all.

Go here to read the rest:
'But I Thought You Were Only Against Illegal Immigration' - National Review

The "fiscal drain" of illegal immigrants on American taxpayers is about 6 times the price of deporting them, according to a new study that bolsters the Trump administration's bid to remove criminal illegals and cut overall immigration costs.

The Center for Immigration Studies on Thursday said in a new report that deportation costs an average of $10,854. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that includes apprehension, detention, and processing.

Letting illegal immigrants stay in the U.S., results in a bill to taxpayers of $65,292 "for each illegal immigrant, excluding their descendants," according to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. That includes government benefits.

Camarota, citing two key fiscal impact studies, said that reason the cost of illegal immigration is high is because many are poorly educated and require more in government benefits than others.

"In short, illegal immigrants are a large net fiscal drain because of their education levels and this fact drives the results. Deportation, on the other hand, is not that costly relative to the fiscal costs illegal immigrants create," he wrote.

His key findings:

Deportation costs

Costs of illegal immigrants

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Read more here:
Report: 'Fiscal drain' of illegal immigrants is 6 times cost of deportation - Washington Examiner