Mediaboss Marketing

In a 23-page report by the U.N. Human Rights Council, Trump is requested to set free all foreign nationals who are currently awaiting immigration hearings in the United States, Reuters reported.

The Working Group is of the view that all administrative detention, in particular of immigrants in an irregular situation, should be in accordance with international human rights law; and that such detention is to be a measure of last resort, necessary and proportionate and be not punitive in nature, and that alternatives to detention are to be sought whenever possible, the panel said.

Every year, according to the U.N., more than 350,000 illegal aliens and foreign refugees are held in detention in the U.S. as they await immigration court hearings. Those illegal aliens and foreign refugees are held so the program is not susceptible to foreign nationals fleeing throughout the U.S., ignoring court dates.

Under the panels request, those foreign nationals would be released into the public as they await their hearings, similar to that of former President Obamas Catch and Release program where illegal aliens are released until an immigration hearing.

The U.N. panel also opposed Trumps immigration executive order which cracks down on illegal immigration, specifically illegal aliens charged with violent crimes against Americans.

According to the panel, they are concerned that illegal aliens in the U.S. are subject to U.S. federal immigration law, which makes all persons illegally in the country eligible for detention and deportation.

Under the order, apprehended individuals may be detained on suspicion of violating federal or state law, which includes unauthorized entry, the U.N. panel said.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Visit link:
UN to Trump: Stop Detaining Illegal Aliens - Breitbart News

Given his reputation as a hard-liner on illegal immigration and his history of calling former President Barack Obamas birth certificate into question, its unsurprising that President Donald Trump has an affinity with Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.

The 85-year-old Arpaio has styled himself as Americas Toughest Sheriffa sobriquet that forms part of the title of his autobiographical books publishedin 1996 and 2008and has garnered a reputation for a tough stance on crime, but he has also faced accusations of racial profiling.

Trump, who repeatedly positioned himself as the law-and-order candidate in the 2016 presidential campaign, appears to have a lot of respect for Arpaio. So much so, in fact, that the president is considering pardoning Arpaios recent conviction for criminal contempt in what would be the first presidential pardon of Trumps tenure.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

ThenSheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, endorses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump before a rally in Marshalltown, Iowa, on January 26, 2016. Scott Olson/Getty

I am seriously considering a pardon for Sheriff Arpaio, Trump told Fox NewsSunday. He has done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration. Hes a great American patriot, and I hate to see what has happened to him.

Read more: Inside the fall of Joe Arpaio, America's most controversial sheriff

Arpaios legal struggles relate to his 24-year tenure as Maricopa County sheriff between 1993 and 2016. Born in Springfield, Massachusetts, to Italian immigrant parents, Arpaio had a short career in the U.S. military before becoming a police officer. He was first elected as sheriff in 1992 and was re-elected a further five times before finally losing out to Democrat Paul Penzone in November 2016.

Arpaio was famous for using controversial tactics on criminals during his time as sheriff, including issuing all prisoners with pink underwear to stop released inmates from stealing the clothes. He also set up the so-called Tent City, an outdoor facility consisting of surplus military tents from the Korean War that were used to house hundreds of inmates to cope with overcrowding in the Arizona prison system. Temperatures in the tents during summer would often reach triple digits, and the facility has prompted condemnation and protests from human rights activists. (Penzone said in April that he would shut down Tent City.)

An inmate held inside Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Tent City jail carries his laundry in Phoenix on May 3, 2010. PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty

Arpaio also led a probe by a volunteer group named the Cold Case Posse into the authenticity of Obamas birth certificate. Arpaio concluded in 2012 that, despite the White House releasing Obamas long-form birth certificate in 2011which led some so-called birthers, including Trump, to tone down their rhetoricthe certificate may have been made by forgery and fraud.

During his time as sheriff, Arpaio also faced a wealth of legal controversies and battles. These included his offices failure to investigate hundreds of sex crimes allegedly committed between 2005 and 2007. In one particularly controversial case, Arpaios office botched an investigation into the 2007 rape of then-13-year-old Sabrina Morrison by her uncle Patrick Morrison; it wasnt until 2012 that Patrick Morrison was convicted and sentenced to 24 years in prison after multiple failings by the sheriff's office. Maricopa County agreed toa $3.5 million settlement with Sabrina Morrison in 2015 after she sued for $30 million.

But Arpaios downfall ultimately came as a result of his actions on immigration. The Justice Department announced in 2012 that it was suing Arpaio, his office and Maricopa County for the long-term racial profiling of Latinos.

Arpaio was well-known for conducting sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and detaining Spanish speakers on suspicion of being undocumented migrants. In 2011, a court ordered him to stop traffic patrols that targeted immigrants. But Arpaio continued with the patrols for a further year and a half, and he was convicted of criminal contempt in July. Arpaio maintains that he had misunderstood the 2011 order, but prosecutors argued that he used the patrols to boost his bid for re-election as sheriff in 2012.

An effigy showing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in handcuffs is paraded in a student protest in downtown Phoenix on November 8, 2016. Nancy Wiechec/Reuters

Arpaio is due to be sentenced in October and could face up to six months in prison, but Trumps comments indicate that he may be set to get a reprieve. Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe? Trump asked Fox News. He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesnt deserve to be treated this way.

Civil rights and Latino groups have criticized the possibility of a pardon for Arpaio. Cecilia Wang, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, told NBC News that if Trump pardoned Arpaio, it would constitute an official presidential endorsement of racism.

But given the close relationship between the two menArpaio endorsed Trump on the campaign trail, and Trump reportedly spoke to Arpaios wife by telephone after learning she had cancerit looks likeTrump couldbe about to step into controversy once more if he exercisesthe presidential pardon.

See the original post here:
Who Is Joe Arpaio, 'America's Toughest Sheriff' and the Man President Trump Wants to Pardon? - Newsweek

by Boris Epshteyn, Chief Political Analyst

This maps shows cities and counties that are considered "sanctuaries" for undocumented immigrants. (Center for Immigration Studies / Google Maps) 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Boris Epshteyn formerly served as a Senior Advisor to the Trump Campaign and served in the White House as Special Assistant to The President and Assistant Communications Director for Surrogate Operations.

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) - We are a country of laws.

Cities across the country cannot choose which federal laws to follow and which to ignore.

Sanctuary cities are those that actively do not cooperate with the federal governments efforts to enforce immigration law.

President Trump signed an executive order back in January that would strip federal funding from sanctuary cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and Baltimore.

That is millions of dollars at stake for these communities that, in many cases, desperately need it. Perhaps this monetary squeeze will cause for these cities to comply with federal immigration law.

Of course, there has been some push back from the cities.

Local officials argue that by maintaining their sanctuary city status, they are making their communities safer and helping their local economy.

Chicago has even filed a lawsuit pushing to be able to keep sanctuary status and federal money, funded by you, the tax payer.

Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

I believe sanctuary cities are a shield for illegal immigrants to stay in this country illegally and to commit other crimes.

We can look at the murder of Kate Steinle as an example. She was shot and killed while walking in San Francisco with her father. The man accused of the shooting, who is about to stand trial, is an illegal immigrant and a convicted felon, who was deported from the U.S. five times. San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, released him months before the shooting instead of turning him over to federal authorities before the shooting.

The bottom line is this. Sanctuary cities should not exist because they promote lawlessness and incentivize illegal immigration. Federal law has to be followed and if it is not, these cities will face dire financial consequences. A decision by any sanctuary city to forego federal funds in order to continue supporting illegal immigration would be absolutely unfair to US citizens and legal immigrants residing there.

Read this article:
Opinion: Cities providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants should lose federal funding - WJLA

It might be useful to step back a minute and think about the various illegal alien subpopulations and consider how we allocate our limited enforcement resources regarding their control.All should be escorted out of the country, of course, but some do us more harm than others.

The table below lists nine such subpopulations (which may overlap), from the obvious class of criminal illegal aliens to a perhaps fanciful category, the illegal alien nuns, and shows how the government allocates money and staff to manage these groups.

A quick glance at the table shows that there is often no connection between the harm done by the subpopulations and the amount of resources aimed at controlling them. America, famously, over-allocated resources to the southern border even before the Wall came to be an expensive symbol of those policies. A wall would be nice, but the needed resources would be better spent digging illegal aliens out of the interior and flying them back to their homelands.

While one group of illegals those at the border gets a lot of attention, the reverse is true with other subpopulations. For example, those who are misusing our income tax system, a particularly bothersome population, get away with billions because IRS does not want to spend a dime to help control illegal immigration, as we have noted before. Let's reduce the request for 5,000 more agents for the Border Patrol and send 1,500 of them to IRS to see to it that we are not paying illegal aliens, through inappropriate use of tax funds, to stay in the States.

A much simpler allocation of resources could be made along the lines of employers paying cash to their illegal alien workers, as opposed to those paying by check and making withholdings; faced with more tips than they can use, ICE should announce that when all else is roughly equal it will raid employers known to pay in cash to avoid tax payments.

I suspect the imposition of such a policy, with a few examples in each part of the country, would make good reading in the restaurant industry's trade papers, for instance.

Now, it is easier to round up illegals at the border than anywhere else; proof of illegality is not a problem as they are usually caught red-handed, sometime minutes after crossing illegally; no families are broken up when they are arrested; andno employers are inconvenienced, which unfortunately is important politically. This is one of the reasons why resources are aimed at this subpopulation.

In contrast is another group of illegal aliens who are much less attractive than the Mexican teenager simply looking for a better job; these are the people, usually women, who are in the second category in the table. They seek citizen or sometimes green card spouses, con them into phony marriages, and split as soon as they can manipulate the immigration process into giving them a green card.

Sometimes they do this by faking abuse charges at their resident spouses, and the Department of Homeland Security, admittedly working with some lopsided language in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), does next to nothing to prevent this form of fraudulent immigration and this harm against the allegedly abusive spouses. We at CIS get a steady flow of letters telling the husband's side of these stories and reporting in detail how the government does not want to inconvenience itself by hearing the citizen's side of the story. We did a report on this kind of marriage fraud last year.

These cases are hard to prove; it is by definition a "she said, he said" situation, and instead of trying as divorce courts do to solve the problem, DHS just gives up and grants a green card to the alien. If something is to be done in this arena, more resources will be needed.

These resources need not just be people and money, they can be ideas and political will. We have argued, for example, that the K-1 visa, for fiances, is a needless convenience for those seeking marriage fraud green cards, and that the elimination of the visa category would help prevent some of these cases. If two people love each other and want to get married, they can do so in the alien's home country or, if they would rather get married in the States, the alien can come in on a visitor's visa. Only if the visitor's visa is denied and if the citizen will not marry in the alien's nation does the K-1 visa come into play. But terminating that visa would take political will, which seems to be missing.

Our last category, the truly good illegals, may be a pipe dream. But I suspect somewhere among the 12 million or so of them there must be a nun or two without papers, doing good while an illegal; similarly there must be a handful of retired, rich illegals (who did not get that way from the drug trade) who are living in America and spending their money here.

We are and this is the right policy using zero resources to find those rare people.

Follow this link:
Thinking About How We Allocate Our Immigration Enforcement Resources - Immigration Blog (blog)

Former Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff Joe Arpaio ignored a judge's order to stop detaining people because he merely suspected them of being undocumented immigrants. (Thomas Johnson/The Washington Post)

President Trump told Fox News he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted last month of criminal contempt for ignoring a judges order to stop detaining people because he merely suspected them of being undocumented immigrants.

Trump told the news outlet during a conversation in Bedminster, N.J., that the pardon could come quickly, perhaps in a matter of days. The news outlet reported the conversation on its website Monday.

I might do it right away, maybe early this week. I am seriously thinking about it, Trump said, according to Fox News. He said Arpaio was a great American patriot who had done a lot in the fight against illegal immigration.

Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe? Trump said, according to Fox News. He has protected people from crimes and saved lives.He doesnt deserve to be treated this way.

Arpaio, whose extreme stance and tactics on illegal immigration made him a household name, was convicted of criminal contempt last month by a federal judge in Arizona. He faces up to six months in prison at his sentencing, which is scheduled for Oct. 5. Jack Wilenchik, Arpaios attorney, said after Arpaio was convicted that the former sheriff would appeal to get a jury trial, and that the judges conclusion was contrary to what every single witness testified in the case.

[Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio convicted of criminal contempt]

Joe Arpaio is in this for the long haul, and he will continue his fight to vindicate himself, to prove his innocence, and to protect the public, Wilenchik said.

Wilenchik did not immediately respond to phone and email messages seeking comment Monday. A White House spokeswoman did not immediately answer an email seeking comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman said she was not aware of the presidents remarks but would wait until action was taken before commenting.

Arpaio told Fox News, I would accept the pardon because I am 100 percent not guilty.

Arpaio, 85, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., has long been an advocate for Trump and spoke in support of him at the Republican National Convention in July. The men seem to share the same worldview when it comes to illegal immigrants and using harsh tactics against criminals or suspected criminals. Arpaio is well known in part for forcing his inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outdoors in his Tent City Jail.

Reacting to the prospect that Trump might pardon Arpaio, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang said, President Trump would be literally pardoning Joe Arpaios flagrant violation of federal court orders that prohibited the illegal detention of Latinos. He would undo a conviction secured by his own career attorneys at the Justice Department. Make no mistake: This would be an officialpresidential endorsement of racism.

The legal saga surrounding Arpaio dates back years. In 2011, as part of a lawsuit, the then-sheriff was enjoined by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow from detaining people he thought to be illegal immigrants, when they were not charged with any other crimes. Prosecutors alleged that he continued to do so, and last year, the Justice Department decided to pursue a criminal contempt-of-court case against him.

Critics said his policy of detaining people on mere suspicion was racist and illegal, and his refusal to honor a courts order to stop was brazen. Wilenchik has said that the judges order enjoining Arpaio was not clear, and suggested that Arpaio was merely doing what others do routinely: turning over those in the country illegally to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump says he's considering pardon for Joe Arpaio - Washington Post