Americans Do Not Support Sanctuary Cities: 84% of Voters Want Illegal Aliens Turned Over to Authorities
“Democratic pollster Mark Penn, who served as chief strategist for Hillary Clinton‘s 2008 presidential campaign, said on Thursday that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support sanctuary cities.
Appearing on The Hill TV, Penn asserted that 84 percent of Americans support turning illegal aliens over to federal agents.
“I asked them ‘do you think notifying ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] would in fact increase crime because it would inhibit people from reporting crimes or does it decrease crimes because it takes criminals off the street,’ and they overwhelming said ‘decrease crime,’” Penn told The Hill.
“When someone’s arrested, they expect someone will notify federal immigration authorities just as they would expect someone who violates state tax law,” the pollster said.”
SUPREMES DEAL VICTORY FOR TRUMP, UPHOLD TRAVEL BAN
|| Daily Caller
“A five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in full the latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel sanctions Tuesday.
The ruling was an unqualified victory for the Trump administration, after earlier variants of the entry ban were greeted with raucous airport protests and break-neck litigation that left the White House reeling.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
“The president has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under [federal law],” Roberts wrote.
Speaking moments after the Court issued its decision, Trump said the ruling vindicates his immigration and national security priorities.
“The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the United States,” he said. “In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”
“As long as I am president, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American people, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens,” he added.
The ban in its currents form was issued in September 2017. The administration assessed travel penalties against eight countries, who failed to satisfy basic vetting and information-sharing expectations.
A coalition of Democratic states and civil rights groups challenged the proclamation, making two basic arguments. They first alleged the sanctions exceeded Trump’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA, the plaintiffs said, only allows the president to ban the entry of a specific class of dangerous aliens for a limited time. It also provides that the president may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or nationality when issuing visas.
Second, the challengers claimed that the order was issued to disparage Muslims, in violation of the First Amendment’s ban on religious favoritism in government policy.
The high court rejected both these positions. Roberts explained that the INA “exudes deference to the president in every clause,” meaning that courts should not second-guess Trump’s national security findings.
The law sets just one requirement for the president: he must formally determine that the entry of a certain class of aliens is detrimental to U.S. interests. The majority found the administration easily satisfied this demand, as Trump’s order is the most comprehensive proclamation ever issued under the INA.
“The 12-page proclamation — which thoroughly describes the process, agency evaluations, and recommendations underlying the president’s chosen restrictions — is more detailed than any prior order a president has issued under [the INA],” the chief wrote.
With respect to the constitutional argument, the Court similarly concluded that its review should be limited given the national security sensitivities the case involves.
The ruling also identifies what it sees as significant shortcomings of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment argument. Just eight percent of the world’s Muslim population is encompassed by Trump’s sanctions, Roberts noted, and the proclamation itself creates a waiver program open to all affected aliens. Moreover, certain nationals — like exchange students — from sanctioned countries are specifically exempted from the entry ban.
All told, the majority saw these features as incompatible with a supposed Muslim ban.”
‘IT’S A HUMAN RIGHT’: MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ON MASS EXODUS TO AMERICA
| Daily Caller
“Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.
While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.
The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.
Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.”
“President Trump signed an executive order this week allowing adults who illegally enter the United States with children, claiming to be family units, to be detained together in federal facilities.
The question of a valid parental-child relationship is at the center of how the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services handle detainment. Because of fraudulent documentation, profits to smugglers, and false asylum claims, there is essentially no way to prove or verify adults traveling with children are indeed their parents.
In April 2016, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley warned about catch-and-release policies enabling the smuggling industry. In the past, any non-Mexican or Canadian individual illegally crossing the border with a child was considered a family unit, processed and released into the interior. Current zero-tolerance policies require they be detained until prosecution.
“A recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report confirmed that human smuggling rings are exploiting children in order to prevent the detention of the undocumented immigrants they’re smuggling into the United States. They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” he said.
“At least one Honduran interviewed by DHS officials reported that children are kidnapped or adopted then smuggled with their unrelated adult “family member” to the United States. This smuggling practice has bolstered an underground market for counterfeit birth certificates according to the report, which was prepared by the DHS Human Smuggling Cell. Once in the U.S., these children are vulnerable to labor or sex trafficking,” he continued.
Fast-forward to 2018 and this is still the case.
“If there’s no documentation to confirm the claimed relationship between an adult and a child, we [separate] if the parent is a national security, public or safety risk, including when there are criminal charges at issue and it may not be appropriate to maintain the family in detention together,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at the White House Monday.
“We also separate a parent and child if the adult is suspected of human trafficking. There have been cases where minors have been used and trafficked by unrelated adults in an effort to avoid detention,” she continued. “And I’d stop here to say, in the last five months, we have a 314 percent increase in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently claiming to be a family unit. This is, obviously, of concern.”
Current and former Border Patrol and ICE agents who have worked extensively on human trafficking cases continue to have these concerns. Worse, they’re alarmed the majority of current media coverage is downplaying the smuggling angle.
“You can never really verify who the parents really are,” former Border Patrol and Customs Special Agent Jason Piccolo said during an interview with Townhall. “Especially in light of adult males showing up with kids.”
In 2015, Piccolo blew the whistle on the Obama administration releasing unaccompanied minors to unvetted, criminal sponsors. During that time, he served as the sole ICE and Enforcement and Removal Operations representative to the White House Security Council’s DHS Human Smuggling Cell. It was his job to disrupt or dismantle human smuggling organizations domestically and internationally.
“Without doing some kind of in-depth interview or interrogation or some kind of biometrics [DNA] there’s no way you can tell if the kids are actually family,” he said.
Piccolo explained how adults and children are given fake documents, including birth certificates to “prove” they are “related.”
“They’re given fake documents in order to get through Mexico and a lot of times they’ll give those fake documents back,” he said.
Smugglers are hired for as much as $20,000 per person and pair unrelated adults to unrelated children. The entire purpose is to claim asylum, valid or not, with the understanding that “family units” are apprehended and then released to the interior of the United States. Since 2008, asylum claims have ballooned by 1,700 percent according to DHS data.
Under the Obama administration, 80-90 percent of individuals making asylum claims with children were released after being processed and given a court date. Inevitably, they started living in the U.S. illegally for years to come. This is the policy the Trump administration is trying to change.
“When they’re presenting themselves they’d get an asylum interview and they’d get released,” Piccolo said. “It was widely known that the human smuggling cell knew that aliens coming in from South America stated that they were told if they were a family unit they would be released at the border.”
Piccolo suggests a joint effort with USCIS, DHS and FBI is necessary for vetting and that a joint task force must be developed to do interviews and interrogations of adults traveling with children.
“If you really want to fix this problem you have to really vet these adults,” he said. ”