Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

ICE: Yes, 75 Percent Of Illegal Immigrants We Arrested Have Criminal Records – Townhall

Over the past couple of days, immigration enforcement agents have round up almost 700 illegal aliens75 percent of which had criminal records. Rep. Nancy Pelosi disputed the claim, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement also confirmed the figure released by the Department of Homeland Security. IJ Reviews Joe Perticone had more:

[]

Independent Journal Review obtained a copy of the list of various criminal offenses provided to the members by [ActingICE]Director [Thomas]Homan, which shows that Kelly was correct in his assertion that the crimes were of a severe nature.

There were 161 DUIs, 47 cases of domestic violence, 15 assaults with an aggravated weapon, 15 cases of sex offense/fondling against a child and dozens of other cases of sexual and violent crimes.

In total, 507 of the 683 apprehended immigrants had criminal convictions, on par with Kelly's claim of 75 percent.

The raids have rattled immigration groups, noting that these appear to be harsher than usual. The wheels for these raids were set in motion during the Obama presidency, but it surely captured the spirit of President Trumps immigration agenda: criminal aliens have got to go. This isnt a controversial position, folks. Even Democrats agree that illegal aliens who commit violent crimes should go (or at least that's what they say to the press), though they appear to be a bit squishy when it comes to drunk driving.

Read more:
ICE: Yes, 75 Percent Of Illegal Immigrants We Arrested Have Criminal Records - Townhall

New information released on illegal immigration suspect – wivb.com


wivb.com
New information released on illegal immigration suspect
wivb.com
GRAND ISLAND, N.Y. (WIVB) The Justice Department has released new information related to the arrest of suspected illegal immigrants on Grand Island Wednesday. 20-year-old Armando Navarette-Dominguez of Mexico was one of the 9 suspected illegal ...

Read this article:
New information released on illegal immigration suspect - wivb.com

Why illegal immigrants don’t just ‘get in line’ – Delmarva Daily Times

Restaurants closed, kids stayed home from school, workers didnt show up. It was a nationwide strike on Thursday, Feb. 16, billed as a day without immigrants.

Coming on the heels of roundups of undocumented immigrants nationwide, organizers urged legal residents as well as undocumented ones to participate in the boycott in response to President Trump's crackdown on immigration, USA Today reported Thursday.

Businesses survived this boycott. But here on the Shore, watermelon growers, chicken companies, and other businesses would be in real trouble if that day without immigrants stretched into a week, or became permanent.

For some, a crackdown on illegal immigrants is simple moral logic. Theyve broken the law. They should have gotten in line and done it the right way, as so many thousands of legal immigrants have.

This argument sounds like common sense, but it has a major flaw: It presupposes a fair and functional immigration system that gives people a realistic opportunity to come here.

The reality is more complicated.

RELATED OPINION: The shame of turning away refugees

According to the American Immigration Council, 675,000 people worldwide are allowed to come to the United States legally each year. There are also 140,000 employment visas.

That sounds like a lot of people. But it excludes a great many would-be immigrants. Only 7 percent of the total can come from any one country, according to the council, and family members of immigrants are given preference. Employment visas are temporary, restrictive, and require a company to sponsor the candidate.

How does that affect the waiting list? Again according to the American Immigration Council, as of May 2016, on average unmarried children of citizens must wait more than five years to come in, and siblings of citizens must wait more than 10 years. Depending on what country youre from, it could be a lot worse. Married children of citizens from Mexico must wait more than 20 years, and Filipino siblings wait about 25 years, the council says. These are people who are given preference.

Unauthorized immigrants who want to regularize their status in this country cannot just get in line, the council says on its website. There are lines, but a large number of aspiring immigrants are not eligible to be in any of them.

So yes, thousands of immigrants do it the right way, but many, many more, in practical terms, cant. So when a legal immigrant says, I did it the right way, so they should too, her feelings are understandable, but not reasonable. Its a little like saying I won the lottery, so you should too.

If it were practical to come legally, why would people risk rape, terrible conditions and death in the desert with human smugglers, then live here under the shadow of deportation?

MORE OPINION: Your vitriol and nastiness are hurting your cause

To make matters worse, weve had a wink, wink, nudge relationship with illegal immigration for decades. The government seems to be playing a cynical game in which it puts up with illegal immigration to help out the workforce, while refusing to deal with a political hot potato and actually reform the system. Our businesses have said to immigrants, in essence, if you can get here, well hire you. Now we want to make immigrants the only scapegoat.

Thats why telling immigrants just do it the right way in our current system is simplistic, flippantand ill-informed.

Militarizing the border and uprooting families who have been working here and contributing to our nation for decades is not a humane or moral solution, even though its painted as simply enforcing the laws.

The better, more compassionate solution is to open the way for many more people to come legally. Lets find a way to welcome immigrants.

Andrew Sharp is a producer at The Daily Times and delmarvanow.com. Email him at asharp@dmg.gannett.com. Find him on Twitter @buckeye_201 and on Facebook @andrewsharp201.

Read or Share this story: http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/17/illegal-immigration-border-control-policy/98007800/

See the original post here:
Why illegal immigrants don't just 'get in line' - Delmarva Daily Times

AP: Trump admin considered proposal that would use National Guard to round up illegal immigrants – WCVB Boston

WASHINGTON

The Trump administration considered a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

Staffers in the Department of Homeland Security said the proposal had been discussed as recently as Friday.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

Four states that border on Mexico were included in the proposal California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Friday the document was "not a White House document."

"There is no effort to do what is potentially suggested," he said. Spicer called the AP report "100 percent not true, adding that there was "no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants."

A DHS official described the document as a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to the secretary for approval.

The AP had sought comment from the White House beginning Thursday and DHS earlier Friday and had not received a response from either.

Governors in the 11 states would have had a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, which bears the name of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.

While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.

The memo was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would have served as guidance to implement the wide-ranging executive order on immigration and border security that President Donald Trump signed Jan. 25. Such memos are routinely issued to supplement executive orders.

Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized "to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States." It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.

If implemented, the impact could have been significant. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. without authorization live in the 11 states, according to Pew Research Center estimates based on 2014 Census data.

Use of National Guard troops would greatly increase the number of immigrants targeted in one of Trump's executive orders last month, which expanded the definition of who could be considered a criminal and therefore a potential target for deportation. That order also allows immigration agents to prioritize removing anyone who has "committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense."

Under current rules, even if the proposal had been implemented, there would not be immediate mass deportations. Those with existing deportation orders could be sent back to their countries of origin without additional court proceedings. But deportation orders generally would be needed for most other unauthorized immigrants.

The troops would not be nationalized, remaining under state control.

Spokespeople for the governors of nine of the states either declined to comment or said it was premature to discuss whether they would participate. Representatives for Texas and Arkansas did not immediately respond to the AP.

The proposal would have extended the federal-local partnership program that President Barack Obama's administration began scaling back in 2012 to address complaints that it promoted racial profiling.

The 287(g) program, which Trump included in his immigration executive order, gives local police, sheriff's deputies and state troopers the authority to assist in the detection of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as a regular part of their law enforcement duties on the streets and in jails.

The draft memo also mentions other items included in Trump's executive order, including the hiring of an additional 5,000 border agents, which needs financing from Congress, and his campaign promise to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The signed order contained no mention of the possible use of state National Guard troops.

According to the draft memo, the militarization effort was to be proactive, specifically empowering Guard troops to solely carry out immigration enforcement, not as an add-on the way local law enforcement is used in the program.

Allowing Guard troops to operate inside non-border states also would go far beyond past deployments.

In addition to responding to natural or man-made disasters or for military protection of the population or critical infrastructure, state Guard forces have been used to assist with immigration-related tasks on the U.S.-Mexico border, including the construction of fences.

In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush twice deployed Guard troops on the border to focus on non-law enforcement duties to help augment the Border Patrol as it bolstered its ranks. And in 2010, then-Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced a border security plan that included Guard reconnaissance, aerial patrolling and military exercises.

In July 2014, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered 1,000 National Guard troops to the border when the surge of migrant children fleeing violence in Central America overwhelmed U.S. officials responsible for their care. The Guard troops' stated role on the border at the time was to provide extra sets of eyes but not make arrests.

Bush initiated the federal 287(g) program named for a section of a 1996 immigration law to allow specially trained local law enforcement officials to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and check whether people held in local jails were in the country illegally. ICE trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out those checks from 2006 to 2015.

The memo describes the program as a "highly successful force multiplier" that identified more than 402,000 "removable aliens."

But federal watchdogs were critical of how DHS ran the program, saying it was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law. Obama phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013 to instead focus on deporting recent border crossers and immigrants in the country illegally who posed a safety or national security threat.

Trump's immigration strategy emerges as detentions at the nation's southern border are down significantly from levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Last year, the arrest tally was the fifth-lowest since 1972. Deportations of people living in the U.S. illegally also increased under the Obama administration, though Republicans criticized Obama for setting prosecution guidelines that spared some groups from the threat of deportation, including those brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Last week, ICE officers arrested more than 680 people around the country in what Kelly said were routine, targeted operations; advocates called the actions stepped-up enforcement under Trump.

See the rest here:
AP: Trump admin considered proposal that would use National Guard to round up illegal immigrants - WCVB Boston

Yesterday illegal immigrants taught white liberal millennials how to protest – Washington Examiner

Yesterday's national anti-Trump protest was billed as "a day without immigrants." More importantly, it was a day without broken glass, burnt cars or busted skulls. White liberal millennial protestors should take note.

Both groups oppose Trump but only the immigrants understand the difference between American civil disobedience and anarchy. More specifically, they're capable of making a cogent argument without any kind of violent coercion.

Though largely undocumented, the immigrants who walked out of work in the nation's capital and other metropolises have assimilated. They haven't lost faith in America, they haven't repudiated our civil society, and they haven't concluded that those who oppose them are incorrigible. Unlike the liberal protestors who chucked rocks at cops on Inauguration Day, the immigrants took a page out Dr. Martin Luther King's playbook.

And it paid off.

In protest of Trump's immigration policies, the majority of the service industry went on strike. Across the country, cooks didn't bake, carpenters didn't frame and maids didn't clean. And while most noticeable in the nation's more liberal cities, it was impossible not to notice. In one indicative episode, the Pentagon's cafeteria shut down as baristas skipped work at Starbucks and fry cooks boycotted Burger King.

The owner of Chicago's Frontera Grill shut down his restaurant before summing up the point of the protest. "What really makes our country great is the diversity we experience here," Mr. Bayless told the New York Times. "I can't say enough about the lack of respect and the fear-mongering and hate-mongering that I'm sensing around us these days."

You might disagree with that sentiment, think it's wrongheaded, and reject the premise of the protest altogether. But it's hard not to prefer that demonstration to the tantrum that occurred on Inauguration Day. In Washington, D.C., those rioters destroyed private property and engaged in violence. Somehow they thought that by trashing the second most liberal city in America, they'd win converts to their cause.

Of course, many of Thursday's protesters were illegal immigrants, and by definition, had already broken the law, but their protest proved that they weren't interested in destruction or disorder. More importantly, they seemed much more in touch with the American concept of civil disobedience than many protestors of the occupy ilk. The next four years will have constant demonstrations of various levels of credibility.

If I get my choice, I'd pick the most American one. I'd choose immigrants over the black-clad local college and high school kids any day.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Senator was then asked if he thought Trump was acting like a dictator with his tweet.

02/18/17 2:51 PM

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Top Story

Senator was then asked if he thought Trump was acting like a dictator with his tweet.

02/18/17 2:51 PM

Link:
Yesterday illegal immigrants taught white liberal millennials how to protest - Washington Examiner