Mediaboss Marketing

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that illegal-immigrant minors must be granted a bond hearing a hearing in which the burden of proof is on the government to show why the person should be held rather than released.

The overall issue is that it releases people we know nothing about and cant properly vet, says Matthew OBrien, a former trial attorney for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who now works for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The justices of the 9th Circuit ruled against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, writing that two federal laws did not invalidate a 1997 settlement, in which the government had agreed to certain practicesregarding the detention and release of illegal immigrant juveniles.

According to this agreement, referred to as the Flores settlement, minors cannot be held without being given a bond hearing at which they have the right to be represented by a lawyer, and at which the government mustmake an argument for why they should be held.

In a bond hearing in a regular criminal case, O'Brien noted, the government would have to show that the person is a danger or is a flight risk in order for a judge to agree that heshould be held pending a trial.

Under mandatory detention rules, all illegal immigrants have always been considered a flight risk, as they areunlikely to show up at a future court appearance.

"That puts this on its head," says O'Brien of the 9th Circuit's decision, and adds that it removes a lot of the discretion normally accorded to ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The case, he says, represents a "further erosion" of those agencies' power to determine who should not be released for national security reasons.

"The interests of alien children should not trump the security interests of the citizens of the United States," he told LifeZette.

In the original Flores case, which dates to the 1980s, a 15-year-old girl from El Salvador who'd entered the country illegally was handcuffed and detained in an area with minors of both sexes for two months.

But things have changed since the '80s, and the influx of thousands of unaccompanied minors from Mexico and Central America, most of them male, created a crisis at the border in 2014 and 2015 after President Barack Obama signed the executive order creating DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors from Mexico and Central America have been released in the past few years and placed around the country. Many have joined the ranks of criminal gangs such asMS-13 in small, previously peaceful small towns like Central Islip on Long Island, New York, where young gang members murdered a teenage girl last year. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are more than 1,000 MS-13 members in towns on Long Island, and that most came to the U.S. as unaccompanied minors.

And while those claiming to be minors are supposed to show documentation to verify their age, many don't have anything, making it very easy for an illegal immigrant who is 18 or older to claim that he is a minor, and thus win release and avoiddeportation.

But why would they be in a detention center in the first place?

A 2008 law meant to protect victims of human trafficking made it difficult for the U.S. government to deport unaccompanied minors. The law required the government to institute a legal process for unaccompanied minors from Central America, in particular, rather than quickly returning them to their countries. The legal process usually takes several years, and more often than not results in the minors remaining in the U.S.

Added to this is a special visa program that awards permanent residency status "green cards" to thousands of illegal immigrants who were detained as juveniles.

The 9th Circuit's decision applies only to the western states California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and also Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the Mariana Islands.

But other federal appeals courts are likely to consider its decision in similar cases, and it throws yet another wrench into the Trump administration's efforts to enforce immigration laws.

"I think all these things do is hobble the federal government and hobble ICE as they attempt to do their jobs," says O'Brien. "We believe they should be challenging things like this. There's no reason why, 20 years later, the government should be hewing to this agreement," he said, referring to the Flores settlement.

After the 9th Circuit blocked the travel ban and the attempt to withhold funds from any city that refused to cooperate with enforcement of immigration laws, President Donald Trump said that he was "absolutely" considering proposals to break up the 9th Circuit, presumably into two or more smaller courts.

And now, he has a third reason to consider such a proposal.

Here is the original post:
9th Circuit Opens Door for Mass Release of Illegal-Immigrant Minors - LifeZette

With his penchant for tweeted insults and GIFs, President Trump will never be mistaken for a master of the sweet art of persuasion. Yet he is clearly winning the public argument on the issue of immigration.

He isnt doing it through sustained, careful attention. No, it is the sheer fact of his November victory, and the data showing the importance of the issue of immigration to it, that has begun to shift the intellectual climate.

It had been assumed, even by many Republicans like John McCain, that opposition to amnesty and higher levels of legal immigration would doom the GOP to minority status forevermore. Trump blew up this conventional wisdom.

Now, intellectuals on the center-left are calling for Democrats to rethink the partys orthodoxy on immigration, which has become more and more hostile to enforcement and to any skepticism about current high levels of immigration.

The swing here was enormous. A Trump defeat in November after running on an exaggerated version of immigration restriction would have sent Republicans scurrying back to the comfortable, corporate-friendly cliches about so-called comprehensive immigration reform. And if Hillary Clinton had won on a platform that doubled down on President Barack Obamas executive amnesties, serious immigration enforcement would have lost its political legitimacy.

In light of the election, Josh Barro of Business Insider, William Galston of the Brookings Institution, Peter Beinart of The Atlantic, Fareed Zakaria of CNN and Stanley Greenberg of Democracy Corps, among others, have urged Democrats to recalibrate.

Many of these writers dont merely note the perilous politics of the maximalist Democratic position on immigration or argue that policy should take account of the economic costs as well as the benefits of immigration. They also give credence to cultural concerns over mass immigration concerns that much of the left considers poorly disguised hate.

In an act of heresy for the Davos set, Zakaria recommends that the party should take a position on immigration that is less absolutist and recognizes both the cultural and economic costs of large-scale immigration.

This sentiment wouldnt be so noteworthy if the Democratic Party hadnt become so radicalized on immigration. Beinarts essay in The Atlantic is a trenchant reminder that as recently as 10 years ago, the left allowed much more room for dissent on immigration. Go back a little further, to the 1990s, and Bill Clinton was forthrightly denouncing illegal immigration, and liberal giant Barbara Jordan was heading a bipartisan commission that called for enhanced enforcement and reduced levels of legal immigration.

In the interim, Democrats convinced themselves that liberality on immigration has only political upside, and that immigration is in effect a civil rights issue, and therefore non-negotiable.

Reversing field wont be easy. The House just voted on Kates Law, named after Kate Steinle, the young woman killed in the sanctuary city of San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had re-entered the country after getting deported five times. The bill merely strengthens the penalties on repeated illegal re-entry, yet only 24 Democrats could bring themselves to vote for it.

The pull of the lefts cosmopolitanism is strong. In an attack on Beinart, Dylan Matthews of Vox argues that the lefts egalitarianism cant stop at the nations borders it means a strong presumption in favor of open immigration.

So itd be a mistake to make too much of the recent spate of articles calling for Democrats to rethink this issue. If Democrats are ever going to shift on immigration, though, elite opinion has to change first, and at least there is now an opening.

Few would have guessed that in the 1990s, conservative Republicans, so unreservedly in favor of tough sentencing, would be open to joining liberals on criminal justice reform. Perhaps Democrats will eventually recalibrate on immigration. If so, the unlikely instrument of the sea change will have been none other than Donald J. Trump.

Read the original here:
Trump is winning the argument on immigration - New York Post

Buried amidst the Twitter-feud headlines this past week is the House of Representatives bipartisan passage of Kates Law, which would increase potential criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who are caught returning to the United States after having already been deported. The bill, sponsored by Virginia congressman Bob Goodlatte and passed with 233 GOP votes and 24 Democrat votes, received lavish praise from President Trump on Twitter and Facebook and now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Kates Law has been an ever-present talking point on the conservative right the past two years. It is named after Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old who was killed in July 2015 in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had seven felony convictions and who had already been deported from the U.S. an unbelievable five times.

Happening in the middle of then-candidate Trumps campaign focus on illegal immigration, Steinles death immediately became a rallying point for conservatives concerned about border security, sanctuary cities, and public safety.

Then-Fox News conservative commentator Bill OReilly decried the act and hosted multiple segments pushing for justice for Steinles family and calling for accountability for the officials who let repeat criminals like Steinles killer walk the streets. Racked by the public outcry, San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi would lose his re-election campaign in even that deep-blue city.

Nationally, the event even further outraged both Republicans and a general public already growing increasingly despondent with sanctuary city policies and spotty immigration law enforcement. Then-candidate Trump would repeatedly mention Kate Steinle on the campaign trail and undoubtedly the events played a significant part in helping his campaign gain the momentum that would eventually win him the nomination.

Kates Law has now made significant progress through the legislative process. The bill as passed would give the criminal justice system the ability to press a wide variety of possible charges as well the discretion to give lengthier sentences to be able to keep repeated immigration law violators, and especially those who have been convicted of crimes while here in the United States, off the streets.

The bill is supported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Thomas Homan, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Steinles parents, and, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, over 63% of the American public with only 26% opposing it.

In criminal justice, it is proven wisdom that those who have broken the law multiple times show a clear reckless disregard for public order and societal norms that makes leniency less right and rehabilitation less likely.

In the case of those who repeatedly enter our country illegally and commit other crimes while here, they have consciously chosen of their own free will to flout our countrys laws and take advantage of our prior leniency towards them.

Sanctuary city policies not only protect and give cover to those who enter our country illegally but also encourage their return by lowering the risk of detection and punishment. In the process, many law-abiding Americans of all backgrounds, like Kate Steinle but also countless others, are victimized, hurt, or even killed.

Kates Law now goes to the Senate for consideration. Undoubtedly it will face an uphill battle there, as in July 2016 a previous version of Kates Law failed on a cloture motion 55-42, with 60 votes being needed to defeat the filibuster.

However that was before the American people spoke on November 8th and voted in President Donald Trump as well as reaffirming their confidence in Republican control of the Senate and House.

While the public remains extraordinarily divided over President Trumps policy agenda and personal habits in general, nonetheless on an issue such as Kates Law we already see strong bipartisan interest because it is addressing a criminal justice and public safety issue that undoubtedly many Americans on both sides of the aisle can sympathize with.

Kates Law will hopefully soon go from being the talk of conservative news personalities to being passed by the Senate, signed by President Trump, and enacted into law. All Americans who want to see justice for the victims of crime and our communities become safer should support the passage of Kates Law.

Visit link:
Kate's Law Will Provide Justice For Victims Of Illegal Immigration - The Daily Caller

Wyomings lone U.S. House Rep. Liz Cheney threw her support behind two new pieces of legislation stemming from the rancorous debate over immigration.

One bill would lengthen maximum prison sentences for immigrants who enter the country illegally after having been deported at least once. The other would restrict funding to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with efforts to deport immigrants arrested for violent crimes.

Both are named for American citizens killed by immigrants who were in the country illegally.

The first is named for Kate Steinle, who was killed in San Francisco in 2015. As a candidate, President Donald Trump seized on Steinles murder to show why his tough line on immigration was needed.

The second bill includes a piece of provision called Sarah and Grants Law, after Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck, who were killed in separate incidents in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

But the bill itself is known as the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, a reference to sanctuary cities, an undefined term adopted by governments around the country whose elected officials pledge to shield people arrested by local law enforcement from federal immigration authorities.

No family should ever have to face the tragedy Kate Steinles family has, Cheney said in a statement last week.

Cheney spokesman Joe Jackson declined to say how the provisions in Kates Law would help prevent crimes like the one that resulted in Steinles death.

The bills both passed the House last Thursday. Similar measures have previously been defeated by Democratic filibusters in the Senate.

The anti-sanctuary city bill would restrict cities from receiving some Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security grants if they intentionally sought to avoid enforcing federal immigration laws.

No municipalities in Wyoming appear to have declared themselves sanctuary cities, though in 2010 Jackson somehow found itself on a list of such locales, much to the chagrin of city staff who were forced to field angry calls and emails.

The libertarian Cato Institute criticized the legislation as federal overreach that would limit state sovereignty by mandating how local law enforcement agencies operated.

This violates a basic principle of federalism, which many conservatives have long championed, that the federal government should leave states to experiment with their own polities, Cato immigration policy analyst David Bier wrote in a blog post.

Bier warned that similar federal laws could be used to force gun control on unwilling state governments in the future.

But in her statement, Cheney, a Republican, emphasized the importance of ensuring that existing federal immigration policies are enforced across the country.

We are a nation of laws and we must ensure we enforce those laws, Cheney said in a statement last week.

View post:
Cheney backs two bills meant to crack down on illegal immigration, sanctuary cities - Casper Star-Tribune Online

The Marianne Ejier Olds 47 Scholarship will support refugee and illegal immigrant students, according to a press release that was published on Wednesday. The scholarship is named after Marianne Olds, who was accepted into Smiths refugee program in 1943 after traveling across Europe to escape Nazi rule.

Smith changed the course of my mothers life, says Jacqueline Olds, Mariannes daughter. She always believed that the education she received there gave her the confidence to do whatever she wanted in life.

It is important, Jacqueline Olds added, that the college be able to continue to support the educational needs of these students who face unique challenges. Someone needs to stick up for refugees, and I hope this sets an example for others to follow.

Smith President Kathleen McCartney vocalized her support for the program, arguing that Smith has a long history of enrolling students from around the world.

Smith has a long and proud history of opening its doors to women from all over the world and making sure they have the means to succeed. This is especially important for refugees, McCartney said. I am grateful to Jacqueline Olds for her generosity and for her belief in the power of a Smith education.

McCartney addressed the Smith community in February in response to President Trumps immigration bill.I remain adamantly committed to nondiscrimination in access to education regardless of citizenship or immigration status, she wrote in a February 7 letter.

Scholarships like this one reflect the colleges vision, values and goals, added Vivian Nguyen, the chair-elect of the student organization Higher Education for Refugees at Smith (HERS). They send a powerful message that Smith welcomes outstanding students of all backgrounds and truly embraces and celebrates diversity on our campus.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

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

Go here to read the rest:
Smith College to Offer Scholarship for Refugee and Illegal Immigrant Students - Breitbart News