Mediaboss Marketing

As a candidate and then as president, Donald Trump has shown as troubling propensity to vacillate, flummoxing his critics and supporters alike. But on one issue Trump has stood relatively firm: immigration.

Trump has exhibited that resolve by sustaining his rhetoric to build a wall along Americas southern border and with orders to send back those who entered the country illegally, and by fighting for his proposed moratorium, recently upheld in part by the U.S. Supreme Court, on visitors from six majority-Muslim nations prone to support, condone, or harbor terrorists.

Critics have relentlessly lambasted Trump on these ideas, disparaging him as a racist, a nativist, a xenophobe, and a religious bigot, if not an outright hater of foreigners and Muslims.

But in recent days two immigration-related story lines have emerged to demonstrate that Trumps critics have misjudged his policies even if they will never admit it.

On July 5, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deported a Boston resident named John Cunningham. Cunningham initially came to America in 1999 on a 90-day visa to work for the summer. He never left. By overstaying his temporary visa, Cunningham became an illegal immigrant, although by all reports he was in all other respects a law-abiding and model Boston resident.

Why is this significant? Cunningham is white, and earlier this month was deported back to his native Ireland.

"People are very, very concerned and lying low," Ronnie Millar, Cunninghams friend and the head of the Boston-based Irish International Immigrant Center, told the Associated Press. "The message is that if it can happen to John, it can happen to anyone." And by anyone he presumably meant any of the 50,000 Irish citizens who the Irish embassy estimates are living illegally in the U.S., mostly concentrated in Boston, New York and Chicago.

The AP referenced the Cunningham case in highlighting the Trump administrations hard line on illegal immigrants from Europe.

Between the beginning of this fiscal year on Oct. 1 through June 24, the AP reported on Tuesday, the government has deported more than 1,300 European illegals the bulk of which came from Romania, Britain, Spain, Poland and Russia. While President Barack Obama remained in office for nearly the first four months of that time, this figure suggests Trump has implemented a get-tough policy because ICE deported just 1,450 illegal immigrants from Europe during all of fiscal year 2016.

Its certainly true that the number of Europeans deported is relatively small compared to the number of Latin Americans, including Mexicans, shipped home during that time. Mexicans, for instance, make up 93,000 of the 167,000 people deported over that same time span, the AP reported. But the Europeans share of the overall illegal immigrant population is much smaller. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that Europeans comprise just 440,000 of the 11 million illegals living in the United States.

The second story surfaced on Wednesday.

A federal judge in Michigan temporarily halted the governments planned deportation of roughly 1,400 Iraqis from around the country who reportedly had criminal records, some dating back three decades.

Why is this significant? Well, at least 114 of them, and possibly dozens more, according to news accounts, are Chaldeans, which is a sect of the Catholic Church in the Middle East. In short, they are Christians. And much like those Irish illegal immigrants in Boston, these pockets of Iraqis are fearful of being exposed, caught and deported.

We call attention to these developments to point out that federal agents on the ground have taken Trump at his word about curtailing illegal immigration, and that the presidents policy is being carried out regardless of race or religious persuasion. As Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant-rights group, told the AP, "It's pretty clear ICE is removing anyone undocumented they come across."

Laws are meaningless unless they are enforced and enforced fairly and across the board without heed to who is being affected by it.

Trumps critics are free to argue that this crackdown is unnecessary, wrongful, or hurtful to individuals and communities. But recent events suggest they should stop promoting the fiction that Trump is out to get one particular race or religion.

Read more:
Our Viewpoint: Get-tough immigration stance applied to all - Gainesville Sun

Activist Dolores Huerta claims that California needs to enact the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), as a counterweight to Texass draconian law banning sanctuary cities in that state and President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFox News host defends Trump Jr.: I'd meet with the Devil for opposition research Officials clash at FEC over confronting Russian influence in 2018 elections Lewandowski: Great Russian spies wouldnt bring 8 people to a meeting MOREs xenophobic agenda to deport millions of people.

I disagree. While I can understand why Huerta dislikes Texass sanctuary city law, it is an exaggeration to call it draconian. And Trump is just enforcing immigration provisions that were written by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents. If those laws are xenophobic, the solution is to lobby Congress to change them.

Making California a sanctuary state will not stop Trumps enforcement efforts. But it would violate federal law and make California ineligible for certain types of federal grants.

Legislative Counsels Digest of SB 54.

SB 54 would repeal existing law which requires the police to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may be an alien.

It would, with some exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to investigate, detain, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.

The law would direct the California Attorney General to publish model policies on limiting assistance with immigration enforcement and designated entities, such as state and local police, would be required to follow them.

It would encourage other entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, to adopt the model policies.

And the bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to notify ICE of the scheduled release of persons confined to state prisons for the conviction of a violent or serious felony.

SB 54 would violate federal law.

In 1996, Congress sought to end immigration related information-sharing restrictions with a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

The provision, 8 U.S.C. 1373,does not require state or local government entities to share immigration-related information with federal immigration authorities.

It just provides that no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a federal, state, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status of any individual:

Effort to ensure that state and local governments comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.

Trumps Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,requires the attorney general and the DHS secretary, to the extent consistent with law, to ensure that jurisdictions which willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 do not receive specified types of federal grants.

Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsImmigration activists fear for future of Dreamers program AT&T, Time Warner hit bumps on way to merger California's 'sanctuary state' bill is illegal, but also ineffective MORE implemented this provision on May 22, 2017, with a memorandum stating that the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain types of department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1373.

SB 54 is not an effective way to help undocumented aliens.

The California bill would just withhold cooperation, and there are so many undocumented aliens living in California that ICE doesnt need help to find them. According to the PEW Research Center, California had 2,350,000 undocumented aliens in 2014. It had more undocumented aliens than any other state, which can be attributed in part to Californias sanctuary policies.

To the extent that sanctuary practices draw undocumented aliens to a city or state, it makes it easier for ICE to find them.

ICE is sure to give priority to California when it implements the expanded expedited removal proceedings Trump authorized in his Executive Order, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

In expedited removal proceedings, undocumented aliens are deported without a hearing before an immigration judge if they cannot establish that they have been in the United States for two years, unless they can establish a credible fear of persecution.

A better way.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel found a better way to help. He established a Legal Protection Fundfor undocumented aliens living in Chicago.

Once undocumented aliens are in expedited removal proceedings, they are subject to mandatory detention and cannot be represented by an attorney; but they can be helped by attorneys before they are in such proceedings.

When appropriate, attorneys can assist them in putting together the evidence they will need to establish that they have been in the United States for more than two years, or that they have a credible fear of persecution, if they find themselves in expedited removal proceedings.

This would help many undocumented aliens without violating any federal law or making California ineligible for needed federal funds.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post:
California's 'sanctuary state' bill is illegal, but also ineffective - The Hill (blog)

The Trump administration is considering expanding the Department of Homeland Security's ability to removal certain illegal immigrants from the country without a court hearing before a judge, according to a report Friday.

The Washington Post says that the agency is weighing expanding the process known as expedited removal to illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have lived in the country continuously for more than 90 days.

Under current rules, the Homeland Security Department can only forgo immigration courts for immigrants who have been living in the country illegally for less than two weeks and were arrested within 100 miles of the border.

The Post obtained a 13-page internal agency memo that described this potential plan.

Two administration confirmed to the newspaper that the memo was shared within the White House in May, and DHS is reviewing comments on the document from the Office of Management and Budget.

Joanne Talbot, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said she had not seen the memo, but said that no decisions have been made about it.

"The potential changes would allow DHS to more efficiently use resources to remove persons who have been illegally present for relatively brief periods of time while still observing due-process requirements," Talbot said.

Immigration advocacy groups argue the proposal would restrict more people of due-process rights to seek asylum or other legal status in the country.

In two immigration executive orders signed in January, Trump indicated he wanted to expand the use of expedited removals.

The potential change would be part of a stricter Trump administration approach to illegal immigration. The administration has already rescinded a policy from former President Barack Obama that limited the categories of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation to serious criminals, and recent border-crossers. The number of immigrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has fallen significantly since Trump took office.

Continued here:
Trump administration may be looking to expand process allowing deportations of illegal immigrants without a court ... - Washington Examiner

Just over two years ago, while walking on a pier in San Francisco with her dad, Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant with a criminal past and a record of deportations.

I firmly believe the federal government has limited constitutional responsibilities, but establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility are among the few authorities that were engraved into our founding documents first sentence. In recent decades, however, the federal government has fallen through on these responsibilities when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws, and the loss of Kate is just one example of the consequences for that.

Kates killer had already been deported five times when he opened fire on July 1, 2015. Certainly, more must be done to secure our border, including building a more robust wall and giving border patrol agents the resources and technologies needed to create a more impenetrable barrier. And without question, the laws already on the books need to be better enforced.

But I also believe our laws could be stronger too.

Shortly before the two-year anniversary of Kates murder, I joined the House in passing Kates Law, which would significantly toughen the punishment for illegal immigrants who re-enter the country. While I believe we could go even farther with these punishments, Kates Law is a good first step.

San Francisco, where Kates murder took place, is also one of more than 300 so-called sanctuary cities that openly refuse to turn over criminal illegal immigrants to federal law enforcement.

Kates killer had seven felony convictions at the time of the murder. Less than four months before Kates death, he was turned over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked that he be kept in custody until immigration agents could get there, but because San Francisco is a sanctuary city, he was released. This should never have happened. So, in addition to Kates Law, I helped pass the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which cracks down on sanctuary cities like San Francisco by withholding valuable federal grants from them.

While the Senate will debate the legislation next, President Trump has already announced his support for both bills.

This is just the beginning. Ive also cosponsored the SMART Act, which would authorize additional personnel and new technologies to help secure the border, and Ive backed legislation to help stop the drug trafficking thats contributed to South Dakotas drug abuse and violent crime increases.

Kate should have never lost her life on that pier in 2015. Her killer should have never been in this country let alone, running free within it. We have to be stronger when it comes to enforcing the laws on the books, but we also have a constitutional responsibility to make sure the laws on the books are strong enough to keep our families and communities safe

Follow this link:
Cracking down on illegal immigration - Rapid City Journal

SAN FRANCISCO (AP)

The murder trial of an illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier is inching closer to starting, two years after the shooting set off a fierce immigration debate.

A judge on Friday ordered Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 54, back to court on July 21.

President Trump and others seized on the shooting to argue for tougher immigration enforcement and for the abolition of so-called sanctuary cities like San Francisco, which prohibits its law enforcement officials with cooperating with federal authorities on most deportation matters.

Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted five times of illegal re-entry into the United States when the San Francisco sheriff released him from jail after a minor marijuana charge was dismissed.

++Feds: SF pier shooting suspect deported 5 times

Lopez-Sanchez was released despite a request from federal immigration officials to detain him for possible deportation.

Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder for the July 1, 2015, shooting of Steinle while she was walking with her father on a city pier crowded with tourists.

Lopez-Sanchez said he was playing with a semi-automatic handgun he found when it accidentally fired, striking Steinle in the back and piercing her heart.

He told police he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt underneath a bench shortly before Steinle was shot. The .40-caliber SIG Sauer P226 handgun was stolen a few days earlier from the car of a Bureau of Land Management agent.

The BLM is trying to block a subpoena ordering that agent to testify at the trial, Lopez-Sanchez lawyer Matt Gonzalez said Friday, arguing that a state court can't order a federal employee to testify.

The Department of Interior has said the lawyer must apply to the agency for permission to let the agent testify. The Department said it requires a detailed explanation for the agent's testimony, which Gonzalez opposes because he said it could divulge his trial strategy.

Gonzalez said his client fled extreme poverty in his native Mexico and has a second-grade education.

Jim Steinle and Liz Sullivan, the victim's parents, declined comment Thursday through their attorney Frank Pitre.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2015, Jim Steinle blamed "disjointed laws" and "basic incompetence on many levels" for his daughter's death.

"Our family realizes the complexity of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted or changed to take these undocumented felons off our streets for good," jIM Steinle told the committee.

President Donald Trump used the shooting during his campaign for the presidency to highlight his tough stance on illegal immigration, referring frequently to Steinle's death.

Days after the shooting, Trump called Steinle's death a "senseless and totally preventable act of violence" and was "yet another example of why we must secure our border."

Last month, at the urging of Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill known as "Kate's Law" that would impose harsher prison sentences on deportees who re-enter the United States.

The House also passed another bill that would bar federal grants to sanctuary cities and allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to sue those cities. Both bills await action in the Senate.

A federal judge in May tossed out a wrongful death lawsuit Steinle's family filed against San Francisco for releasing Lopez-Sanchez from jail.

--

MORE ON KCRA.COM

++San Francisco vows to remain 'sanctuary city'

++San Francisco sues President Trump over 'sanctuary city' order

++California lawmakers eye statewide immigration sanctuary

++Parents of woman killed on San Francisco pier file claims

++NorCal families speak at hearing on 'sanctuary cities'

++Immigrant suspect faces tough battle fighting Pier 14 murder charge

Excerpt from:
Illegal immigrant awaits trial in San Francisco pier killing - KCRA Sacramento