Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Bidens migrant crisis is still in full swing with no light at the end of the tunnel. Despite the fact that the White House recently took action to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, doubts remain as to whether the administration is able or even willing to take concrete action to deal with the problem.

With Republicans set to retake the House and possibly the Senate in the upcoming congressional elections, they will be expected to provide legislative solutions. On Friday, the House Republican Conference revealed their plan to address the immigration issue after they take power in 2023.

The proposal is designed to bolster physical infrastructure as well as closing asylum loopholes, according to Fox News. The plan was concocted by the American Security Task Force, which was established by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in 2021 to create policies that would address the influx of immigrants coming to the southern border. It is headed by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), who laid out a series of initiatives under the plan.

Weve got a lot of very serious security issues going on at the border, people from 160 different countries have come across the border, and its not just a Mexican and Northern Triangle issue, its a worldwide issue that people are exploiting, Katko said during an interview with Fox. Its really a concern. So everything we did in here has that background in mind and that background of Weve got to stop this. We can turn it around, and weve got to do better.

For starters, the legislation would require the federal government to continue construction on the border wall, which began under former President Donald Trump. Progress on the wall was halted almost as soon as President Biden sat down behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. It was part of his initiative to brand himself as the anti-Trump, by rolling back most of his predecessors immigration policies. The result was the massive surge of migrants traveling to the border to gain entry into the United States.

The bill would also improve the technology used by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and allow for increased staffing. The last bit is important because the agency has been stretched thin as it attempts to keep up with the number of people crossing the border illegally. It would also grant more funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Katkos group is also proposing that the government expand the Title 42 public health order, which allowed border authorities to expel a majority of migrants in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also used to curtail the flow of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into the U.S.

The proposal would also reinstitute the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which is also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. The program required migrants seeking asylum to stay in Mexico while their cases were being decided. It ended the Catch and Release approach favored by previous presidents that allowed individuals to stay in America as they awaited their court dates. Many of these folks failed to show up for court and remained in the country illegally.

Surprisingly enough, the proposed legislation also includes provisions mandating the use of E-Verify nationally. The conservative base has wanted such a measure for decades, but GOP lawmakers failed to pass it.

The unveiling of the Republicans immigration plan comes as the White House quietly resumed construction on the border wall in the area of Yuma, Arizona. Despite calling Trump a racist xenophobe for even suggesting a physical barrier, Biden is now continuing the policy, at least in part. The New York Post reported:

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas authorized Customs and Border Protection Thursday to seal the openings near the Morelos Dam just west of downtown Yuma.

The department said the area presents safety and life hazard risks for migrants attempting to cross into the United States where there is a risk of drownings and injuries from falls. This area also poses a life and safety risk to first responders and agents responding to incidents in this area.

Between January and June of this year, Border Patrol has detained illegals trying to get into the country over 160,000 times. Yuma, along with the Del Rio and Rio Grande Valley sectors in Texas, has had the most activity at the border.

The Republicans plan is an ambitious one. Passing this legislation wont be easy with the number of open borders Democrats in Congress. The GOP will have to win solid majorities in both houses to even hope to pass such a sweeping plan. With President Biden in the White House, we can bet that the veto pen will be at the ready, if Republicans manage to put together a package that would actually deal with the problem Biden seems determined not to solve. Still, it could provide a good template for the future when Democrats lose the White House. It might be a few more years before we see any real movement on the border but hopefully, this will be the beginning.

Here is the original post:
Can Republicans Fix Bidens Migrant Crisis? RedState

Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have claimed that the FBI and the Justice Department violated former President Donald Trump's Fourth Amendment rights during the August 8 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, but legal experts dispute this claim.

On August 8, the FBI executed a judge-approved search warrant as part of ongoing investigations into Trumps possible mishandling of classified documents and presidential records. Earlier this year, reports surfaced that the National Archives and Records Administration had retrieved 15 boxes of White House records from Mar-a-Lago in January, some of which contained classified materials. After months of back and forth between the FBI and Trump which includedFBI and DOJ investigators visiting Mar-a-Lago and the issuance of a subpoena to Trump in pursuit of documents that federal investigators believed he had failed to turn over earlier in the year the agency finally got a search warrant approved by a Florida judge, which led to the August 8 search.

In response to these events, right-wing media have downplayed the seriousness of Trumps potential wrongdoing, pushed false claims and baseless conspiracy theories, fearmongered that the Justice Department and the FBI have been weaponized against Trump, and now are claiming that law enforcement violated the former presidents Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, despite the fact that the FBI had a warrant for the search.

Read the original:
Right-wing media claim Trump's Fourth Amendment rights were violated in Mar-a-Lago search - Media Matters for America

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Two weeks ago, the FBI executed a search warrant at the former presidents private club to retrieve government property wrongfully retained after American voters sent Donald Trump packing. Since then, weve seen conservative group Judicial Watch sue to gain access to the search documents, followed by every major media outlet in the country piling on to successfully kick loose the warrant, inventory, and soon a redacted version of the underlying affidavit.

What we havent seen is Donald Trumps lawyers do anything at all besides yell on TV and make wild accusations that the FBI planted evidence. But last week Fox Newss Laura Ingraham seems to have lit a fire under Team Trump, so now were getting a major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment.

As usual, the former president is vague on exactly which statutes the scammers supposedly violated. Nor is he clear how this grievous wrong will be vindicated. But hes sure that his rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country. And hes not going to put up with it!

Trumps lawyer Lindsey Halligan, whose primary practice area appears to be landlord-tenant disputes, promised that Trumps illustrious legal team was taking the matter seriously if not expeditiously but said she was not going to talk about it until its actually filed.

Dr. Gina has neither a medical degree nor a degree in psychology, and shes not a licensed therapist. She does have a PhD in human and organization systems from an online university, though, and she did write a book claiming Trump was the most sound-minded person to ever occupy the White House. So you know this conversation was on the highest level all ways round.

James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor and one of Trumps only attorneys with relevant experience, was more specific on Fox this weekend.

The Fourth Amendment requires particularity. It requires narrowness to the intrusion on the persons home, he said, going on to describe the warrant as authorizing the functional equivalent of a general search.

How fun for Fox viewers to discover that civil liberties are good, actually!

Were going to come out swinging and say, look, you know, this cannot be just with a wink and a nod from DOJ that we are supposed to trust them, he went on. Under these circumstances, were going to have to get court involved, judicial intervention at the District Court level, to get somebody in the mix here that can help vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of the president.

Simply as a matter of linear time, it is already too late for the former presidents legal team to come out swinging. But if he wants to file a Rule 41 motion for the return of property, as his former lawyer John Eastman did recently, he may have a bit of a bit of a problem since the FBI went in there to seize government property wrongly retained, and most of the stuff taken doesnt belong to him.

In fact, as Politico notes, while Trump threw a massive online tantrum about agents seizing his three passports, he appears to have been unaware that they were even taken and only alerted to the fact when the FBIs filter team flagged them as improperly seized and returned them.

In later comments to conservative host Mark Levin, Trusty elaborated on his theme of government overreach and promised to seek a special master to intervene to protect documents which are attorney-client privileged, although it appears that the Department is already employing its own filter team. The irony of a lawyer going on television to broadcast Trumps legal strategy while complaining that the government is illegally prying into his Trumps legal strategies appears to be lost on Trusty. But his client appears to be far more concerned with what goes on in front of the camera than in the actual courtroom.

And PS, while Trusty promised Levin that he would be filing within hours, as of this writing, nothing has hit the docket.

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read the rest here:
Trump Lawyers Promise To 'Come Out Swinging' And It Only Took Them Two Short Weeks! - Above the Law

The execution of the search warrant at former President Donald Trumps home in Florida caused consternation for some who think the warrant was politically driven. Serving a search warrant on Trump has political implications, but that does not mean it was done without a proper constitutional basis.

As an initial matter, the individuals seeking the search warrant made a determination that Trumps home contained evidence of a crime or items that were illegally possessed. In other words, officials with the FBI, in conjunction with attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded that such evidence probably was inside the home. Given that this search warrant was unprecedented, it is hard to imagine those officials and attorneys made the decision lightly.

Even if one believes those officials and attorneys engaged in rampant political misconduct, an external check exists. For federal law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant, they had to get authorization from a neutral U.S. magistrate judge. The FBI agent had to present an affidavit, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury to all the details in the affidavit that supported the assertion there probably is evidence of crime. There cannot be any vague assertion that some crime happened. Instead, the affidavit must have information that describes the expected evidence in support of the allegations related to the specific crime.

In order for the magistrate judge to sign the search warrant, that person had to find that probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Federal magistrate judges are not political nominees; they are highly trained legal experts who are selected to work for a federal court based on merit.

As a former U.S. magistrate judge, I signed countless search warrants, but never one as high profile as this one. Each time I reviewed an application for a search warrant, I read and analyzed all the documents carefully, ensuring there was full compliance with the Fourth Amendment before I signed the warrant. I can only imagine if I were reviewing a warrant application for a former president that my high level of diligence would have somehow been even higher. I would expect whoever signed this search warrant exercised a similar exacting level of legal analysis.

If somehow the oversight and review by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the magistrate judges analysis all failed, Trump still had options. He could have gone to federal court seeking to quash the search warrant with arguments that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Another federal judge would have reviewed the search warrant to ensure it complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. Trump, with his legal resources, did not choose to have a federal judge immediately review the warrants constitutionality, which likely indicates nothing readily appeared to be unconstitutional.

As search warrants are a law enforcement tool in criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment authorizes their issuance provided they meet a number of parameters, including particularity and reasonableness. The execution of the warrant may not lead to any charges against any individual, including Trump, as there is no certainty that the FBI agents will find evidence of a crime. Probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances is the standard, as opposed to certainty.

However, if Trump is charged with a crime based on any evidence obtained from the search of his home, he will have another chance to challenge the search warrant. He can file a motion to suppress with the federal judge overseeing the charges against him that could challenge the allegations and information in the agents sworn affidavit, any shortcomings in the magistrate judges review of the warrant application, or any problems with the execution of the warrant at his home. Finally, Trump can appeal any unsuccessful motion to suppress to the federal appellate court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of Trumps supporters decried the execution of the search warrant. None of these supporters, however, pointed to any concrete Fourth Amendment violations in the warrant. Trump chose to forgo filing a motion to quash. A number of constitutional safeguards exists. Ultimately, the search warrant, while shocking given its target, appears to comply with the Fourth Amendment based on what we currently know.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law, where he teaches, among other topics, federal criminal procedure, which concerns the Fourth Amendment. He served as federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas from 2005 until 2013.

See more here:
Commentary: 'I signed countless warrants. Search of Trump's house is shocking and constitutional.' - San Antonio Express-News

Three Arkansas police officers have been suspended pending an investigation by state police after a video taken by a bystander showed them brutally beating a shoeless man outside of a convenience store.

The video, first posted Sunday afternoon on Twitter, shows two Crawford County sheriff's deputies and an officer with the Mulberry Police Department holding down and battering a man later identified by state police as Randal Worcester, 27, of Goose Creek, South Carolina. The officers knee, punch, and slam Worcester's head into the ground.

Arkansas news outlet KSFM-TV reports that, according to Crawford County Sheriff Jimmy Damante, officers were dispatched on Sunday after receiving a call about a man threatening and allegedly spitting on a convenience store employee:

Sheriff Damante says Worcester then traveled on a bike to Mulberry, near Exit 20, where the Mulberry officer and the deputies met with him. The conversation began calm and Worcester handed them a pocket knife, but the sheriff says Worcester then began attacking one of the deputies by pushing him to the ground and punching the back of his head, leading to what was seen in the video.

Worcester has been charged with second-degree battery, resisting arrest, refusal to submit, possessing an instrument of crime, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, terroristic threatening, and second-degree assault.

There is no bright-line test for when legal use of force by police crosses over into excessive force. Rather, excessive force claims are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, which judges incidents based on individual factors and from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene. However, slamming a person's head into the pavement is not a standard technique to gain compliance.

"Certainly the blows to the head at the same time you're trying to get a person to put their hands behind their backthink about it," former Philadelphia police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told CNN. "It doesn't make sense. If you're getting hit in the face, you're going to lift your hands to try to protect your face."

"In reference to the video circulating on social media involving two Crawford County Deputies, we have requested that Arkansas State Police conduct the investigation and the Deputies have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation," Damante said in a Facebook statement. "I hold all my employees accountable for their actions and will take appropriate measures in this matter."

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has confirmed that the Arkansas State Police are investigating the incident, and in a statement to The New York Times, the agency said its investigation "will be limited to the use of physical force by the deputies and the police officer."

The incident is just the latest video of apparently excessive force to go viral and lead to police being investigated. In April, bodycam footage of Tulsa police violently arresting an elderly woman with bipolar disorder drew widespread outrage. Last month, a video went viral of a 2016 incident where a Colorado police officer chased and tased a man for holding a "fuck bad cops" sign.

See the article here:
Arkansas Cops Suspended After Video of Beating Goes Viral - Reason