Trump’s DHS restoring integrity to US immigration policy and process, effectively stopping migrants at the border. Open-border liberals, of course, don’t like the “humanitarian approach” as it will stop illegal aliens from becoming illegal Democrat voters

The following is a press release from the Department of Homeland Security outlining the new Migrant Protection Protocols that will send migrants who illegally cross our southern border back to Mexico to await the outcome of an immigration hearing: 

“We have implemented an unprecedented action that will address the urgent humanitarian and security crisis at the Southern border. 

This humanitarian approach will help to end the exploitation of our generous immigration laws. 

The Migrant Protection Protocols represent a methodical commonsense approach, exercising long-standing statutory authority to help address the crisis at our Southern border.” – Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen

 

What Are the Migrant Protection Protocols?

The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) are a U.S. Government action whereby certain foreign individuals entering or seeking admission to the U.S. from Mexico – illegally or without proper documentation – may be returned to Mexico and wait outside of the U.S. for the duration of their immigration proceedings, where Mexico will provide them with all appropriate humanitarian protections for the duration of their stay.

 

Why is DHS Instituting MPP?

The U.S. is facing a security and humanitarian crisis on the Southern border. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using all appropriate resources and authorities to address the crisis and execute our missions to secure the borders, enforce immigration and customs laws, facilitate legal trade and travel, counter traffickers, smugglers and transnational criminal organizations, and interdict drugs and illegal contraband.

MPP will help restore a safe and orderly immigration process, decrease the number of those taking advantage of the immigration system, and the ability of smugglers and traffickers to prey on vulnerable populations, and reduce threats to life, national security, and public safety, while ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the protections they need.

Historically, illegal aliens to the U.S. were predominantly single adult males from Mexico who were generally removed within 48 hours if they had no legal right to stay; now over 60% are family units and unaccompanied children and 60% are non-Mexican. In FY17, CBP apprehended 94,285 family units from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador (Northern Triangle) at the Southern border. Of those, 99% remain in the country today.

Misguided court decisions and outdated laws have made it easier for illegal aliens to enter and remain in the U.S. if they are adults who arrive with children, unaccompanied alien children, or individuals who fraudulently claim asylum. As a result, DHS continues to see huge numbers of illegal migrants and a dramatic shift in the demographics of aliens traveling to the border, both in terms of nationality and type of aliens- from a demographic who could be quickly removed when they had no legal right to stay to one that cannot be detained and timely removed.

In October, November, and December of 2018, DHS encountered an average of 2,000 illegal and inadmissible aliens a day at the Southern border. While not an all-time high in terms of overall numbers, record increases in particular types of migrants, such as family units, travelling to the border who require significantly more resources to detain and remove (when our courts and laws even allow that), have overwhelmed the U.S. immigration system, leading to a “system” that enables smugglers and traffickers to flourish and often leaves aliens in limbo for years. This has been a prime cause of our near-800,000 case backlog in immigration courts and delivers no consequences to aliens who have entered illegally.

Smugglers and traffickers are also using outdated laws to entice migrants to undertake the dangerous journey north where on the route migrants report high rates of abuse, violence, and sexual assault. Human smugglers and traffickers exploit migrants and seek to turn human misery into profit. Transnational criminal organizations and gangs are also deliberately exploiting the situation to bring drugs, violence, and illicit goods into American communities. The activities of these smugglers, traffickers, gangs and criminals endanger the security of the U.S., as well as partner nations in the region.

The situation has had severe impacts on U.S. border security and immigration operations. The dramatic increase in illegal migration, including unprecedented number of families and fraudulent asylum claims is making it harder for the U.S. to devote appropriate resources to individuals who are legitimately fleeing persecution. In fact, approximately 9 out of 10 asylum claims from Northern Triangle countries are ultimately found non-meritorious by federal immigration judges. Because of the court backlog and the impact of outdated laws and misguided court decisions, many of these individuals have disappeared into the country before a judge denies their claim and they simply become fugitives.

The MPP will provide a safer and more orderly process that will discourage individuals from attempting illegal entry and making false claims to stay in the U.S., and allow more resources to be dedicated to individuals who legitimately qualify for asylum.

 

What Gives DHS the Authority to Implement MPP?

Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) addresses the inspection of aliens seeking to be admitted into the U.S. and provides specific procedures regarding the treatment of those not clearly entitled to admission, including those who apply for asylum.  Section 235(b)(2)(C) provides that “in the case of an alien  . . . who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the U.S.,” the Secretary of Homeland Security “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding under § 240” of the INA.”

The U.S. has notified the Government of Mexico that it is implementing these procedures under U.S. law.

 

Who is Subject to MPP?

With certain exceptions, MPP applies to aliens arriving in the U.S. on land from Mexico (including those apprehended along the border) who are not clearly admissible and who are placed in removal proceedings under INA § 240.

This includes aliens who claim a fear of return to Mexico at any point during apprehension, processing, or such proceedings, but who have been assessed not to be more likely than not to face persecution or torture in Mexico.

Unaccompanied alien children and aliens in expedited removal proceedings will not be subject to MPP.  Other individuals from vulnerable populations may be excluded on a case-by-case basis.

 

How Will MPP Work Operationally?

Certain aliens attempting to enter the U.S. illegally or without documentation, including those who claim asylum, will no longer be released into the country, where they often fail to file an asylum application and/or disappear before an immigration judge can determine the merits of any claim.  Instead, these aliens will be given a “Notice to Appear” for their immigration court hearing and will be returned to Mexico until their hearing date.

While aliens await their hearings in Mexico, the Mexican government has made its own determination to provide such individuals the ability to stay in Mexico, under applicable protection based on the type of status given to them.

Aliens who need to return to the U.S. to attend their immigration court hearings will be allowed to enter and attend those hearings.  Aliens whose claims are found meritorious by an immigration judge will be allowed to remain in the U.S.  Those determined to be without valid claims will be removed from the U.S. to their country of nationality or citizenship.

DHS is working closely with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to streamline the process and conclude removal proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

 

Will Migrants in MPP Have Access to Counsel?

Consistent with the law, aliens in removal proceedings can use counsel of their choosing at no expense to the U.S. Government.  Aliens subject to MPP will be afforded the same right and provided with a list of legal services providers in the area which offer services at little or no expense to the migrant.

 

What Are the Anticipated Benefits of MPP?

Every month, tens of thousands of individuals arrive unlawfully at the Southern Border.  MPP will reduce the number of aliens taking advantage of U.S. law and discourage false asylum claims.  Aliens will not be permitted to disappear into the U.S. before a court issues a final decision on whether they will be admitted and provided protection under U.S. law.  Instead, they will await a determination in Mexico and receive appropriate humanitarian protections there.

This will allow DHS to more effectively assist legitimate asylum-seekers and individuals fleeing persecution, as migrants with non-meritorious or even fraudulent claims will no longer have an incentive for making the journey.  Moreover, MPP will reduce the extraordinary strain on our border security and immigration system, freeing up personnel and resources to better protect our sovereignty and the rule of law by restoring integrity to the American immigration system.

 

[From an article published by DAILY HEADLINES]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  There, we did it!  No new laws, just some sensible thinking and planning and cooperation with Mexico.  No so hard at all, was it?  And every one of the migrants will be better off under this new sensible humanitarian approach.  The Democrats will lose some illegal voters, of course, but they shouldn’t have been allowed to vote in the first place.  (Democrats not only allowed them to vote, they encouraged the illegal voting.)  The Dems always want to go on a rant about any situation, while Mr. Trump wants to FIX things.  What a concept.

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Who are you spending your sympathy on?

 

There are many reasons why citizens vote for a candidate. Blue-collar families often vote for the one who will bring back manufacturing jobs. Military families often vote for the one who will leave no man behind. For me, public safety is a primary consideration. People have a finite amount of sympathy. I’m sure Mother Teresa had more than I do, but even hers was not unlimited. Wisely, she spent hers for the poor. But many people are not wise. They spend their sympathy on illegal immigrants and criminals, leaving none for law-abiding citizens. Take, for instance, the cases of Sarah McKinley and Kathryn Steinle.

 

Sarah McKinley was home with her three-month-old son on New Year’s Eve 2013. She lived in the rural community of Blanchard, Oklahoma, and police response times tended to be long. She was an 18-year-old widow. Her husband had died of cancer a few days earlier.

When she saw two men attempting to break in, McKinley recognized one as a man who had been stalking her since her husband’s funeral. Apparently he was looking for drugs in the cancer victim’s home. She gave her baby a bottle, then retrieved a shotgun and a handgun and barricaded the door. She phoned 911 and asked what to do. She was told she could not shoot unless they came through the door. The 911 dispatcher, though, who was a woman, added, “You do what you have to do to protect your baby.”

It took police 14 minutes to arrive from the time McKinley called 911. Two minutes before they arrived, Justin Shane Martin broke down McKinley’s barricaded front door, holding a 12-inch hunting knife in his gloved hand. She fired the shotgun, killing the Martin. His companion fled. He later turned himself in to police.

Later Sarah explained:

“I knew that I was going to have to choose him or my son, and it wasn’t going to be my son, so I did what I had to do. There’s nothing more dangerous than a mother with a child.”

If we truly want to “save just one life,” we will remember Sarah McKinley and all those like her. We will read the work of John Lott, especially More Guns, Less Crime, which demonstrates that violent crime decreases when more law-abiding citizens are armed, after background checks and suitable training, and does not necessarily decrease with strict gun laws, as in France. We will read the work of Dr. Gary Kleck, especially Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, which shows that guns are used more often to defend against violent crime than to commit it.

It is bizarre that “progressives” who claim to fear the imposition of a “Nazi” regime by President Trump or others, are the same people who work to disarm the citizenry. They seem utterly unaware of the glaring contradiction.

If we truly want to “save just one life,” we would be guided by logic instead of emotions.

 

Kathryn Steinle

Like many left-leaning cities, San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary city,” so that illegal immigrants would be reported to Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) only if they commit violent felonies. The supremacy of federal law is a concept that seems to have eluded San Francisco’s officials. In fact, thousands of illegal immigrants have been released from custody in California without immigration officials being notified. In fact, about 39% of the federal prison population is composed of illegal aliens (as of 2013), of whom more than 25,000 have been arrested for homicide.

How well the “sanctuary city” program works was illustrated with striking clarity in the person of José Inés García Zárate (also known as Juan Francisco López-Sánchez), who shot and killed Kathryn Steinle on July 1, 2015. García Zárate was an illegal immigrant and convicted felon who had been deported five times before killing Steinle.

García Zárate was released from jail in San Francisco on April 15, 2015. ICE had filed the detainer request to be notified prior to García Zárate’s release from custody, so that he could be deported again. But San Francisco authorities followed their policy and refused to honor the hold, because García Zárate had not committed a violent felony.

Two months later, García Zárate shot 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle, who died in her father’s arms at a tourist attraction on Pier 14. Steinle had worked for a medical technology company.

Eventually, a San Francisco jury acquitted García Zárate of murder or manslaughter, and found him guilty only of illegal weapons possession. Of course, he will not receive the death penalty, because California no longer has one. Correction: California no longer has a death penalty for people like García Zárate, but it evidently does have one for people like Kathryn Steinle.

Her last words were, “Dad, help me, help me.” But her dad could not help her. It was up to us to help her by keeping the streets as safe as possible. We did not. We used up all our sympathy on those who do not deserve it, leaving none for those who do deserve it. We made a “sanctuary city” that was safe for José Inés García Zárate, but extremely unsafe for Kathryn Michelle Steinle.

In the case of gun control, excessive regulations are more likely to cost lives than to save them. If you doubt this, just ask Sarah McKinley. How else could one expect a young mother to defend herself and her baby against armed intruders? What could she be expected to do when the police had not yet arrived and a violent man breaks down her door, holding a 12-inch hunting knife in his gloved hand?  If she had not had that shotgun, she would probably be dead, as would her baby.

Here, gun-control activists with their “if it will save just one life” rhetoric actually would have cost two lives. Yet somehow, people like Sarah McKinley just do not register on the “progressive” radar. People like Sarah McKinley and her baby are dumped into Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” or are included in Barack Obama’s bitter clingers who want to hold onto their religion and guns.

After all, how can we expect the self-anointed elite — the graduates of prestigious Ivy League universities — to concern themselves with ignorant rednecks? They are much too elevated for that. When they say “social justice,” they often seem to mean big government controlling virtually every aspect of daily life.  But their version of “social justice” somehow fails to include the very lives of Sarah McKinley and her child.

Ironically, if the advocates of tight gun control had their way, Sarah McKinley and her baby would probably be dead, and if the advocates of tight border control had their way, Kathryn Steinle would probably be alive.

When it comes to illegal immigration, as well as to other policies many “progressives” appear to favor, they never seem to remember their beloved mantra of “if it will save just one life.” If our borders were more secure, and if our immigration laws were more conscientiously enforced, and — most of all — if San Francisco had not declared itself a “sanctuary city,” Kathryn Steinle would still be alive, working at the medical technology company that employed her, interacting with her close-knit family, and charming others with her smile.

 

[From an article by Dr. David C. Stolinsky, a retired physician, and published by GATESTONE INSTITUTE]

 

……………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Democrats seem unable to recognize truth from lies anymore…

Nancy Pelosi held a town hall event on CNN to try to present a Democratic alternative to Donald Trump.  At the event, a grieving mother whose son was murdered by an illegal immigrant asked Pelosi how she, Pelosi, could possibly support sanctuary cities.  Pelosi’s answer left many Americans wondering just what planet she was from.

Laura Wilkerson’s son was captured by an illegal immigrant, then beaten, tortured, and lit on fire.

She questioned Nancy Pelosi how she, Pelosi, could support illegal immigration and back sanctuary cities when those policies lead to the death of innocent Americans.

Wilkerson also demanded Pelosi to answer which one of her grandchildren she’d be willing to consider as “expendable” just so illegal immigrants can continue to flout our laws and remain in America.

Pelosi was visibly shaken when confronted with the real world consequences of her open borders policies.

She stumbled through her answer, and then responded with a massive lie, saying that sanctuary cities house people who are not disobeying the law.

Lifezette reports on the exchange:

“In 2010, one of these illegals slaughtered my son,” the woman continued, her voice hoarse and cracking with grief. “He was tortured, beaten, then tied up like an animal. And then he was set on fire.  And I am not a unique one-story mother. This kind of thing happens all the time. Because no one is enforcing our borders,” the woman said.

“We have to start putting American families first. There is nothing wrong with putting Americans first. Many of us have family members who fought and died for this country. How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to so easily disobey the law?” she asked.

Pelosi was visibly stunned, and perhaps even shamed, by what the woman said next.

“The second part of my question is this — if you need to go home tonight and line up your babies as you say, and your grand-babies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they’re expendable? For another foreign person to have a nicer life? Which one would you look to and say, ‘You, my child, are expendable for someone else to come over here and not follow the law and have a nicer life’?” the woman asked.

Pelosi’s response was to insist that sanctuary cities do not protect criminals like the one who killed the woman’s son. “I do want to say to you that in our sanctuary cities that these people are not disobeying the law. These are law-abiding citizens [sic], it enables them to be there without being reported to ICE in case of another crime that they might bear witness to,” Pelosi insisted.

 

Pelosi’s false claim that sanctuary cities are a place where law abiding citizens seek refuge is jaw-dropping in its stupidity.

First, every illegal immigrant is breaking the law just by the nature of their presence in America.

Second, her own San Francisco provided one of the most famous examples of the dangers sanctuary cities pose to America citizens.

In 2015, Kate Steinle was viciously murdered when she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported five times.  ICE had a detainer on the illegal immigrant, but San Francisco as a sanctuary city ignored the order and set him free.

It’s clear Nancy Pelosi has no choice but to employ alternative details (which in the minds of a majority of Americans is called “lying”) in order to claim sanctuary cities are not home to illegals and other dangerous criminals.

[From an article published by AMERICAN PATRIOT DAILY]

……………………………………….

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

The staggering cost of America’s illegal immigration

It is no secret that the southern U.S. border is open, allowing thousands of people to pour into the country illegally.  Ironically, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle in Washington are not inclined or don’t have the will to do anything about it.  Although most support legal immigration, there are huge differences on how each side believes illegal immigrants and the security of our borders should be handled.

Liberals generally support amnesty for those that enter the U.S. illegally.  They also believe that undocumented immigrants‖ should have all the educational and health benefits that citizens receive including financial aid, welfare, social security, and Medicaid.  (Why? See our comment below.)

Conservatives are against amnesty for those who enter the U.S. illegally.  They believe that those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally do not have the same rights as those who enter legally and obey the law.  They also believe that the Federal Government should do a better job enforcing current immigration laws.

Whether you call them illegal immigrants‖ or you call them undocumented immigrants, the undisputed fact remains that when a person crosses the border without the proper authority, he/she is breaking U.S. immigration law.  Just to be clear, there may be some immigrants who had green cards (or other legal authority) who did not renew or replace an expired or lost card.  This would be analogous to someone who let a driver‘s license expire and then proceeded to drive a car.  They would be doing so illegally.  Nevertheless, to put all illegal immigrants into the undocumented immigrant category is ludicrous.

It is estimated that there are between 11 and 30 million illegal immigrants in the country, and that they account for 13.6% of all crime in the United States.  No matter where you stand on this issue, the facts show that the direct and indirect financial costs are enormous.  The following statistics were extracted from the website fairus.org.

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level.  Most of the costs (around $84 billion) are absorbed by state and local governments.  That amounts to an average of $1,117 per household.  The variance per household is higher or lower depending on the demographics of illegal alien populations.  Education costs absorbed by state and local governments are estimated at $52 billion annually.  Although illegal immigrants who work are required to pay income tax, most don’t.  Those that do get much of it refunded because they are in such a low income bracket.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. send $50 billion back to their home countries each year.  When you include legal immigrants, The World Bank estimates the amount to be $120 billion.  That is money that is not going back into the U.S. Economy.

According to National Review, $1.87 billion was spent in 2014 on incarcerating illegal criminal immigrants.  The Department of Homeland Security estimated the percentage of illegal immigrants that are incarcerated to be between 11 and 15 percent of the country’s prison population.   Almost all the financial burden was shouldered by the states.  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which is a federally funded program, does pay for some costs.  However, it does not really matter because it all comes out of taxpayer dollars.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), using official Department of Justice data on criminal immigrants in the nation‘s correctional system, reported the following: – Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were by criminal immigrants.  In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.  In addition, during those years, criminal immigrants accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York.  That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.

It gets worse: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed (deported) 235,413 criminal illegal immigrants nationwide in 2015, 49% percent of whom had previously been convicted of a criminal offense.  Although the numbers are down since 2012, they are still substantial.  Do the reduced numbers mean that there are fewer illegal immigrants coming into the country or does it mean that ICE has smaller resources to do its job or does it mean they are told to stand down?  In 2013 and 2014 ICE set free more than 66,000 illegal immigrant criminals who had over
166,000 convictions (30,000 for drunk or drug impaired driving, 414 kidnappings, over 11,000 rapes or other sexual assaults, and 395 homicides).  Since their release, many of those have already been convicted of new crimes including felonies.

It gets still worse: The invasion of illegal immigrants has established and empowered many in the form of street gangs.  Their growth is fueled by money obtained easily through drug smuggling and sales.  A 2011 FBI report makes many connections between the Mexican drug cartels and various U.S.based gangs.  An out of hand financial and social disruption cost to American citizens just continues to grow.

To make matters worse yet: Laws in sanctuary cities help shield illegal immigrants from deportation, despite astonishing statistics on violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants.  These laws, in many cases, are in direct opposition to Federal immigration laws.  Sadly, the U.S. Senate refuses to crack down on America‘s nearly 300 sanctuary cities.

A 2014 Reuters article stated that a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 70% of Americans are deeply worried that illegal immigration is threatening the nation‘s culture and economy.  Concerns include job losses, the social landscape, how much insurance costs rise, and other related issues.  Since illegal immigrants typically take low skill, low paying jobs, it would be logical to surmise that some portion of those jobs are being taken away from legal immigrants or rightful American citizens.  When that happens, few good choices remain.  They are usually left with the choice to go back to their home country, get some kind of aid, or enter a life of crime.

Illegal immigration is totally out of control and our elected leaders know it.  Securing the borders and fixing the illegal immigration problem should be demanded by all Americans.  Unfortunately, only about six percent of the population thinks it is a major problem (a sharp decline since 2014).  They are either not aware of the enormity of the issue or they are more concerned about other issues.

 

[by Ron Celano, writing for iPatriot.com]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  As we have pointed out previously in various postings, the primary reason why Democrats continue to advocate for amnesty toward illegal immigrants in the US is deceptively simple: They know that by showing mercy and kindness toward illegal immigrants and allowing them to stay in the US (another way of saying they’ll not enforce current immigration laws), they will be creating millions of “instant Democrats” who will show their appreciation by voting for Democrat candidates in upcoming elections.  Democrats are willing to ignore current immigration laws for that simple reason. Does it make any sense to have immigration laws if we are not willing to enforce them? Of course it doesn’t.  Why don’t we just declare our immigration policy to be “come one, come all” so that we are at least honest about it?  Or — and here’s a possible solution we haven’t tried yet — let’s make sure that all illegal immigrants are given a train ticket to Chicago or to Washington, DC. Maybe if millions of illegal immigrants show up where breaking the law is already rampant (as in Chicago, Obama’s home town), or start finding places to live where they might end up living near our senators or representatives, we’ll start seeing some real enforcement of current immigration laws.  Better yet, let’s just add Chicago and Washington, DC to the list of sanctuary cities…that will sure get a response when the situation gets totally out of hand.

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

“Most disastrous president America has ever known”…

I believe Barack Obama will go down in history as the most disastrous president America has ever known.

Barack Obama has been in the saddle riding our country for almost seven years now. And the result has been an unmitigated disaster.

Because of his own racial agitation, there is more race hatred in our country now than at any time in the last fifty years.

Because of his contempt for American power, we are on the defense everywhere in the world.

Because of his assault on our traditional values, our nation finds itself overwhelmed by social changes we didn’t ask for and don’t want.

I’m forced to conclude that Barack Obama is the first and only American president who does not love our country.

If he loved America, he wouldn’t have used the execrable Al Sharpton as his advisor on race, defended radical organizations such as Black Lives Matter, condoned the mob violence that has turned Baltimore and other cities into racial war zones, and enabled the daily attacks our police officers now face.

If he loved America, he wouldn’t be rewarding illegal immigrants whose first act upon setting foot on American soil is breaking one of its fundamental laws.

If he loved America, he wouldn’t have allowed ISIS to become an international threat, appeased the thuggish aggression of Vladimir Putin in Syria and Ukraine, or given Iran, a country that hates us now more than ever, the go-ahead to build the Islamist Bomb.

And most of all, if President Obama loved America, he would defend our most dependable ally Israel, instead of incessantly trying to pull the rug out from under her as she confronts an existential threat to her future.

 

[from a letter sent to us by David Horowitz / HowowitzFreedomCenter.org]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  We post this letter from David Horowitz for two reasons:  (1) It perfectly expresses our own views on the current Oval Office occupant and the job he is (not) doing, and (2), it helps to show that our opinion is shared by many (many) others in our country.

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

Americans should be “gravely concerned” about Obama’s latest boneheaded decision…

It’s one thing for our president to disrespect the Constitution and the enumerated powers specifically granted to the Congress — Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 regarding establishing rules of naturalization.

It is another thing to prosecute states who seek to protect their citizens from the infusion of illegal immigrants, as happened with Arizona. However, this latest revelation has to cause EVERY American citizen grave concern — unless you do not believe in the sovereignty of this Constitutional Republic.

As reported by the Washington Times, “Most of the illegal immigrant criminals Homeland Security officials released from custody last year were discretionary, meaning the department could have kept them in detention but chose instead to let them onto the streets as their deportation cases moved through the system, according to new numbers from Congress.

“Some of those released were the worst of the worst — more than 3,700 ‘Threat Level 1’ criminals, who are deemed the top priority for deportation, were still released out into the community even as they waited for their immigration cases to be heard. Homeland Security officials have implied their hands are tied by court rulings in many cases, but the numbers, obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, showed 57 percent of the criminals released were by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s own choice, and they could have been kept instead.”

Incredibly enough, we have a presidential administration that is placing our nation and its citizens in harm’s way — and for what reason? Threat Level 1 criminals are indeed the worst of violators — and should be expedited for deportation, not discretionary release.

Perhaps instead of spending trillions of dollars on Obamacare, we ought to focus on this very important national and domestic security issue. It’s almost as if the Obama administration is mirroring what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq — setting violent criminals free.

The pressing question has to be, why? Why would the Department of Homeland Security – and by the way we also found out this week the TSA failed 96 percent of security breach tests — purposefully put the American people in danger?

Is it not enough that we must deal with the evident threat of domestic Islamic jihadism against our citizens with beheadings? Now we must learn that our own government is releasing high-level criminal illegal immigrants into the public.

And combining this with the focused demonization of our law enforcement by this current administration just exacerbates this situation.

The Washington Times writes, “In fiscal year 2014, ICE put about 41,000 immigrants through electronic monitoring, and more than 30,000 of them broke the terms of their release — many of them racking up multiple violations. All told, they notched nearly 300,000 violations in one year alone, or an average of 10 instances per violator. The rate has gone down slightly so far in fiscal year 2015. Of the 34,002 immigrants put into electronic monitoring, 27,317 have broken the rules a combined 162,322 times. Of the more than 30,000 detainees who broke the conditional terms of their release and monitoring in 2014, only 2,420 were deemed to have been serious enough breaches to rearrest them. Agency officials said they would like to be able to hold those who willfully break the rules, but they haven’t requested more beds.”

Want an idea of what happened in 2013? Here you go: “In 2013, the agency released 36,007 convicted criminals who were awaiting the outcome of their deportation cases. Those released had amassed 116 homicide convictions, 15,635 drunken driving convictions and 9,187 convictions stemming from what ICE labeled involvement with ‘dangerous drugs.'”

Ok, I know the liberal progressives reading this missive — and I know y’all do — are fuming and asking what would I do about it? Well, it’s simple. You know all those BRAC bases — you guys know what I’m talking about, right? Ok, I will explain. The Base Realignment and Closure military facilities could be used for housing these criminal illegal immigrants, segregated, and process them for deportation. It’s just like the elaborate state-of-the art courtroom facility at GITMO that sees little to no use — then again, unlawful enemy combatants have no legal rights. And criminal illegal immigrants caught in America shouldn’t either.

Even more disrespectful for the hardworking, law-abiding American taxpayer is that illegal immigrants will be receiving tax refunds by way of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) even if they have not worked in the United States — how does that happen?

I can only put this in simple blunt language. If this is the America you want, then continue to support and vote for liberal progressive socialists who are telling us they care little about our safety and security. Obama articulated that the goal of his illegal and unconstitutional executive order for “dreamers” was to focus on deporting criminal illegal immigrants — instead, it was another lie as they are just being released into society.

Our American children have dreams…how many have had theirs adversely affected by Obama administration releasing criminal illegal immigrants?

This is yet another instance of an arrogant and incompetent president telling America to take it or leave it.

 

[by Allen West, writing for his blog]

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

US government, at Obama’s direction, now paying (and paying) for illegal aliens to COME HERE to America…

The Migration Policy Institute has just issued a new report titled “Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States.” It attributes the 2014 surge of children into the country illegally to two factors: (1) violence and poor economic conditions and (2) reconnecting with family in the United States.

A border enforcement advocacy group is taking the Obama administration to task for using taxpayer funds to pay for transporting illegal immigrants to the U.S. under the guise of “family reunification.”

A spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) argues that the administration is actually aiding and abetting people who want to come into the United States illegally. “They are arranging to fly them up to the United States, rather than have them come through Mexico and make that journey,” explains Ira Mehlman. “The policy of this administration is basically if you get here we’re going to let you in – and unless you commit some really heinous crime, you’re going to get to stay.”  (NORM ‘n’ AL emphasis)

According to Mehlman, Congress could have taken action to prevent the administration from being able to transport those individuals using taxpayers’ money.

“[Lawmakers] had the opportunity to defund his amnesty programs,” he explains. “John Boehner and Mitch McConnell felt like they needed to back down when it was actually the president and [then-Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid who were holding the budget for the Department of Homeland Security hostage to their political goals.”

Jack Martin with ImmigrationReform.com wrote last month that the administration chose to ignore that its “unilateral – and legally questionable – declaration of the limited amnesty policy” of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) could explain the surge.

[by Chad Groening, writing for OneNewsNow.com]

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Once again: Why would the administration do all this? For one reason, and one reason only. All the illegals who get to stay here are going to be grateful for the opportunity. They will stay in the US and escape the drug cartels, the poverty, the lack of many basics, that Americans take for granted. So grateful will they be, think the Democrats, that they will vote Democratic in any and all upcoming elections. In other words, Obama is leading the illegal program to bring aliens here and keep them here solely because it’s a behind-our-backs way to buy more votes for Dem candidates. Don’t let anyone try to tell you that Obama is anything but a liar, a scoundrel, and somebody who is taking the US for everything it can give him. He has absolutely NO thought, ever, of doing what is right and honest and best for the country that — BIG mistake — elected him.

……………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Texas judge rules Obama’s illegal amnesty plan will remain suspended and inactive, criticizes Obama and his attorneys for deliberately misleading the court

Obama’s new deportation amnesty will remain halted, a federal judge in Texas ruled Tuesday night in an order that also delivered a judicial spanking to the president’s lawyers for misleading the court.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who first halted the amnesty in February, just two days before it was to take effect, said he’s even more convinced of his decision now, particularly after Obama earlier this year said he intends for his policies to supersede federal laws.

Judge Hanen pointed to Obama’s comments at a February town hall when the president warned immigration agents to adhere to his policies or else face “consequences.”

“In summary, the chief executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with the 2014 DHS directive are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished,” Judge Hanen wrote.

“This is not merely ineffective enforcement, this is total non-enforcement,” the judge continued, saying that Mr. Obama’s own descriptions of how he is carrying out his policies have hurt his case.

Mr. Obama in November announced a new amnesty for illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. The amnesty could apply to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

Texas and 25 other states sued to stop Obama, and Judge Hanen sided with them, finding that they suffered an economic harm from the policy, granting them standing in court, and then finding that the president broke the law in bypassing Congress to announce his policy.

The administration has appealed Judge Hanen’s ruling, but also asked the judge to reconsider.

On Tuesday the judge not only refused to reconsider, but also said the administration misled him when it said no part of the amnesty had been implemented, and the lawyers bungled their attempt to try to repair the damage by filing an “advisory” with the judge early last month.

Since November, the administration had been granting a three-year amnesty to illegal immigrant Dreamers under the new policy. That’s a year longer than the two-year program Obama announced for the Dreamers in 2012.

Judge Hanen said he may still issue sanctions against the government for misleading him — though he declined to strike the government’s pleadings, saying that while it may be warranted, it would do a disservice to the weighty issues at stake in the case, including fundamental issues of presidential power.

Judge Hanen gave tremendous weight in his 15-page ruling to Obama’s February town hall when he described how he would carry out his policy and warned immigration agents of “consequences” to not following his dictates.

Just hours before Judge Hanen ruled, however, the appeals court that oversees him ruled in a separate challenge to Mr. Obama’s 2012 amnesty for Dreamers, and ignored the president’s warnings of consequences to agents. In that case, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that agents had ultimate discretion about whether or not to follow the new policies.

The Fifth Circuit next week will hold oral arguments on the government’s appeal of Judge Hanen’s ruling, and immigrant-rights activists said they hoped Tuesday’s ruling on the 2012 amnesty showed the court was inclined to allow Obama’s 2014 amnesty to take effect as well.

[by Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times]

………………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Houston (TX) Independent School District inundated with independent (no parents here) immigrant students…

A report obtained by Breitbart Texas from the Houston Independent School District (HISD) revealed the influx of unaccompanied minors over the summer from Central America lead to an increased enrollment of 3,000 students. The total student population for HISD is over 215,000 which represents the largest total enrollment for HISD since the 1970’s.

The total immigrant population for HISD currently sits at 8,409 students according to a memo written by HISD’s Government Relations Director Ashlea Graves. The memo was received by Breitbart Texas from a government source wishing to remain anonymous. Graves confirmed the authenticity of the memo in a phone conversation with Breitbart Texas.

Honduras, Mexico and El Salvador lead the list of 43 nations from around the globe with immigrant students enrolled in HISD. This immigrant enrollment includes legal and illegal immigrants and includes the 3,000 unaccompanied minors listed above according to Graves.

The charts shown below summarizes HISD immigrant data as of an October 31, 2014 snapshot. For the purposes of this data chart, immigrant students are only considered so during their first three years of enrollment in the school district.

The unaccompanied minors enrolling in HISD this fall represent an increase of over 1,000 students per month. No estimated costs for educating these students were reflected in the report. However, in August, Breitbart Texas’ Kristin Tate reported Texas taxpayers would be on the hook for an estimated $45 million in education costs for the unaccompanied minors. That number was based upon an estimated 4,800 foreign minors that were reportedly set free in Texas. Texas Education Agency (TEA) General Counsel David Anderson estimated the cost per student at about $9,500 per student because of the need for bilingual special education teachers.

Using the number provided by the TEA, the estimated cost to HISD taxpayers would be over $28 million for the 3,000 unaccompanied minors now enrolled in the district.

The memo states that while Mexican students have not been the focus of media attention recently, their enrollment accounts for the second largest source of immigrant students with 1,261 students. Their enrollment is mostly in the secondary level schools. Honduras leads the list of immigrant students with 1,385. El Salvador trails Mexico with 1,227 students. Rounding out the top five countries are Guatemala with 402 and India with 347.

The students are spread throughout the district but HISD reports show most of the immigrants are enrolled in the Southwest area of the school district with a few schools in the Southeast and some in the North.

Ashlea Graves told Breitbart Texas the numbers were compiled by Dr. Gracie Guerrero, HISD’s Assistant Superintendent for Multilingual Programs and was sent out to local, state and federal elected officials to update public officials on HISD’s response to the influx of unaccompanied minors.

[by Bob Price, writing for BREITBART.COM]

………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Guess we now have all the proof we need…

It’s No Secret… The Implementation Of A Large-Scale Executive-Order Amnesty Program Has Already Begun.

The announcement is imminent and the Obama Regime is already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. Jonathan Strong with Breitbart.com issued the following report:

“Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a ‘surge’ scenario of 9 million id cards in one year ‘to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.’ … The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards.”

Of course, the Obama Regime is already trying to tell us that 34 million blank green cards does not necessarily translate to legalizing 34 million illegal aliens… and they’re right. History teaches us that legalizing millions of illegal aliens will only give the green light to an even greater number who will follow. It’s likely that Barack Obama actually wants to encourage MILLIONS of additional illegal aliens, beyond the 34 million, to come into the United States.

We already know that legalizing illegal aliens only encourages exponentially more illegal border crossings. Back in 2006, The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector issued a report that said, in part: “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens… the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased fivefold… It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country.”

So here are some legitimate questions: If the illegal alien population increased from 2.7 million to 10-12 million after we enacted the last amnesty, what will happen if Barack Obama is permitted — against the will of Congress and the American people — to legalize up to 34 million illegal aliens now? How many tens of millions more will follow in anticipation of the next amnesty?

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Even more important, what will happen to millions of present low-income workers, many of whom are black, when suddenly there are millions of new and unskilled illegal aliens in the marketplace looking for jobs?  Will employers hire the new applicants who are going to be willing to work for even less?  Of course they will.

 

Did you know that almost 900,000 illegal aliens who are facing final deportation orders are still in the United States? Did you know that approximately 167,000 of them are convicted criminals who were released by ICE and are presently roaming our streets?

Breitbart.com again:

“The [Center for Immigration Studies] CIS report released Wednesday and authored by the group’s director of policy studies, Jessica Vaughan, details the decline in immigration enforcement and reveals that there remain nearly 167,000 convicted criminal immigrants with final orders of removal still in the United States and ‘currently at large.’ “‘Prosecutorial discretion as practiced by the Obama administration has transformed immigration enforcement into a massive catch-and-release program that makes a joke of the law, fails to deter illegal settlement, and allows even illegal aliens who commit crimes to remain here,’ Vaughan said Wednesday. “‘As of the end of the 2013 fiscal year, the total number of post-final-order aliens remaining in the country was 872,504,’ Vaughn wrote in her report, noting that the number of post-final-order aliens as of Sept. 20, 2014 is now 897,572.”

And understand, Vaughan is not saying that 167,000 of the illegal aliens in this country are convicted criminals. Oh no… she’s saying that ICE had custody of 167,000 convicted criminals who were simply released back into our cities and towns even though the federal government had every legal right to immediately deport them.

So, here’s a question: How many convicted criminals will be roaming our streets once Barack Obama opens the floodgates with his covert amnesty scheme?

 

[from PATRIOT UPDATE]

 

TIME TO CALL OR WRITE TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AGAIN, FOLKS.  MR. O IS DETERMINED TO DO WHATEVER HE CAN TO LATCH ONTO NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS, AND IF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS SUDDENLY GET AMNESTY HERE, DO YOU THINK THEY MIGHT BE GRATEFUL ENOUGH TO VOTE THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT AGENDA IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS?  DON’T WAIT ON THIS ONE…MAKE THAT PHONE CALL NOW!

 

………………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970