In a sharp rebuke of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democratic Party has declined to endorse the state’s own senior senator in her bid for reelection.
Riven by conflict between progressive and more moderate forces at the state party’s annual convention here, delegates favored Feinstein’s progressive rival, state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a 54 percent to 37 percent margin, according to results announced Sunday.
Neither candidate reached the 60 percent threshold required to receive the party endorsement for 2018. But the snubbing of Feinstein led de León to claim a victory for his struggling campaign.
“The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”
A centrist Democrat, Feinstein has long maintained an uneasy relationship with activists who dominate state party conventions, and the vote this weekend — while embarrassing — was not unexpected.”
California Democrats Decline To Endorse Another Term For Sen. Dianne Feinstein
“Before U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein could finish her speech at the California Democratic Party convention Saturday, the music began playing to indicate she had used her allotted time.
She kept talking. The music got louder. “I guess my time is up,” Feinstein conceded as what sounded like a 1940s movie score continued playing.
Without missing a beat, supporters of her opponent, state Sen. Kevin de León echoed her statement in a chant: “Your time is up! Your time is up!” — a not-so-subtle reference to Feinstein’s 25 years in the U.S. Senate.
It was a sign of things to come. The grass-roots Democratic activists gathered at the party’s annual convention in San Diego this weekend implicitly rebuked the state’s senior U.S. senator by denying her the party’s endorsement for her re-election bid.
Feinstein finished far behind de León, the top Democrat in the state Senate. De León received 54 percent of delegates’ votes to just 37 percent for Feinstein. It takes 60 percent to receive an endorsement.
While the lack of an endorsement certainly won’t keep Feinstein off the ballot, it’s a sign that grass-roots Democrats are eager to supplant leaders who are seen as too moderate and willing to compromise.
Democratic Party activists have never really been Feinstein’s people. In 1990, when she was running for governor, she came to the party convention and expressed her support for the death penalty, eliciting boos from the liberal crowd. She lost the party endorsement to John Van de Kamp but got the nomination anyway, ultimately losing the November election to Pete Wilson.”
ICE Fights Back Against New York City’s Sanctuary Policy
– Daily Caller
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement is feuding with New York City’s stated policy of non-compliance with federal immigration detainers.
The detainers from ICE ask for local law enforcement to hold an illegal immigrant in custody until federal agents can retrieve the illegal alien. An ICE press release Friday said, “ICE arrests convicted Mexican national released from local custody after detainer was ignored.”
ICE officers arrested a Mexican national, Luis Alejandro Villegas, on Wednesday just weeks after he was released by New York Police Department officials who ignored an immigration detainer. Villegas was in local custody for driving while intoxicated, and he previously served five years in prison for armed robbery. He was deported back to Mexico in 2007 following his stint in prison.
“Villegas is a criminal alien who was released back into our New York communities, posing an increased and unnecessary risk to those who live in this great city,” Thomas R. Decker, New York field office director for enforcement and removal operations, said in a statement.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday calling for the federal government to stop providing funds to jurisdictions which don’t cooperate with immigration detainers. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he doesn’t plan to change policy following the executive order and has claimed the city has “solid ground for a legal challenge to the executive order should the occasion arise.”
New York City’s comptroller recently said that the Big Apple could lose an estimated $7 billion annually in federal funding if they do not change their “sanctuary” policy.”
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.
First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written.
Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”
Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”).
In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination.
However, The 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.”
“CAPITOL HILL | Nov 19, 2015 — Amid furor in Washington over the admission of Syrian refugees, senators of both parties say that the easiest path for foreign terrorists to enter the United States is the visa waiver program.
Without visas, nationals from dozens of countries in Europe and elsewhere need only a passport to pass through U.S. customs at airports and other entry points, bypassing the screening process to which visa applicants are subjected.
“Twenty million people each year from 38 countries, including France and Belgium, use the visa waiver program,” said Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Terrorists could exploit the program, could go from France to Syria, as 2,000 fighters have done, come back to France, use the visa waiver program and, without any further scrutiny, come into the United States.”
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein has introduced legislation to block visa waivers for foreign nationals who have traveled to Syria or Iraq in the last five years.
“They can still visit,” Feinstein said, “but they need a traditional visa – a process that includes an in-person interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who says fears about possible security risks posed by Syrian refugees are overblown.
“If you look at all the gaps in our security situation and the vulnerabilities we have, in my view the refugee program is well down that list [of concerns]. Visa waiver is near the top,” Flake said.
“We absolutely need to tighten up the visa waiver program,” said another Republican, Rob Portman. “There are 5,000 foreign fighters who are from countries with which we have a visa waiver program. It’s a huge problem.”
Daily Mail Reporter Claims Fake Syrian Passport Fooled Expert
– Daily Mail UK
“Daily Mail reporter Nick Fagge told Fox News that he was able to get a fake Syrian passport good enough to fool a supposed “forgery expert” for just $2,000.
Fagge’s article on the experience caught the attention of Monday morning’s edition of Fox & Friends, where he appeared to discuss just how easy it apparently is to attain a Syrian passport — regardless of whether or not you’re actually a Syrian refugee. The reporter was able to obtain a passport, driving license and identity card for the price.
“When I bought the passport, I asked [the forger] who was buying them,” he said. “He told me, ‘people who wanted a better life, people who are pretending to by Syrians.’ But most worryingly, ‘members of ISIS,’ people who wanted to come to Europe to bring their evil war to us and kill people.”
Fagge later got in touch with a forgery expert in the German police. Both the driving license and the identity card were easily dismissed, but the passport was another matter.
“He spent quite a long time analyzing it. He said it was genuine. He said, ‘This is a real passport.’”
Concerns about possible ties between Syrian refugees and ISIS have been heightened following Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris after a Syrian passport was found on one of the attackers. In the United States, several state governors have denounced the White House’s current plan to accept refugees.”
Bernie says ‘climate change’ is the cause of global terrorism
Hillary’s “smart power” will bring peace in our time – empathize with our enemies
“”Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.” – Hillary Clinton
Feinstein: ‘Big hassle’ to deport foreign nationals on terror watch lists
– Washington Examiner
“Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., says it would be impractical to attempt to deport individuals on the terror watch lists whom she thinks should be barred from purchasing weapons.
“I think you’d have a big hassle, particularly if they come under [the] visa waiver [program], how do you just pick them up and deport them?” Feinstein told the Washington Examiner. “There’s no law that says you can.”
Foreign nationals are part of the discussion about how to respond to the Orlando terrorist attack, which was carried about by a U.S. citizen born to Afghan parents. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has proposed a ban on weapons sales to individuals on the no-fly list and the selectee list, which provides extra scrutiny for certain air travelers, but Senate Democrats worry that it doesn’t include a ban on weapon sales for foreign nationals.
Collins’ ban would represent a compromise relative to the ban that Feinstein proposed last week, which would cover about 900,000 people. “Our list is 99.9 percent foreign nationals, and these are foreign nationals submitted by law enforcement and intelligence entities,” Feinstein told reporters. “It is a classified list, but it is people from abroad who could come into this country and because of our lax gun laws be able to buy a gun.”
Republican immigration hawks have been trying to shift the debate to the national security threat posed by immigrants. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have asked the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly to detail the immigration histories of 113 suspects, but they haven’t received the information. “This refusal represents the deliberate hiding of data,” according to Sessions.
“While the vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding and peaceful, we must face the uncomfortable reality that not only are immigrants from Muslim-majority countries coming to the United States, radicalizing, and attempting to engage in acts of terrorism, such as in Boston and Chattanooga; but also, their first-generation American children are susceptible to the toxic radicalization of terrorist organizations,” the Alabama senator said following the Orlando attack.”
– I detect a pattern here with the Democrats, if there is difficulty in rounding up criminals like foreign terrorists or illegal aliens, we simply must accept their presence and their actions. This should work out well. If Senator Feinstein is not up to the task required, why doesn’t she just resign?
So the Dems in the US Senate think it is just fine to take away guns from US Citizens on the terror watch list, but it is too much of a hassle to deport foreigners on the watch list? When do the Sanctuary Cities begin for foreign terrorists in the USA?/CJ
U.S. Visa Waiver Program
The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the State Department, permits citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa. In return, those 38 countries must permit U.S. citizens and nationals to travel to their countries for a similar length of time without a visa for business or tourism purposes. Since its inception in 1986, the VWP has evolved into a comprehensive security partnership with many of America’s closest allies.
The VWP utilizes a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and othermala fide actors from traveling to the United States. This approach incorporates regular, national-level risk assessments concerning the impact of each program country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests. It also includes comprehensive vetting of individual VWP travelers prior to their departure for the United States, upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry, and during any subsequent air travel within the United States.”