“Immigration: A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. But that report really shows how little they pay compared to the rest of us.
If there’s any doubt America is importing poverty, take a look at a new study this week from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which touts the $11.6 billion illegals pay in taxes to state and local coffers. This isn’t federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees.
“Data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars,” ITEP state tax policy director Meg Wiehe said in a statement. “With immigration policy playing a key role in state and national debates, accurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants is needed now more than ever.”
We couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at some actual accurate information:
With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that $11.6 billion comes to about $1,050 per person, which The Latin Post hails as “lots of taxes.” In fact, it’s less than the average paid by citizens in even the lowest-tax states, such as Tennessee, where the average per capita state and local tax burden is $2,805, not to mention high tax areas, like Washington, D.C., where the figure is $7,540, according to data from the Tax Foundation. Media reports point out that illegals pay about 8% of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 5.4% for “the 1%,” but ignore that average taxpayers, based on the Tax Foundation data, pay an average of 9.48%.
Well, sure, you might say, but once illegals get amnesty, they will contribute similar amounts as the rest of us, right? Actually, no.
Illegals have far less education than average Americans and correspondingly lower base incomes. Based on another study reported this week from two other center-left think tanks, if the U.S. handed out work permits, through a program such as Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it would add only 10% to illegals’ incomes — meaning, an additional $3,000 per capita, which would then see a small slice taken as state and local taxes, for a grand total of just $805 million to the government. It still wouldn’t approach the average Tennessee local tax rates, cited above.
Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.
With benefits like that — and a president determined to shower even more on them — it’s little wonder the world’s impoverished feel the red carpet is out for them to come here illegally.
Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Heritage understates actual welfare use by illegals by its use of the federal government’s Current Population Survey. “In a more recent study where I looked at welfare use only (not taxes or other expense) using the much more accurate Survey of Income and Program Participation, I found that 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used at least one major welfare program,” Camarota told IBD via email.
“Bottom line, illegal immigrants have a 10th grade education on average,” he said. “In the modern American economy people with that level of education tend to make modest wages and as result pay relatively little in taxes, at the same time they tend to use a lot in public services, regardless of legal status. In the case of illegals, they often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. If you had to put it in a bumper sticker it would be: ‘there is a high cost to cheap labor.'”
Imam With Muslim Brotherhood Ties is Main Plaintiff in Hawaii Case Blocking Trump Travel Ban
It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially running our foreign policy
“The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an Imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries according to research by WND.
Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.
One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.
Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.
Super. Our digital vetting system gave citizenship or green cards to thousands who were ordered deported
“That plan for “extreme vetting” may turn out to be extremely problematic, but don’t blame it on Donald Trump. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service began working on a program in 2006 designed to bring the vetting of immigrants into the digital era.
Unfortunately, as this new report from NextGov shows, it ran into problems almost immediately and even after implementation began it wound up being fraught with glitches and running “extremely” over budget.
Shutdowns, delays and budget overruns in the information technology system the government’s immigration service uses could allow terrorists or criminals to mistakenly receive citizenship or green cards, lawmakers fretted Thursday.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ tech troubles date back to 2006 when the agency began a massive program to create an Electronic Immigration System, or ELIS.
That project, spearheaded by IBM, had stumbled miserably by 2012 when USCIS cut the project up into shorter time frames with smaller deliverables. Since then, the project has continued to suffer bugs and delays, the agency and its auditors testified before a House Homeland Security Committee panel.
Forget about inefficiency and cost overruns. This next bit is the part that really caught everyone’s attention. We’ve been handing out green cards and citizenship papers to people who were supposed to have been loaded on a bus headed for the border. And we’re not just talking about a few here. (Emphasis added)
Because of system bugs, shifts between manual and digital processing and other issues, USCIS erroneously issued about 20,000 green cards and granted citizenship to more than 800 people who had previously been ordered deported during the past six months, an auditor found.
This project is years behind schedule, and while we’re used seeing Uncle Sam frittering away large amounts of the taxpayer’s money, being $1 billion in the hole is nothing to sneeze at. But that’s really not the alarming part here. It’s one thing to be concerned over whether or not tough immigration policies are depriving qualified applicants of good intent a chance to become citizens. It’s quite another to find out that the system is failing in the opposite direction and that nearly a thousand people who had previously been scheduled for deportation were mistakenly granted citizenship with another 20,000 getting green cards. And that was just in a six month period. How many have we done this for in total since 2012?”
Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu: ‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’
“In one of the first reactions from Ankara to the Dutch election result, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, warned that Europe was heading towards the abyss and that ‘holy wars’ would soon begin on the continent – this coming despite the fact that nationalist Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, was pushed into second place by the center right Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.
Çavuşoğlu, who has been addressing Turkish crowds across Europe ahead of a constitutional referendum in Turkey next month, was refused permission to land in Holland for a campaign rally on Saturday, sparking a heated diplomatic row and street protests which dominated the final days of the Dutch election campaign.
The dramatic war of words, which saw Ankara accuse the Dutch government of ‘fascism’ and of being a ‘Nazi remnant’, has grown in recent days to include other Western European nations which have restricted Turkish political rallies on their soil, most notably Austria and Germany, but also Denmark and Switzerland.
Recent months have seen mass demonstrations and rallies, with seas of red ‘star and crescent’ flags greeting Turkish ministers campaigning in Europe on behalf of their government’s referendum proposal. The sheer size of some rallies has caused unease, highlighting the scale of Europe’s burgeoning foreign populations and offering a glimpse of the continent’s demographic future.
Of the millions of Turks living in Europe, some five million – many of them dual citizens – are eligible to vote in the referendum, set for April 16th, which seeks to significantly increase the powers of authoritarian Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Speaking at a rally east of Istanbul just hours after his foreign minister’s controversial comments, Erdoğan accused the EU of launching an anti-Islamic ‘crusade’ between the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent, referring to Tuesday’s ruling by the EU Court of Justice which would allow employers to prohibit political and religious symbols in the workplace, including the wearing of the Islamic veil.
‘They have commenced a struggle between the cross and crescent. There is no other explanation than this. I am saying this clearly – Europe is heading toward the days just before World War II,’ Erdoğan stated in combative tone.
Following on from comments by his foreign minister earlier this week, Erdoğan again threatened to end the year-old migrant deal signed between the EU and Turkey, which could see millions of migrants flood into Europe from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria.
Of some six million migrants seeking to enter Europe from countries surrounding the Mediterranean, an estimated three million are currently waiting in Turkey, according to a leaked German intelligence report published last month, a figure Erdoğan is fond of raising in negotiations with the EU.”
Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”
“In quick succession on Wednesday night, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban. They said statements Mr. Trump had made as a presidential candidate, including his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” helped doom the executive order.
The judges said Mr. Trump’s promises to impose a “Muslim ban” were too telling and categorical to be ignored. “Simply because a decision maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them” from judicial memory, wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Federal District Court in Maryland.
Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”
But decisions about religious discrimination allow courts to consider government officials’ real purposes, even if their stated ones are neutral.
The Supreme Court has said judges may not turn a blind eye to the context in which government policies on religion arose. “Reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” Justice David H. Souter wrote in a leading religion case.
Justice Department lawyers had urged the judges to ignore Mr. Trump’s speeches on the campaign trail. “Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not official acts,” the government said in a brief in the Maryland case. “They generally are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet-unformed administration, and cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted.”
The courts had to navigate two bodies of precedents, pointing in different directions. In cases concerning immigration and national security, most decisions suggest that courts should not look behind the stated government rationale.
Courts have only rarely used statements from candidates to judge the constitutionality of government actions. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, took account of campaign materials from Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court to judge his actions concerning a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.
In the context of immigration and efforts to combat terror, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to look behind official actions to root out authentic motives. In 2006, in a case concerning detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized a dissenting justice for relying on “press statements” from sitting Defense Department officials. “We have not heretofore, in evaluating the legality of executive action, deferred to comments made by such officials to the media,” Justice Stevens wrote. If even statements from government officials are out of bounds, it would follow that statement from political candidates should carry no weight.
In a 1972 immigration case concerning a Marxist scholar denied a visa, the Supreme Court similarly said it would not “look behind” the government’s “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”
Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America
“In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.
The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.
The judge then held that American universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.
Such arrogance and abuse of authority sound familiar? Such First Amendment favoritism toward Islam sound familiar? Well, Obama did appoint this judge, and a rule of thumb with federal judges is they tend to mirror the psychologies of the man who appointed them.
The judge’s ruling is completely lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order. In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s prior order.
To give you an idea of how lawless the decision is, just try to find the analogous case the Hawaii judge cites for his ruling; there is none, not one single prior example of another judge ever doing what this Judge did to the extent he did it.
To give you another example of how baseless the court’s ruling is, even liberal law professors and scribes criticized the more limited Ninth Circuit decision that this Hawaii judge goes far beyond. Liberal law professor Turley noted Trump should win a challenge against that ruling. Liberal democrat professor Alan Dershowitz noted the same. Liberal law scribe Jeffrey Toobin conceded the same.
Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column:
“The district court judge in Hawaii, who was a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with former President Obama – and, in fact, Obama was in Hawaii yesterday before the decision was issued, so some people have speculated on the coincidence of that. But he issued a decision that blocks the ability of anybody to enforce the order anywhere,” Barnes said. “So he went beyond just the district of Hawaii. He said no state can enforce it. Nobody in any part of the country can enforce it. Nobody anywhere in the administration can enforce it. He issued what’s called a nationwide injunction, and it precludes any application of the order, pretty much, on any aspect of the order, pretty much, until there’s further review.”
“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”
“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.
“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.
“So it’s an extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn’t be any limit, and the president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a Muslim imam in Hawaii,” he contended.
Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.”
Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order
Last night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the second immigration order of President Donald Trump from going into effect on Thursday.
The 43-page opinion is scathing and relies not only on the statements of President Trump but the recent statements of his chief aide Stephen Miller. While I respectfully disagree with Judge Watson and view his decision as contrary to the weight of existing case law, the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation.
Watson found that there was a “strong likelihood of success” for challengers because “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.” He strongly dismissed the argument that this is not a religious ban since it did not impact the vast majority of Muslims: “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
As previously discussed, I believe that the odds favor the Administration in prevailing in the long run. It could face a mix of decisions on the lower courts as it did with the first order. However, this order is a better product and presumably the Justice Department will markedly improve its performance in the defense of the order. I do not see how a strong likelihood of prevailing could be maintained on existing case law, particularly under the establishment clause.”
“Here we go again. Last month it was Seattle District Judge James L. Robart who decided he had the authority to contravene the president’s executive order “on a nationwide basis,” temporarily banning entry into the United States of people from seven terrorist hot spots (Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc.). Come on in folks, don’t mind the laws of the United States! All are welcome.
Judge Robart, whom no one had ever heard of before, got a lot of play in the anti-Trump media (which is to say, the media tout court) and has doubtless been dining out on that sever since.
As I said at the time, Judge Robart’s restraining order, especially its nationwide application, struck me as legally dubious and, practically speaking, unworkable. Can we really have six or seven hundred district judges making policy for the entire country? For make no mistake, that’s what Judge Robart did. At the behest — or with the collusion — of a couple of blue state attorneys general, Judge Robart decided that he had the authority to contravene a legally framed executive order issued by the president of the United States and to make himself, Judge James L. Robart, the supreme law of the land.
Since he happened to reflect the establishment anti-Trump consensus, it was all a big hit with the establishment anti-Trump media. So it is no surprise that in the wake of the president’s new travel ban, another grandstanding judge — several of them, in fact — is eager to horn in on the publicity. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson from Hawaii made a bid for his fifteen minutes of notoriety and blocked the travel ban just hours before it was set to take effect. According to Judge Watson, the travel ban was not about national security, as the president said, but “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus.”
I’d say that was ridiculous on the face of it. If Donald Trump wanted to institute a travel ban against Muslims, why would he neglect to include countries in which more than 85 percent of Muslims live? No, the ban has to do with national security, not religion. But leave that to one side. The real issue is: Who asked Judge Watson? As Andrew McCarthy has explained with his usual perspicacity when Judge Robart weighed in on the first travel ban, the president has plenary power to decide who may and who may not travel to the United States.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).
In other words, Donald Trump’s travel bans were perfectly legal.
But legality is not the issue. Political warfare is the name of the game. Judge Watson, joined by a handful of his anti-Trump confrères and the vast majority of the media elite, has decided that the judiciary, not the executive branch, is in charge of international relations and foreign affairs. (In fact, they believe that the judiciary, so long as it hews to a progressive agenda, is in charge of everything, but that is an issue for another day.)
Now the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the case, is famously latitudinarian. It sided with Judge Robart in his original TRO last month. But things may be different this time around. Yesterday, five judges said they considered that decision incorrect. “Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the president or the executive order,” Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit wrote, “the president’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency.”
For his part, Donald Trump blasted the “unprecedented judicial overreach” of Judge Watson. What’s next? The president has vowed to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Absent a ninth member of that Court, the decision is likely to be split 4-4, thus affirming the lower Court’s decision. So in part this story might be called “Waiting for Gorsuch.”
But I suspect the left-leaning judicial supremacists may have pulled off a scab from a wound that now will fester. There are various expedients that could be pursued. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the U.S. has to maintain a District Court system at all. A Supreme Court, yes. There it is in Article 3. But Judge Robart’s or Judge Watson’s perch? Tell me where the Constitution specifies that. Nor does the Constitution say anything about judicial compensation; perhaps it should be zero. Who knows what the ingenuity of man might discover?”
HuffPo removed post “Trump is Absolutely Right About Sweden,” but you can read it here
– Legal Insurrection
“Huffington Post hates Donald Trump.
Af first, it refused to cover his primary campaign in the Politics section, putting coverage instead in the Entertainment section. Of course, the joke was on HuffPo, since that move proved it wasn’t a serious news organization.
Then, HuffPo added a “disclaimer” to the end of each column about Trump: “Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”
That didn’t stop Trump from winning the presidency.
How far will HuffPo go to hurt Trump? Far enough to delete a post that credited Trump with being right in his comments about Sweden having problems due to mass immigration and migration.
The media falsely claimed Trump’s comment was about a non-existent terrorist attack the night before, when in fact it was a general comment about Sweden’s problems. Trump’s statements were followed just days later with an immigrant riot in Sweden, bearing out his warning.
An author at HuffPo wrote a post, “Trump is Absolutely Right About Sweden.” It was a huge hit, shared almost 10,000 times while it was live:
But Google Cache saved it (also archived), and here it is:
Trump is absolutely right about Sweden
Sweden has huge problems because of liberal immigration policy
Many journalists around the world are eager to condemn Donald Trump no matter what. When he tweeted about immigration in Sweden few days ago, the social media exploded. Most of the opponent said that Trump had made up the immigration problem Sweden are having. They are wrong.
Only hours later there was a riot of violence and destructions by immigrants in the capitol of Sweden, Stockholm. The police was forced to shoot with ammunition to put and end to it. In Malmö, another city south in Sweden they have struggle with gang violence and lawlessness for years. So when Trump talk about that Sweden have an immigration problem he is actually spot on.
It’s well known for Scandinavians and other Europeans that liberal immigration comes with drugs, rapes, gang wars, robbery and violence. Additional to that we see the respective nations cultures fading away, for good and for bad.
But the immigration problem is not only a Swedish predicament. The truth is, that several European cities have huge immigration problems where even the police force is afraid to interfere in some locations in these cities. UK, France and several other European countries are changing rapidly with extreme quantity of immigration. I’m not saying immigration is only bad, but a lot of problems come with poor immigration policy, as consequences we get violence, terror and gangs. The fact is that the press here in Europe hasn’t doing their job properly. There is this fear for journalists to not report the basic truth – which is that Europe has enormous problems that comes from liberal immigration politics, and as we also now can see in Sweden, but also here in Norway. But it’s not political correct for journalists to say or write that immigration in Europe is unsuccessful.
When that said, most of the people that come from other countries are behaving flawless and are a gift to our society, but then again to report that everything is all good is simply wrong and these journalists should find another job, because they do not have enough integrity that requires to be decent journalist.”
– Note: The Swedish migration policy is based on the French example. /CJ
‘Cologne is every day’: Europe’s rape epidemic
“GERMANY, Sweden and other European countries are facing growing public unrest amid a wave of reports of sexual assaults since the Cologne attacks.
New York-based conservative think tank Gatestone Institute has compiled a shocking list of sexual assaults and rapes by migrants in Germany in just the first two months of the year.
Drawing only from German media reports, the list documents more than 160 instances of rape and sexual assault committed by migrants in train stations, swimming pools and other public places against victims as young as seven.
German police use terms such as “southerners” (südländer), men with “dark skin” (dunkelhäutig, dunklere gesichtsfarbe, dunklem hauttyp) or “southern skin colour” (südländische hautfarbe) to describe the alleged perpetrators.
Authorities across the country have been accused of downplaying the true extent of the problem by suppressing information about migrant-related crimes, ostensibly due to a “lack of public interest”.
Police are also wary of fuelling civil unrest amid a rising number of attacks on migrants and shelters by right-wing vigilante groups. In response, Germans are increasingly turning to social media to spread information.
A German Twitter account, @XYEinzelfall (“individual cases”), has created a Google map to track police reports of crimes allegedly committed by migrants across the region. “Cologne was just the tip of the iceberg,” the page says. “Cologne is every day.”
Most recently, three girls aged 15, 16 and 17 were assaulted over two hours by a mob of up to 30 migrants at a shopping centre in the northern city of Kiel.
Since the attack, which began when two Afghan men began stalking the teenagers and sharing photos on social media, other women have come forward to report similar experiences.
“Groups of young men gather at the Sophienhof [shopping centre] every evening,” a restaurant owner told the Kieler Nachrichten newspaper.
“What they do here is unacceptable. The moment they see a young woman wearing a skirt or any type of loose clothing, they believe they have a free pass. It is about time migrants are made to understand: things in Germany function differently than in their home countries.”
However, refugee advocates have warned against tarring all migrants with the same brush, noting that the alleged crimes are rare incidents in the context of the enormous number of migrants who have come to Europe.
More than 1.1 million migrants flooded into Germany in 2015 and the country is expecting 3.6 million to arrive by 2020, according to internal government estimates.”
How Sweden became an example of how not to handle immigration
– Spectator UK
“For a British boy to be killed by a grenade attack anywhere is appalling, but for it to happen in a suburb of Gothenburg should shatter a few illusions about Sweden. Last week’s murder of eight-year-old Yuusuf Warsame fits a pattern that Swedes have come slowly to recognise over the years. He was from Birmingham, visiting relatives, and was caught up in what Swedish police believe is a gang war within the Somali community. Last year, a four-year-old girl was killed by a car bomb outside Gothenburg, another apparent victim of gang violence.”
Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos and Outcry Worldwide
– New York Times
“A federal judge in Brooklyn came to the aid of scores of refugees and others who were trapped at airports across the United States on Saturday after an executive order signed by President Trump, which sought to keep many foreigners from entering the country, led to chaotic scenes across the globe.
The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions.
The high-stakes legal case played out on Saturday amid global turmoil, as the executive order signed by the president slammed shut the borders of the United States for an Iranian scientist headed to a lab in Massachusetts, a Syrian refugee family headed to a new life in Ohio and countless others across the world.
The president’s order, enacted with the stroke of a pen at 4:42 p.m. Friday, suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The Department of Homeland Security said that the order also barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States. In a briefing for reporters, White House officials said that green card holders from the seven affected countries who are outside the United States would need a case-by-case waiver to return.”
– Fine, a limited and very small part of President Trump’s executive order is blocked by a federal judge in New York. We need to be aware that this is more a media event than a legal one. It now gives the left wing echo chamber plenty of fake news to go on about for the next week.
Many will be misled by their end of the echo chamber, ensuring a frothing of the base, but little else.
It would be major news, if this federal order encourages a major effort to restrict the executive’s perogative and duty to enforce immigration law. This order is not it. /CJ
Federal Judge Grants Partial Block Of Trump Immigration Order
– ZeroHedge | Tyler Durden
“Symbolic war broke out between the Judicial and Executive branches shortly before 9pm on Saturday evening, when federal judge Ann Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn issued an emergency stay halting Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from seven mostly Muslim nations entering the US, and temporarily letting people who landed in U.S. with valid visa to remain on US territory, saying removing the refugees could cause “irreparable harm”.
However, while some media reports present the court ruling as a wholesale victory over Trump’s order, the stay only covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit, and it does not change the ban going forward.
What will disappoint civil rights advocates, is that this opinion only affects the small number of people who were in-transit when the order was issued, and arrived after it went into effect. The Constitution attaches to their status, and they cannot be held in violation of the Due Process Clause. The same analysis does not apply to aliens outside the United States.
We now look forward to Trump’s reaction to this act of defiance by a US Court which has partially – and painfully – voided his most controversial executive order to date, and whether the Supreme Court will be forced to opine on this most divisive of topics in the coming days. If anything, the risk to the latter may accelerate the prompt appointment of a conservative SCOTUS judge to fill the vacant Scalia spot.”
IS THE TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON REFUGEES CONSTITUTIONAL?
“Curiously, the order notes the 9-11 attacks but the order does not cover the countries that were the sources for those attackers, including Saudi Arabia and UAE. I think that this order is a mistake and contradicts our values. However, I do not agree with some of my colleagues at GW and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional. Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.
he 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Even President Jimmy Carter used such authority. Executive Order 12172 involves an order to force 50,000 Iranian students living in the United States report to an immigration office and face possible deportation. Thousands were deported.”