This page is a backup. The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. My other blogs: "Tongue Tied" "Dissecting Leftism" "Australian Politics" "Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch" "Greenie Watch" "Western Heart" (A summary blog). Those blogs are also backed up. See here for details
************************************
August 29, 2024
That double standard again
**************************************************
August 26, 2024
Australia: Diversity is not our strength
It was encouraging to see Albo’s government recently appoint a Special Envoy for Social Cohesion, Wills MP Peter Khalil, in a nod to community harmony, which has been taken for granted in Australia for far too long. Equally, it was discouraging to see the same regime recklessly importing relatively unvetted Gazan migrants from a war zone, given that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has become the violent edge of ethnic division here. Stoking a problem at the same time as staunching it, then? Despite the protestations of our multicultural lobby, it is self-evident, after the 7 October massacre in Israel, that not all communities can coexist peacefully – or even want to.
Yes, Australian generosity and tolerance has created a successful multi-ethnic society, but growing divisions are emerging, as separate group identities, funded and promoted by multicultural ideologies and agencies, strain the ties that bind. Divisive Welcomes to Country, locking up ‘country’ such as Mount Warning away from other Australians, unruly pro-Palestinian protesters, two-tier policing, and massive migration numbers are straining this nation’s social fabric like never before.
At issue is our 50-year-long policy of multiculturalism: are we creating too many rival groups and enclaves, at the expense of a shared Australian national identity? One of the first great social philosophers, the 14th-century Arab Ibn Khaldun introduced a concept called ‘asabiyah’, the unifying feeling that binds a group and makes collective action possible. It can be religious, or racial, cultural or military. It’s the glue that makes a society work. The asabiyah of the terrorist group Hamas is the destruction of Israel and the Jews, for example.
A 2023 book, Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire, by US economist and researcher Jens Heycke, contrasts ethnic separatism (‘Multiculturalism’) throughout world history with a more integrationist (‘Melting Pot’) approach. Across the globe and through history, societies that preferenced separate identities fared far worse, sometimes catastrophically so, than more integrated ones. It is a woeful tale that makes you wonder how modern multiculturalism ever took hold.
The Roman and Ottoman Empires, Islam, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, the Balkans and more come under Heycke’s gaze. Expanding, successful Rome was assimilationist, explicitly including conquered peoples as citizens; the Greek Aristides wrote: ‘In your empire all paths are open to all.’ But separatism rose after the mass immigration of Goths and Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries; they failed to integrate or gain citizenship and in 476AD Rome fell.
Similar stories play out elsewhere. In Rwanda the Tutsi-Hutu enmity turns out not to be an age-old rivalry but a product of Belgium’s divide and conquer approach, in which the colonialists gave out ID cards distinguishing Tutsis from Hutus, and gave Tutsis job and educational preferences, thus setting the stage for an explosion of racial violence that killed up to one million people in 1994. A modern success story, Rwanda now has a strongly colour-blind policy, in which all must be Rwandans, no longer Tutsis or Hutus.
Similarly Sri Lanka, where the Tamils and Sinhalese had long coexisted relatively peacefully. After independence in 1948 a ‘Sinhala only’ language campaign arose, the linking English language was abandoned, and separate education systems for Sinhala and Tamil ultimately divided the two populations. The percentage of Tamils employed in the armed forces fell from 40 per cent in 1956 to one per cent in 1970. Finally in 2009 a bloodbath left some 40,000 Tamils dead.
Botswana’s story is extraordinary. Founder and first president, the black prince Seretse Khama, had to overcome British government skulduggery and racism in order to marry London clerk, Ruth Williams. As a result, Khama’s movement was welded to colourblindness, resolutely opposing racial, ethnic and tribal distinctions. Questions about race, tribe or ethnicity are banned from the official census, for example.
Heycke notes that the Botswana, Mauritius and Rwanda constitutions all mandate colour-blindness, and are among Africa’s freest, and most prosperous nations.
The economist then ‘costs’ ethnic division: ‘the data… suggest that ethnic diversity is strongly correlated with extensive violence, rampant corruption, poor economic growth and abysmal living standards’. The happiest countries, such as the Nordic nations, also turn out to be the most homogeneous.
A key insight concerns public goods such as health, sanitation, law enforcement, education and infrastructure. Highly divided nations do very poorly at providing such public services, with ethnic communities tending to focus on their own people, at the expense of the country at large. This impoverishes everyone. In this he builds on the work of sociologist Robert Putnam, as quoted in the New York Times. His 30,000-strong study across the US found ‘the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote, and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects’.
Heycke concludes: social unity is fragile; ethnic division elicits evil from ordinary people; group preferences favour powerful elites over the needy (as we see with the Aboriginal industry, where the monies never seem to reach those living in the dirt); ethnic preferences never solve the problems they were created for, and in practice are usually there forever.
The problem turns out not to be people’s diverse origins but tying benefits or disadvantages to group identities. This is the toxin that poisons societies. Heycke writes, ‘When a society maintains group distinctions, and particularly when it bolsters them with group preferences, people hunker down, adopting an “us versus them” outlook.’ Australia indeed dodged a bullet with the Voice referendum, which, had it succeeded, would likely have expanded society-inflaming race-based benefits. Such toxins can include, for example, the barring of non-indigenous from some parts of ‘country’, or, in the UK, ‘Two-Tier’ Keir’s punitive policing of native Brits, while allowing gangs of recent migrants, masked and brandishing weapons, to rampage without hindrance.
I grew up in a 1950s and 1960s white bread Australia with a level of safety, harmony and peacefulness unimaginable to young Australians now. My community had the second-densest migrant concentration in post-war Australia; I had Ukrainians over the road, Russians and Maltese on either side of our house; and local Aborigines at our school. The migrants were called New Australians then, an innate acknowledgement that we were all involved in building a new Australia. It was our asabiyah.
What is the point, then, of all this diversity, that is straining infrastructure and unity for everyone already here? It is past time to focus on our commonalities and unity, not ethnic and cultural differences.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/diversity-is-not-our-strength/
**************************************************
August 25, 2024
The Democrats’ 2024 Platform Must Seem Like Hate Speech to Kamala Harris and DHS Secretary Mayorkas
The Democratic party's 2024 platform contains a handful of positions regarding immigration that are actually sensible. What is startling about these proclamations (besides their being sensible) is that those few sections are totally at odds with the publicly expressed and apparently deeply felt views of Vice President Harris and DHS Secretary Mayorkas.
Of note, the Platform starts off stating that:[W]e gather together to state our values on lands that have been stewarded through many centuries by the ancestors and descendants of Tribal Nations who have been here since time immemorial. We honor the communities native to this continent, and recognize that our country was built on Indigenous homelands … .
While we meet in Chicago, we … recognize and honor the traditional homelands of the Anishinaabe, also known as the Council of the Three Fires: the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi Nations.
We acknowledge the many other tribes who consider this area their traditional homeland, including the Myaamia, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Sac and Fox, Peoria, Kaskaskia, Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten.
Then, without realization of any possible irony, the Platform proclaims that “America is a nation of immigrants” and “[a] robust immigration system … upholds our values”.
Also of note, as Ali Swenson and Will Weissert reported for the Associated Press, the Platform “wasn’t updated to reflect that President Joe Biden is no longer running for reelection” and “makes repeated reference to Biden’s ‘second term’ despite the president’s decision a month ago to no longer seek one”. Talk about the lazy days of summer!
Lastly of note, the Platform contains a handful of positions regarding immigration that are actually sensible. What is startling about these positions (besides their being sensible) is that Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and impeached Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas must surely consider them to constitute hate speech because they are totally at odds with the publicly expressed and apparently deeply felt views of Harris and Mayorkas.
To De(tain) or Not to De(tain), That Is the Question
The Platform asserts that “Congress should … dedicate resources to detain” aliens who cross the border unlawfully. Makes sense. In 2003, the Supreme Court explained in Demore v. Kim that:
Congress … had before it evidence that one of the major causes of the [then Immigration and Naturalization Service’s] failure to remove deportable criminal aliens was the agency's failure to detain those aliens during their deportation proceedings.
Congress’ concern that, even with individualized screening, releasing deportable criminal aliens on bond would lead to an unacceptable rate of flight [had strong support].
As I have reported, and as the House Committee on Homeland Security’s report on the impeachment resolution against Secretary Mayorkas also noted, data released by Secretary Mayorkas’ DHS reveals that:
Of aliens encountered at the southern border in fiscal year 2013, 98.4 percent of those who were continuously detained have been repatriated (mostly removed or returned) as of December 31, 2021, as have only 6.9 percent of those who were sometimes detained and 15.1 percent of those who were never detained. Of those continuously detained, only 0.7 percent have an unexecuted removal order, while 23.2 percent of those sometimes detained and 12.6 percent of those never detained have unexecuted orders.
Parallel data for aliens encountered at the southern border between fiscal years 2014-2019 shows similar outcomes.
DHS reported in its FY 2020 ICE Budget Overview for Congress that there were already an “estimated 558,863 fugitive aliens [ordered removed yet] currently at-large in the United States”, of course, because they had never been detained or had been released from detention. As the Committee on Homeland Security’s impeachment report concluded, “continuously detained aliens have historically almost always been repatriated, while nondetained aliens have rarely been”.
Still, the Platform’s pro-detention proclamation must be disconcerting to Kamala Harris. In 2018, then-Sen. Harris introduced S. 2849, legislation complaining that DHS “seeks to vastly expand the immigration detention system despite the availability of a wide array of community-based alternatives to detention that provide a cheaper, more compassionate, rights respecting response to migration”. Sen. Harris’s bill actually placed a “Moratorium on Expansion of Immigration Detention Facilities”, demanding that:
[DHS] may not use any Federal funds for the construction or expansion of immigration detention facilities … . Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, [DHS] shall submit a report to Congress that contains a detailed plan on … how the number of immigration detention beds will be decreased to 50 percent of the number available as of the date of the enactment.
Kamala Harris certainly does not display a detention growth-oriented mindset!
Also, as my colleague Todd Bensman has reported, “During a June 2019 televised primary debate, [Kamala Harris] reiterated that “I will get rid of the private detention centers.” That year, she co-sponsored legislation (S. 1243) designed to do just that: “Phase-Out … Private Detention Facilities And Use Of [State and Local] Jails”. The bill provided that:
[DHS] may not enter into or extend any contract or agreement with any public or private entity which owns or operates a detention facility for use of that facility to detain aliens in the custody of [DHS], and shall terminate any such contract not later than the date that is 3 years after the date of … enactment … . Beginning on th[at] date … any facility at which aliens in the custody of [DHS] are detained shall be owned and operated by [DHS].
Yet, as the ACLU has reported: “Under the Trump administration, 81 percent of people in [ICE] det[ention] each day in January 2020 were held in facilities owned or operated by private prison corporations. This number remains virtually unchanged under the Biden administration.”
Also in 2019, Sen. Harris co-sponsored legislation (S. 1243) providing that DHS “is prohibited from detaining anyone under the age of 18 in a facility operated or contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]”. Keep in mind that, as I have reported:
Juveniles commit a large number of serious offenses. In 2020, there were 1,353 known juvenile homicide offenders. In 2019, juveniles constituted 21 percent of all arrests for robbery, 20 percent for arson, 17 percent for car theft, 12 percent for burglary, 10 percent for larceny-theft and weapons offenses, eight percent for murder, and seven percent for aggravated assault. In 2012, the last year for which data is available, juveniles accounted for 14 percent of all arrests for forcible rape.
Surely, the bill Sen. Harris co-sponsored exempted from its detention prohibition juvenile alien murderers, rapists, gang members, and other such criminals? Nope.
As to Secretary Mayorkas, he testified before the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Homeland Security in May 2021 that:
One of the things that I have observed is the detention of individuals that do not pose a threat to public safety, or do not pose a risk of flight such that we are not confident in their appearance in future immigration proceedings. I am concerned about the overuse of detention, and where alternatives to detention would suffice … we will indeed be looking at that.
His lack of a detention growth-oriented mindset was also on display when he appointed as the immigration detention ombudsman an anti-ICE activist who condemned the remarks of President Trump’s ICE acting director that “‘we shouldn’t wait’ for illegal immigrants to commit crimes in order to deport them” as “sound[ing] like those of ‘a police state to me[’]”, as Jennie Taer reported in the New York Post.
Further, U.S. District Court Judge T. Kent Wetherell II of the Northern District of Florida concluded in 2023 in Florida v. United States that Secretary Mayorkas “took steps to reduce detention capacity, including closing all of DHS’s family detention facilities”, “requesting less detention capacity from Congress”, and “le[ading] Congress to believe that it did not need more detention capacity”. Judge Wetherell concluded that ‘‘it is hard to take [DHS’s] claim that they had to release more aliens into the country because of limited detention capacity seriously”.
Secretary Mayorkas has long asked Congress for fewer resources to detain aliens. As the Committee on Homeland Security’s report on the Mayorkas impeachment resolution noted:
[I]n Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021, DHS [during the Trump administration] requested enough funds for 54,000 and 60,000 detention beds, respectively. By Fiscal Year 2022, however, Secretary Mayorkas reduced requested detention space by nearly 45 percent, for 32,500 beds. In Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024, Secretary Mayorkas requested only 25,000 beds.
And Mayorkas’s policy priorities seek to limit the detention of removable aliens. As the impeachment report noted, ICE’s justification to Congress for its requested fiscal year 2024 budget admitted that “[Our] policy priorities seeking to limit detention of [aliens] assessed to not pose a threat to national security or public safety make significant increases in ADP [the average daily population of ICE detainees] unlikely under current circumstances.” And as the report noted, Secretary Mayorkas’s DHS argued in budget request documents that:
[A] reduction in detention capacity level will not impede ICE’s ability to detain, and remove [aliens] that present a threat to national security, border security, and public safety.
In alignment with guidance to limit detention among [aliens] who do not threaten national security, public safety, or meet mandatory detention requirements, noncitizen ADP remained below target in [fiscal year] 2022.
Funding an ADP of 25,000 maintains ICE’s ability to effectively manage its current detainee population flows.
Supporting an ADP of 25,000 will provide ICE with the flexibility and capacity to detain immigration law violators and those who pose a security threat while efficiently managing the detention portfolio.
To Re(move) or Not to Re(move), That Is the Question
The Democrats’ Platform asserts that “Congress should … dedicate resources to … remove individuals quickly” who are crossing unlawfully and that “Democrats believe that … those who are determined not to have a legal basis to remain should be quickly removed”.
Tell that to Kamala Harris. Taylor Walters and Mark Kellner reported in the New York Post that “during her abortive 2020 presidential-primary run … then-senator [Harris] repeatedly emphasized her position that illegal migrants who have no criminal record … should be permitted to remain in the country”, telling a debate audience that “No, absolutely not, they should not be deported … . [T]his was one of the very few issues with which I disagreed with the [Obama] administration.”
In 2020, Sen. Harris was an original co-sponsor of legislation (S. 4011) demanding that “during a public health emergency, [DHS] shall suspend all … removals of noncitizens from the United States”. Yes, the bill would have required the suspension of all removals of illegal aliens, criminal aliens, alien terrorists, and other removable aliens.
Even worse, the bill would have suspended such removals potentially indefinitely, even after the end of the public health emergency:
If an emergency … is declared, removals shall further remain suspended to a receiving country until the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State each certify in writing to Congress that the country … has demonstrated evidence of diminishing cases and risk of community transmission … and … has public health infrastructure that is able to adequately handle the return of its nationals.
As to Secretary Mayorkas, he issued “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law” proclaiming that “we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities” and instructing DHS officials that: “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them … . Justice and our country's well-being require it.” He even went so far as to instruct that “Our personnel should not rely on the fact of [criminal] conviction … alone.”
To Re(sist) Asylum Fraud or Not to Re(sist) Asylum Fraud, That Is the Question
The Democrats’ Platform proclaims that “we need Congress to strengthen requirements for valid asylum claims” and that “Congress must pass legislation to reform our asylum system … so that we can … ensure it is not used as an alternative to legal immigration by” aliens not actually fleeing persecution.
I am not sure that the Platform had in mind the sort of legislation that Sen. Harris championed:
In 2014, the New York Times published an article titled “Asylum Fraud in Chinatown: An Industry of Lies”, reporting that:
Peter Kwong, a professor at the City University of New York ... said it was an open secret in the Chinese community that most asylum applications were at least partly false, from fabricated narratives of persecution to counterfeit supporting documents and invented witness testimony. . . .False asylum petitions are among the most common forms of immigration fraud, in part because they are difficult to detect, experts said.
Thus, it is no surprise that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that the testimony of an asylum applicant “may be sufficient” to establish that the alien faces a well-founded fear of persecution “without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that [their] testimony is credible”. The INA further states that:
[A] trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant [for asylum] or witness, the inherent plausibility of the … account[s], the consistency between the … written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath …), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record … and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.
Yet, in 2019, Sen. Harris was an original co-sponsor of S. 2936, dictating that “A credibility assessment … may only be conducted on the material facts of the applicant’s claim. The perception of the trier of fact with respect to the applicant’s general truthfulness or trustworthiness shall not be relevant to assessing credibility of material facts.”
The INA also provides that “[a]n alien may not apply for asylum] unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States” (with certain exceptions). In 1996, the House Judiciary Committee explained the rationale for imposing this time limit:
[A]liens remain able file an asylum application regardless of how long they have resided in the United States, and many applications are filed by aliens who have been here for years. International law anticipates that aliens who have illegally entered a country in order to flee persecution should present themselves ‘without delay’ to the authorities. This is the exception, rather than the rule, under the U.S. asylum system.
Yet, in 2019, Sen. Harris was an original co-sponsor of legislation (S. 2936) that would have entirely eliminated the time limit.
Conclusion
I can understand if Vice President Harris and Secretary Mayorkas never bothered to read the Platform, these being the lazy days of summer and all, but what about their staffs? In any event, I think that Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice might need to investigate the delegates of the Democratic National Convention for domestic extremism.
https://cis.org/Fishman/Democrats-2024-Platform-Must-Seem-Hate-Speech-Kamala-Harris-and-DHS-Secretary-Mayorkas
**************************************************
August 22, 2024
DHS Watchdog Slams ICE Handling of Alien Children
The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a “management alert” this week with the anodyne header: “ICE Cannot Monitor All Unaccompanied Migrant Children Released from DHS and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Custody”. Read past the title and it’s a harsh indictment of a system created by advocates nearly 16 years ago to protect alien children that has instead fostered their abuse. I warned about many of the issues OIG raised back in March 2023, but without access to OIG’s statistics and analysis, I had no idea how bad things were. If you care about kids, brace yourself.
A Brief History of Well-Intentioned Congressional Mishandling of Alien Children. The term “unaccompanied alien child” (UAC) is defined in statute as:
a child who — (A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom — (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
As that definition shows, only alien minors without parents or legal guardians in the United States are considered UACs. Nonetheless, the federal government — and DHS in particular — lumps plenty of kids with parents and guardians here illegally in as UACs.
That definition was added to federal law by section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), the starting point in a brief history of well-intentioned federal government mishandling of UACs.
The HSA was the law that created DHS, and before that department existed, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had responsibility for detaining, caring for, and releasing alien children.
I call it the “former INS” because it was abolished in section 471 of the HSA, with its immigration duties dispersed among various other agencies at DHS, including CBP, ICE, and USCIS.
The detention, care, and release of UACs wasn’t retained by any agency within the newly created DHS, however. A Democratic amendment to the HSA sent authority over those children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
There was little discussion about the amendment itself, and no explanation for why ORR was a better fit than ICE, which retained jurisdiction over the detention of aliens generally. Notably, the legacy INS units ICE inherited did, in fact, have experience detaining, caring for, releasing, and tracking alien children.
Many alien advocates, however, had been critical of how INS dealt with alien children, so the sponsors of that amendment likely assumed that placing those children with anyone other than ICE was a better choice. History has not vindicated that assumption.
Initially, few UACs were affected by the switch. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the number of UACs apprehended by DHS who were referred to ORR in the early 2000s “averaged 6,700 annually and ranged from a low of about 4,800 in FY 2003 to a peak of about 8,200 in FY 2007”.
That changed quickly after a Democratically controlled Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA).
Section 235 of the TVPRA divided UACs into two separate groups: (1) those from “contiguous” countries (Canada and Mexico); and (2) nationals of "non-contiguous" countries (everywhere else).
Under that provision, contiguous UACs could be sent home if they hadn’t been trafficked and didn’t have a credible fear of return.
UACs from non-contiguous countries, however, had to be transferred to the care and custody of ORR within 72 hours, usually to be placed into formal removal proceedings (UACs aren’t amenable to expedited removal), even if they hadn’t been trafficked and had no fear of return. ORR was then directed to place most of those children with “sponsors” in the United States.
Not surprisingly, the number of UACs from non-contiguous encountered by DHS countries soared, as parents (and more importantly smugglers) realized section 235 of the TVPRA all but guaranteed that any child who got here illegally would be released into this country to rejoin his or her family.
Look at the stats: CRS reports that in FY 2008, before the TVPRA was passed, CBP encountered fewer than 10,000 UACs at the Southwest border.
By FY 2009, when that bill was signed, that grew to around 20,000 UACs, 82 percent Mexican nationals, and just 17 percent from the non-contiguous “Northern Triangle” countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
The number of UACs entering illegally kept growing thereafter, with Border Patrol apprehending more than 68,500 of them in FY 2014. By that point, however, just 23 percent of UACs came from Mexico and 77 percent from the Northern Triangle.
Even the Washington Post editorial board had to admit in 2014 that: “Inadvertently, [TVPRA] has encouraged thousands of Central American children to try to reach the United States by granting them access to immigration courts that Mexican kids don’t enjoy.”
“Access to Immigration Courts”. Keep that UAC “access to immigration courts” — which is at the heart of this week’s inspector general’s report — in mind as I explain that the biggest flaw in that TVPRA UAC scheme is that nobody in the federal government is responsible for those kids once they are placed with sponsors.
ORR attempts to reach those children and their sponsors through follow-up calls after UAC releases, but they are not required to do so by law, and in nearly 20 percent of all those cases (some 85,000 UACs under Biden-Harris as of April 2023), ORR was unsuccessful in contacting either or both the child and the sponsor.
In that vein, the otherwise poorly conceived TVPRA does allow DHS to place UACs into removal proceedings, at which both ICE attorneys and immigration judges (IJs) can assess the welfare of those children and keep track of them. If they fail to appear or are otherwise ordered deported, ICE officers can then notify HHS and take those children back into custody and remove them.
Each time ICE fails to place those children into removal proceedings or doesn’t notify HHS when they fail to appear, therefore, is a lost opportunity to keep track of — and thus protect — the kids. Which brings me to the significant issues identified in the OIG report.
OIG explains that between FY 2019 and FY 2023, ICE transferred nearly 450,000 UACs to HHS under the HSA and TVPRA.
ICE, however, failed to place more than 291,000 of those UACs into removal proceedings before IJs, and more than 32,000 of the UACs who were sent to immigration court failed to appear — facts that ICE often failed to share with HHS, according to OIG.
Although I had no insight into that lack of communication between ICE and HHS, my March 2023 piece did highlight how few UACs were appearing on IJs’ dockets and the large number who failed to appear in court, based solely on DOJ’s published statistics. If I’d had access to the same facts and stats OIG dug up, I’d have been even more alarmist than I was then.
Given how little authority the TVPRA and HSA otherwise give federal officers to monitor the welfare of UACs once they leave ORR shelters, immigration court offered the best opportunity to keep tabs on them once they were out.
https://cis.org/Arthur/DHS-Watchdog-Slams-ICE-Handling-Alien-Children
**************************************************
August 20, 2024
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — Free Healthcare and College Education for Illegal Aliens
By Andrew R. Arthur
In a recent post, I began an analysis of various immigration-related positions that Tim Walz, presumptive Democratic vice-presidential candidate, has taken as Minnesota governor. Next up are free health care and college tuition for illegal aliens residing in the state.
SF 2995. On May 23, 2023, Walz signed the One Minnesota Budget, which included Senate File (SF) 2995, the “Health and Human Services appropriations Omnibus bill”, into law.
The governor’s press release for that bill is rather anodyne, noting that SF 2995 (among other things) “addresses health care access and affordability and includes guaranteed reductions in cost-sharing, the establishment of the Center for Health Care Affordability, and other efforts to reduce the cost of health care”.
What that leaves out is that the bill also allows illegal immigrants in the North Star State “to enroll in subsidized health coverage if they meet the program’s other eligibility requirements”, bringing the state in line with just California and the District of Columbia in that regard.
As the Washington Examiner explains, the subsidized health care plan in question is MinnesotaCare, the state’s version of Medicaid.
MinnesotaCare “offers free and subsidized health insurance to residents at 200% of the federal poverty level and below. That includes residents making up to $30,120 per year or families of four with an income of up to $62,400 annually”.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Walz “justified” the measure through its “overall benefit to the state”:
Making low-income immigrants in the country illegally eligible for healthcare — a move that could cost the state upward of $60 million a year if immigrants enroll in large numbers — would save hospitals and the state money by cutting down on unpaid-for emergency room visits, he has argued.
That may be true in the short run, but the prospect of free medical care in Minnesota will likely also draw more illegal migrants to the state, which would logically increase those costs and drive even more aliens to utilize limited healthcare services — including at emergency rooms.
“North Star Promise Scholarship Program”. Last May, Walz also signed education legislation creating the North Star Promise Scholarship program. As the program’s website explains:
Beginning in fall 2024, the North Star Promise (NSP) Scholarship program will create a tuition and fee-free pathway to higher education for eligible Minnesota residents at eligible institutions as a "last-dollar" program by covering the balance of tuition and fees remaining after other scholarships, grants, stipends and tuition waivers have been applied.
According to the Examiner, that program offers tuition-free education at state colleges and universities for Minnesota families that earn $80,000 or less per year, including “illegal immigrants who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years and have either a high school diploma or a GED from a school in the state”.
The Examiner explains:
Minnesota has a median household income of $90,390 per year, according to Statista, making the state’s average middle-class family ineligible for the program. Yet, the state will put tens of thousands of dollars toward paying for illegal immigrants’ college degrees. Meanwhile, middle-class families work overtime and make personal sacrifices to afford their children’s education — and pay for the college education of illegal immigrants on top of it.
While NSP plainly won’t be quite the magnet that the state’s free healthcare offer is, it will still send a message to newly arrived migrants that Minnesota will be amenable to their needs and the needs of their college-age children.
It’s a basic rule of political economics that you will get more of anything you subsidize, be it electric cars or milk, and in the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes, that includes illegal immigrants.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Minnesota-Gov-Tim-Walz-Free-Healthcare-and-College-Education-Illegal-Aliens
**************************************************
August 18, 2024
How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy:
All repressive and authoritarian regimes, from Caracas to Pyongyang, suppress speech. Rulers like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping cannot tolerate truth, as it can threaten their hold on power.
Today, free speech is under attack even in the “free” world, and those attacks are undermining democracy at its core. An informed electorate will not always make good decisions, but an uninformed electorate is much easier to manipulate into making bad ones.
Western “progressives” see their desired progress as threatened by “mis”- or “dis”-information, which is speech they consider false or motivated by malice. They consider suppression of that kind of speech to be allowable. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota summed up that attitude in 2022 when he said, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”
But there is. Under our Constitution’s First Amendment, Americans have the freedom to speak the truth or voice their opinions. The price society pays for that freedom is that people can also speak garbage and share reprehensible opinions, but it’s worth it. (Many defended Walz, with one website claiming the clip was “heavily edited” and “out of context,” but he said what he said.)
On the immigration debate, as with other contentious issues, the legacy media has torched its credibility over the past decade through obvious bias and partisanship. The simultaneous explosion of alternative media has created a diversity of news sources and unlimited information. How the media frames and presents the facts is now as important as the facts themselves, a weakness which those in power exploit.
The Western liberal elite and its allied media believe that mass immigration from the Third World into the First is both inevitable and good. To suppress criticism of this orthodoxy, they conflate reasonable opinions they disagree with—for instance, that immigration levels are too high—with criminal conduct, such as calling for migrants to be assaulted.
Legitimate and verifiable observations, for instance, that asylum fraud is widespread, that housing asylum claimants is expensive, or that crime is higher in certain areas heavily populated by migrants, are tarred as hate speech to delegitimize these views.
But if we are to debate immigration or any other national policy issue, we must maintain a distinction between free speech—including obnoxious or even hateful sentiments—and conduct that is unlawful.
In Britain, recently shaken by public unrest in the wake of the murder of three children, we see how fine a line that can be.
In late July, three little girls were killed by a 17-year-old in Southport, England. The assailant turned out to be a British-born child of Rwandan parents, but false rumors about his identity and origin sparked protests, counterprotests, riots, and mayhem across several towns.
The Southport stabbings obviously tapped into a wide range of public antipathy in the United Kingdom about the country’s immigration levels, which have continued at an unprecedented scale despite the “Brexit” vote to leave the European Union. Net migration to the U.K. in 2023 was 685,000, or 1% of the population that year alone. The asylum system is swamped.
At the extreme end, there is a small percentage of those willing to commit violence. But the bulk of people opposing mass immigration or the costs of spiraling asylum claims are simply expressing a political opinion.
In Britain, under an insecure new Labour Party government and prime minister, it seems that the Crown Prosecution Service is throwing the book at anyone involved in counter-immigration protests. British police and the Crown Prosecution Service want to be seen cracking down hard not just on violence but on any anti-immigration speech and sentiment. They are not only prosecuting people who physically attended demonstrations and committed violent acts but are also finding and prosecuting “armchair warriors” who post on social media.
Some offenses seem pretty clear. During the unrest, one 53-year-old Englishwoman wrote on Facebook, “Don’t protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.” She received a 15-month sentence for “sending a communication to convey a threat of death or serious harm.”
In another instance, a 20-month sentence was given to Jordan Parlour for “publishing threatening, insulting or abusive material to stir up racial hatred.” He had posted to Facebook that “every man and his dog should smash [the] f— out of Britannia hotel,” where the government was housing asylum applicants.
Some of the nonviolent offenses prosecuted in the U.K. are more arbitrary.
Jordan Plain, aged 30, got eight months for actions during one protest that mocked people’s race and religion. His behavior was clearly obnoxious and disgraceful, and as the judge said, “grossly offensive.” But the crime he was charged with was that his actions “caused alarm and distress to others.” Under Britain’s Public Order Act, causing “harassment, alarm, or distress” to anyone can get you a fine, and if it is “intentional,” it can be a crime punishable by up to 26 weeks in jail.
Britain’s Public Order Act is a broad and powerful tool, wielded at the wide discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service and interpreted by judges. Some have argued that, when it comes to violent unrest, the British police and prosecutors apply a tougher standard on indigenous offenders than on those from immigrant backgrounds.
Accusations of such “two-tiered policing” are fiercely denied by the government and its apologists, but videos on social media have shown police tolerating conduct by mobs of pro-Palestine demonstrators that arguably violates the Public Order Act.
The U.S. also has laws that can be used to target conduct (or people) the government disapproves of. But unlike the British—in fact, because of them—we have the powerful protection of the First Amendment as a defense.
The Babylon Bee’s joke that “social media posts that will now get you arrested in Britain” rings true. And censorship is growing with our North American neighbors, too. In Mexico, a politician was criminally convicted of “gender-based political violence” for calling a colleague a “man who self-ascribes as a woman.” And Canada’s Online Harms bill has the laudable goals of preventing the sharing of private material without consent and protecting children, but it could also be used to interpret “hateful” content in ways that favor the ruling party.
Immigration is one of the top concerns for American voters this November. Rhetoric will intensify, as with any subject people care about. Political ads will do the truth little justice. The American ruling class needs to keep its cool and trust our people to handle free speech.
Yes, it is risky, but the alternative—content regulation by the government in collusion with unelected bureaucrats and self-appointed experts—is worse.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/16/how-ruling-elites-continue-stifle-debate-immigration-policy-borderline/
**************************************************
August 15, 2024
Harris May Pander on Illegal Immigration but Hispanics Want Trump’s Secure Border Policies
Vice President Kamala Harris is attempting to edit her dismal record on immigration while currying favor with Latino voters, but the reality is she was Vice President – and placed in charge of the border by President Joe Biden himself – during the worst border crisis in modern history.
Hispanics do not appear to have missed this. As Harris has attempted to tout her border record over the past three weeks, the share of Hispanics saying they trust former President Donald Trump more on the border has skyrocketed, with the latest polling showing Hispanics trust Trump over Harris by nine points on immigration.
It isn’t difficult to see why. Under the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous Open Borders agenda, approximately 10 million illegal alien encounters have been recorded by Customs and Border Protection, with a vast majority of those encounters (8 million) occurring directly at the U.S.-Mexico border. Then there are the 2 million or so “gotaways”, illegal aliens who have entered the U.S. but fled Border Patrol agents and are presumably inside the U.S. to this day. The porous border has served as a breeding ground for drug trafficking, human trafficking, and all number of criminal activities.
Let’s not forget that Harris was officially tasked by Biden in March, 2021, “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle…in stemming the movement of…migration to our southern border”. At the time, the press went wild, with the Washington Post saying Harris was being given the lead on the border and Axios dubbing her the ‘border czar’, a moniker she has since attempted to shed.
Now, that record is coming back to haunt her as Hispanics throw their support behind Trump’s secure border plan. YouGov polling conducted July 19th-21st showed Hispanics trusted Trump over Harris on immigration by three percentage points, 34 percent to 31 percent. However, in the latest YouGov poll, Hispanics trust Trump over Harris by nine points, 43 percent to 34 percent. The share of Hispanics trusting Trump on immigration has risen nine points in around two weeks, according to the data.
Hispanics have been deeply unsatisfied with the Biden-Harris Administration’s reckless Open Borders agenda for months now and have signaled that distaste in poll after poll. Despite what beltway politicians would like to claim, a majority of Hispanics support stricter border security measures and believe the United States should be more tough on illegal immigrants, not less.
There is ample data to support this. A striking NPR/Marist poll from March showed a majority of Hispanics – 52 percent – said all immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally should be deported, a position that would have been considered extremist four years ago before the border became overrun.
A YouGov poll from April found Latinos strongly disapproved of the way the Biden Administration had been handling the border crisis. The poll found Latinos disapproved of Biden’s handling of the border at nearly the same level as whites, with 66 percent of Latinos and 67 percent of whites signaling their dismay over the Biden-Harris border crisis. Latinos disapproved of Biden’s handling of the border by an abysmal 43 percentage points – 66 percent to just 23 percent.
Now, one might wonder if Hispanics were angry with Biden because they wanted him to be more lenient on asylum seekers crossing into the U.S. illegally, but that would be incorrect. Hispanics in the poll said by a margin of 37 points, 58 percent to 21 percent, they wished the Biden Administration would be tougher on immigrants trying to cross the border.
Hispanics noted that the Biden-Harris Open Borders chaos presents a national security concern by a striking 54 percentage points, 77 percent to 23 percent. By the exact same margin – 54 percentage points – Hispanics expressed concern for the strain illegal immigrants are placing on U.S. resources.
While Harris may be attempting to rewrite her record and pander to Latinos, the border chaos created under the Biden-Harris Administration has placed a great strain on U.S. resources, introduced crime and illicit drugs into the country, and presents an ongoing national security threat. Latinos are aware of this, and largely favor Former President Trump’s efforts to secure the border. With the Latino vote up for grabs, Trump will have an opportunity to expose Harris’ record on the border in the September 10th ABC News debate.
https://dailytorch.com/2024/08/harris-may-pander-on-illegal-immigration-but-hispanics-want-trumps-secure-border-policies/#google_vignette
**************************************************
August 14, 2024
Staggering number of migrants that have arrived in Australia since Anthony Albanese rose to power
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has allowed a record 1.15million migrants to enter the country since he came into power.
Labor has already exceeded its migration target for the last financial year, according to an analysis of migration patterns by parliamentary term.
The net migration intake from July 2023 to May 2024 was 445,510 - a figure that is well ahead of the 395,000 Labor committed to in the Budget.
In just 27 months, Mr Albanese has brought in more migrants than the entire Hawke-Keating years - which lasted five times longer at 156 months.
The data also revealed almost one-third of Australians - 31 per cent - were born overseas - a nine per cent increase to 1983 figures.
Albanese's government also recorded a whopping 62 per cent more migrants than the Rudd-Gillard term - who held the previous record with 1.04million people.
In the previous financial year - 2022 to 2023 - the countries representing the largest group of migrants were India with 92,940 (18 per cent), China with 64,320 (12 per cent) and the Philippines with 40,890 (8 per cent).
The top ten countries of migration to Australia included Nepal, Colombia, the UK, Vietnam, Pakistan, New Zealand and Thailand.
Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs Dr Kevin You accused the Albanese government of adding pressure to Australia's inflation and strained housing crisis.
'The Albanese government has no plan for economic growth, other than the shortsighted, lazy approach of bringing in record amounts of migrants, rather than doing the hard yards of real economic reform,' Dr You told the Daily Telegraph.
'The record surge to migration is taking place at the same time as housing and rental prices are at record highs and housing construction is at 1980s levels.
'Australians are suffering through cost-of-living crisis brought on by unplanned mass migration'.
Dr You slammed the prime minister for vowing to halve the annual migration intake in the next financial year, claiming the promise was 'not worth the paper it's written on'.
Four months ago, Mr Albanese promised Australia's net overseas intake would be slashed to just 250,000 in 2024-25.
'It's yet another broken promise from a government which is making it harder for mainstream Australians to get ahead,' Dr You said.
'The latest data reinforces that Australia's migration program is being run in the interests of big business and universities bureaucracy, not the Australian people.'
Dr You admitted that while migration has and will continue to play a critical role, the current migration intake was causing immense pressure on Australians.
'Record migration intake is placing immense pressure on housing and infrastructure, and has not solved our worker shortage crisis and is leaving Australians worse off,' he said.
Immigration and Citizenship shadow minister Dan Tehan said Labor had a 'Big Australia' policy by stealth, but no plan to deal with its impact.
'Labor claim they don't want a big Australia but judge them on the facts not their words,' he said.
'There's no plan for where they will live, or how to deal with the impact on government services or the environment.
'This at a time Australians are either struggling to find a place to live or they're being hit with crippling rent increases.'
In April, Mr Albanese told Melbourne 3AW radio host Tom Elliott his government aimed to halve net overseas migration levels, after being pushed on a figure.
'Well, we're not going to just pluck a figure out of the sky, but what we are projecting is that the NOM, the net overseas migration, is projected to come down to 250,000 in the coming financial year in 2024-25,' he said.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in his May Budget reply speech promised to reduce the permanent intake to 140,000, down from 185,000.
But overall net overseas migration, which covers skilled migrants and international students, could still be above 200,000 - or double the levels of the late 1990s.
The consumer price index grew to 3.8 per cent in June, putting it even further above the Reserve Bank's 2 to 3 per cent target.
The latest headline inflation numbers, released in July, were worse than March quarter's 3.6 per and marked the first quarterly deterioration since 2022.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13740703/Migrants-Australia-Anthony-Albanese.html
**************************************************
August 13, 2024
‘Stop Illegals From Voting’: House Freedom Caucus Urges Amendment to Omnibus Spending Bill
The conservative House Freedom Caucus is calling for Republican leadership in Congress to tie appropriations to fund the government next year to a recently passed House bill to prevent foreign nationals from voting in U.S. elections.
In July, the House passed the SAVE Act—short for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. If enacted and signed into law, the bill would amend the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter law,” to require that states obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship before anyone can register to vote.
“[T]he continuing resolution should include the SAVE Act—as called for by [former President Donald] Trump—to prevent noncitizens from voting, to preserve free and fair elections in light of the millions of illegal aliens imported by the Biden-Harris administration over the last four years,” said a statement on Monday from the 39-member caucus.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, sponsored the SAVE Act in the House and is a member of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., is its chairman.
The House Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican fiscal conservatives, contends that the next continuing resolution—which would fund the federal government well into fiscal year 2025, beginning Oct. 1—should not just be a continuation of the current spending priorities of President Joe Biden, which would hamstring a potential second Trump administration, if he wins the November election.
In a post on X, the caucus wrote, “Stop Illegals from Voting and Block The Biden-Harris Omnibus.”
The statement said, “The House Freedom Caucus believes that Republicans should return to Washington to continue the work of passing 12 appropriations bills to cut spending and advance our policy priorities,” adding:
If unsuccessful, in the inevitability that Congress considers a continuing resolution, government funding should be extended into early 2025 to avoid a lame-duck omnibus that preserves Democrat spending and policies well into the next administration.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/12/stop-illegals-from-voting-house-freedom-caucus-urges-amendment-to-omnibus-spending-bill/
**************************************************
August 12, 2024
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: Proponent of Licenses for Illegal Aliens
Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has named Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to replace her as the vice presidential candidate for the Party of Jackson.
So where does Walz stand on immigration? Let’s first look at the governor’s championing of a recently enacted law, which enables illegal aliens to obtain valid Minnesota driver’s licenses — notwithstanding concerns that such insecure documents assist aliens posing national-security risks to evade scrutiny and apprehension, concerns that federal law has attempted to address, but that Walz’s signature will exacerbate.
Driver’s Licenses for Unauthorized Aliens. Conservatives were hot out of the gate after Harris’ announcement to highlight Walz’ gubernatorial efforts to provide benefits to the estimated 81,000 unauthorized aliens living in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
Most recently, in March 2023, the governor signed a bill “expanding eligibility for a standard Minnesota driver’s license by allowing Minnesotans, regardless of immigration status, to obtain a license”.
As he explained his decision in a press release at the time:
Ensuring drivers in our state are licensed and carry insurance makes the roads safer for all Minnesotans ... . As a longtime supporter of this bill, I am proud to finally sign it into law, making our roads safer and moving us toward our goal of making Minnesota the best state to raise a family for everyone. [Emphasis in the original.]
Oxymoronic “Law-Abiding Illegal Aliens”. That’s a common argument politicians offer when they weaken state laws in order to allow illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses, but it’s internally illogical and inconsistent.
The main — if not only — beneficiaries of that Minnesota law are aliens unlawfully in the United States, which by definition means they’ve ignored at least one law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and usually a raft of others. “Law-abiding illegal alien” is a contradiction in terms.
Logically, up to the point they could apply for a driver’s license, one of the laws they were violating was the one requiring they have a proper driver’s license and insurance to operate a motor vehicle.
Thus, if they fail their newly allowed driver’s license exams, they’re likely to keep driving without a license because that’s what they have been doing to this point. Given that you usually have to possess a driver’s license to get auto insurance, they’ll likely skip that requirement, too.
The Insurance Argument. Speaking of that insurance requirement, nothing stops newly authorized illegal alien drivers from simply allowing their coverages to lapse once or after they obtain their licenses, because they have fewer incentives to comply with that law than lawful aliens and citizens in Minnesota do. Let me explain.
My home state requires licensed drivers to have and maintain auto insurance, and like most residents I comply with that requirement for two reasons: (1) I’ll be prosecuted, fined, and possibly incarcerated if I’m caught without coverage; and (2) I’ll face significant financial liability if I cause an accident and don’t have coverage.
If I’m prosecuted or convicted, I’ll have to appear because otherwise the sheriff will come to my house and arrest me, and I’ll have to pay any fines because otherwise the state will seize my property and garnish my wages.
Illegal aliens, again by definition, can’t work legally, which will make it difficult if not impossible for the state to attach their wages (especially if they’re working under the table), and they’re less likely to have the sort of tangible property (like real estate) the state could attach.
Plus, if they’re illegally present in Minnesota, they could just disappear and live illegally someplace else where the sheriff is less likely to find them.
Both of those points are relevant to the personal tort liability issue, as well.
If I cause an accident, am sued, and lose, I’ll have to pay because otherwise the successful aggrieved plaintiff will — like the state in the example above — seize my property and attach my wages.
Illegal aliens, however, are usually what tort lawyers refer to as “empty pockets”, individuals who either don’t have any assets or whose assets are difficult to seize. That’s why in many cases, motorists harmed by unauthorized drivers often simply make claims on their own insurance.
The only incentive illegal aliens have to comply with the driving laws either after they receive their new licenses or if they simply decide to keep driving without them is the threat that the state will hand them over to ICE for removal if they get caught breaking the law.
But nothing in that bill requires state or local law-enforcement to assist federal immigration authorities, meaning that it’s pure benefit for illegal drivers — it won’t make anyone “safer”, except possibly the aliens themselves, and even then only from federal apprehension.
**************************************************
August 11, 2024
Bloodthirsty super gang Tren de Aragua moves its HQ to outskirts of major US city
Venezuela's most violent gang, which has already sparked chaos across the US, has moved its headquarters to the outskirts of a major American city.
Dubbed the 'epitome of evil', the notorious criminal organization Tren de Aragua, or TdA as it is known by federal agents, previously operated out of an infamous South American prison so completely under gang leaders' control that it had its own zoo, swimming pool and nightclub.
But after kingpin Hector Guerrero Flores escaped last year, the mafia moved its command center to Ciudad Juarez in Mexico on the US border - directly across from El Paso, Texas, local officials told DailyMail.com.
El Paso officials, who asked to remain anonymous, now fear gang violence will spill over into Texas' sixth largest city - which is currently ranked among the top ten safest in America by the FBI.
Dozens of gangsters have already been caught trying to sneak into the US, with those who have been successful unleashing a terrifying crime wave across the country from Dallas to New York.
Border Patrol agents are now on high alert and have been warned to check migrants for telltale tattoos that can help identify gang members.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/texas/article-13688835/venezuelan-gang-tren-aragua-tattoos-headquarters-mexico.html
**************************************************
August 8, 2024
Biden-Harris’ illegal, fraud-filled effort to import hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans and Haitians
The Biden-Harris administration is pausing a scheme that allows up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans per month — none of whom have any legal right to be admitted — to fly into the United States with access to work authorization, known as “CHNV Parole.”
Turns out the program was rife with fraud.
But that’s no surprise, because CHNV was created with fraud in mind — and the first marks in this con were American voters.
Congress never authorized this massive parole, and President Biden’s legal right to implement it is questionable.
Moreover, it was designed not to limit illegal immigration, but to hide the true extent of the border crisis.
Customs and Border Protection describes both aliens denied admission at the border and those apprehended entering illegally as “encounters.” The law treats them exactly the same, and mandates they all be removed unless they are eligible for some immigration benefit.
But because CHNV migrants fly directly to this country, they don’t show up in the Border Patrol’s monthly Southwest border encounter totals — the metric the media usually rely on when talking about illegal migration.
So 360,000 people enter the country per year — and probably more — without being added to the millions being encountered at the border.
That doesn’t mean CHNV parolees have any more legal right to be admitted than apprehended migrants do, or that they aren’t imposing costs on American communities.
Cities like New York haven’t been dealing with migrant crises in the past three years solely because Border Patrol agents have apprehended nearly 7 million illegal entrants at the Southwest border since February 2021.
Instead, those municipal emergencies stem from the administration’s policy of releasing nearly every encountered migrant and allowing them to remain here indefinitely.
Understand: There were border surges under both the Obama and the Trump administrations, but they weren’t allowed to fester. Each recognized the problem and ramped up deterrence.
This administration, however, has largely refused to deter would-be migrants from coming here illegally.
So in lieu of deterring migrants from coming illegally, the administration is buying them off and hiding the transaction using schemes like CHNV parole.
The White House calls this program a “legal pathway to the United States,” but DHS’s own statistics prove otherwise.
CHNV beneficiaries are inadmissible because they lack proper admission documents, even if DHS paroles them.
As such, each is a port “encounter” — a figure that jumped from fewer than 76,000 in FY 2021 to nearly 460,000 in just the first nine months of FY 2024 alone as these administration schemes have proliferated.
Regardless of whether they’re apprehended and released or stopped at the ports and paroled, all still need food, housing, medical care and services.
CHNV is being paused because thousands of sponsors who promised support were fraudulent.
US taxpayers will be left picking up the difference, but it won’t be the first time they’ve been rolled by the Biden-Harris administration.
The final insult to this injury? After uncovering massive fraud, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said, “DHS will restart application processing as quickly as possible, with appropriate safeguards.”
As quickly as possible. Why? Why is the Biden-Harris administration so desperate to let in hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans no matter the cost?
https://nypost.com/2024/08/06/opinion/biden-harris-fraud-filled-effort-to-import-hundreds-of-thousands-of-venezuelans-cubans-and-haitians/
**************************************************
August 7, 2024
Over 100 migrants arrive in the UK on little boats after a spell of good weather bringing the total number of arrivals for the year to a record 17,284
Crammed into a dinghy somewhere in the middle of the Channel, a child sucks on a dummy.
Nearby in the overcrowded migrant boat, a man blows into a toy rubber ring in an apparent bid to use the flimsy device as a rudimentary life jacket.
These startling images were captured by drone today as the latest migrant vessels made their way from France to the UK.
The photographs, showing at least 60 people onboard the dinghy, viscerally illustrate how evil people trafficking gangs dispatch boats with no regard for human life.
Dozens of migrants straddled the edge of the inflatable vessel, with others cowered in the deck well.
Several figures at the stern covered their faces with hoods, potentially because the Home Office is more likely to lay immigration crime charges against anyone who takes the tiller of a migrant boat.
The Mail revealed last month how we found wrappings from 17 children's inflatable toy rings on the sands at Gravelines beach, near Calais.
Migrants used them in a feeble attempt at protecting themselves during the dangerous 21-mile crossing of the world's busiest shipping lane.
Home Office data published today showed there were 114 small boat arrivals on Monday, following 267 over the weekend.
It means 3,710 migrants have reached Britain since Labour came to power, not including today's unconfirmed number of arrivals.
The total since the beginning of the year has now reached 17,284, up 15 per cent on the same point last year.
One of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's first actions in office was to scrap the Conservatives' Rwanda asylum scheme, which was designed to remove irregular migrants to the east African nation.
Tory ministers insisted the scheme would have helped deter migrants from making the Channel crossing in the first place.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13715743/Over-100-migrants-arrive-UK-little-boats-spell-good-weather-bringing-total-number-arrivals-year-record-17-284.html
**************************************************
August 4, 2024
3 Palestinian terror suspects caught after crossing border illegally as overwhelmed agents warn: ‘I probably let terrorists in’
Border agents detained three Palestinian migrants who illegally crossed the southern border after they were found to have possible ties to terrorist organizations earlier this month, according to sources.
One of the migrants had “salacious photos” on their phone — including a picture of a masked man holding an AK-47 rifle, federal law enforcement sources said.
In addition to the three Palestinians, federal authorities caught one migrant from Turkey who was also suspected of having ties to terror groups.
The migrants were among groups of dozens of migrants who turned themselves in to border agents at the San Diego sector, said sources.
An investigation into the migrants is ongoing, sources said. The group was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is investigating their cases.
It’s the latest example of potential security threats entering the US via the southern border — especially at San Diego.
Overwhelmed Border Patrol agents tell The Post that they do not have the tools to fully vet the migrants who are coming in from all over the world — particularly into the San Diego area.
Mostly, they are only able to use US terror watchlists and other American resources to help determine which migrants could be a terror threat. Border agents do not have access to terror or criminal databases from other countries.
“Knowing who these guys are, we have, like, no access to anything international. Like, we really don’t and it kind of sucks,” said one border agent, who spoke anonymous because they were not authorized to give public statements.
“I wanted to get into Border Patrol and protect from terrorists. And it’s like, well, I probably let terrorists in the country.”
A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
It’s unclear which terrorist organization the migrants were allegedly affiliated with.
However, border agents in the San Diego sector were warned to be on the lookout for individuals tied to Palestinian terrorist groups after the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel.
“San Diego Field Office Intelligence Unit assesses that individuals inspired by, or reacting to the current Israel-Hamas conflict may attempt travel to or from the area of hostilities in the Middle East via circuitous transit across the Southwest border,” the previous alert read.
“Foreign fighters motivated by ideology or mercenary soldiers of fortune may attempt to obfuscate travel to or from the US to or from countries in the Middle East through Mexico,” the memo adds, before listing the patches of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
The migrants crossed the border just weeks after the Biden administration instituted new policies that restrict the ability of migrants to request asylum — though the executive order has has major loopholes allowing migrants to still be released into the country.
https://nypost.com/2024/07/28/us-news/palestinian-terror-suspects-caught-after-crossing-illegally
**************************************************
August 1, 2024
The New Yorker Tries to Spin Harris's Immigration Efforts
On July 28, the New Yorker put its own unique spin on the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate's immigration efforts, in an article headlined "The Real Story of Kamala Harris' Record on Immigration". While it offers unseen insights into White House border debates over the past four years, much of it is little than tendentious spin intended to cover the migrant surge.
H.Res. 1371. I'll start where the article really begins, with a House resolution, H. Res. 1371, introduced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) (chairman of the House Republican Conference) captioned "Strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border".
The first clause in the resolution states that "President Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working to address illegal immigration into the United States, including "root causes", and came to be known colloquially as the Biden administration's 'border czar'".
What follows in that resolution is largely a laundry list of disasters that have unfolded at the Southwest border in the past three and a half years.
Here's how the New Yorker interprets the succeeding clauses in H.Res. 1371:
The rest of the resolution is replete with falsehoods, misrepresentations, and other inanities. At one point, its authors claim that border crossings in May, 2024, were "higher than even the highest month seen under President Trump," which is untrue. They also cite the chief of Border Patrol, who had "stated that Vice President Kamala Harris has not spoken with him since he was appointed in July 2023"; this simply proves the point that she was not, in fact, in charge of the border. On Thursday, in a party-line vote scheduled before the House adjourns for its August recess, Republicans passed the measure. It is purely symbolic.
While I concur that the resolution is "purely symbolic", nearly all House resolutions are symbolic, so I'm not sure what point the author is making, save to reiterate the obvious.
In any event, there are so many "falsehoods, misrepresentations, and other inanities" in that paragraph that I need to break them up.
"Border Crossings". The resolution's sponsors didn't actually "claim that border crossings in May 2024, were 'higher than even the highest month seen under President Trump", as the article contends. Rather, clauses 11 and 12 in H.Res. 1371 state:
Whereas, in May 2024, there were 170,723 illegal immigrant encounters at the United States southern border, a 185 percent increase from the average May encounter total under President Trump; [and]
Whereas May 2024 was the 39th straight month where monthly illegal immigrant encounters have been higher than even the highest month seen under President Trump . . . [Emphasis added.]
Both of those claims are dispositively true, as CBP's own statistics reveal. The problem is that either the author of the article doesn't know what an "encounter" is, or he elided some fairly salient facts.
By way of background, I must first note nearly all in the media (including the New Yorker) assess the rate of illegal migration by focusing solely on just one statistic, "Border Patrol apprehensions".
An apprehension occurs when a Border Patrol agent arrests a migrant who has crossed the border illegally, between the ports.
Up until January 2023, the monthly number of apprehensions was the most useful metric to determine how many migrants were coming to the border illegally, even though that stat didn't tell the whole story. That's because by definition, apprehension totals exclude aliens who crossed illegally but weren't caught (identified in statute as "got aways").
Apprehensions, however, are just part of what DHS identifies as "encounters", a term the department has been using since March 2020, when Title 42 first took effect.
In addition to apprehensions, "encounters" include aliens who were deemed inadmissible by CBP officers in the agency's Office of Field Operations (OFO) component at the ports of entry.
In FY 2020, for example, Border Patrol agents at the Southwest border apprehended 400,651 illegal entrants, while CBP officers in OFO stopped 57,437 other inadmissible aliens at the ports of entry there, for a total of 458,088 Southwest border encounters that fiscal year.
That OFO "inadmissible" figure has always been somewhat useful, for it showed how many aliens were trying to talk their way past CBP officers at the ports each month. Ports are meant for lawful travelers, and aliens without visas trying to exploit them have long been an issue to be addressed.
The concept that the ports are intended only for lawful travelers was turned on its head on January 5, 2023, when the White House issued a fact sheet titled "Biden-?Harris Administration Announces New Border Enforcement Actions".
In a break from every prior administration, it announced that the Southwest border ports of entry would now be open to facially inadmissible aliens without visas or other admission documents, provided they scheduled port appointments using the CBP One app (what I refer to as the "CBP One app interview scheme").
At present, 1,450 interview slots are available each day for inadmissible CBP One migrants, or roughly 43,500 per month.
https://cis.org/Arthur/New-Yorker-Tries-Spin-Harriss-Immigration-Efforts