Friday, February 24, 2017

Immigration

by -

The Trump White House is planning a big immigration push that could start a war over immigration in the United States.

There are few topics that have fueled the anti-Trump protestors than immigration, and Trump’s new “big immigration launch” is going to infuriate them.

The White House is working with the Department of Homeland Security on a proposal that will dramatically add and empower thousands of new officers.

According to a senior administration official, Fox News is reporting that the proposal will hire new officers to fast-track deportations.

The new secretary of the DHS, John Kelly, is asking for 10,000 new ICE officers in the proposal as well as 5,000 additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers.

Kelly blames the rise in immigration as the need for the new recruits.

“The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States.”

Although this proposal doesn’t focus on the border wall, the new DHS head thinks that is “necessary” to build the wall.

Trump isn’t looking to change any laws to get his way on immigration; he is looking just to enforce the laws that are currently in place.

The push for more immigration agents is another campaign promise that Trump has now kept.

Trump’s actions are solidifying him as the leader that many supporters hoped for, but to millions on the left, they see his actions as more evidence that Trump needs to be stopped.

There is no doubt the left is going to try and stop Trump regardless of what he does, but Trump’s new hires for DHS will go through with no issues.

Trump’s travel ban to countries that support terrorism is a different story. The executive order is having a hard time making it through the courts and CNN is reporting that Trump is “preparing a new travel ban”.

When Trump issued the original travel ban protesters almost shut down airports.

What will they do when Trump hires 15,000 new agents to crack down on illegal immigrants?

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president.

The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.”

In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.

This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counties leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.

The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.

The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.”

Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.

by -

Of the many words to describe Donald Trump, “measured” and “precise” are not among them. This, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing for a larger-than-life figure like Trump. His grandiose demeanor and over-the-top rhetoric is not only responsible for his celebrity status and immense wealth, but his political fortunes as well.

The hallmark of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign was Trump’s broad, sweeping pronouncements about the “sad” state of America; on issues from immigration to terrorism to outsourcing, and more. His ability to channel populist angst about the failures of the Establishment to address the real problems facing Americans was masterful, especially considering his solutions to such problems were no less vague and simplistic. The tactic worked, and Trump won the election. However, that was the campaign, in which exaggerated rhetoric and bite-sized solutions are a candidate’s stock-in-trade.

Serving as president of the United States, however, is far different; or at least it should be. A sure sign of this is the hullabaloo over Trump’s executive order regarding the temporary halt of refugees from foreign countries, and a pause in travel for residents of seven countries considered terrorist hotspots. On intentions alone, the executive order was both a reasonable and a practical first-step to ensuring America’s national security interests were not being sacrificed in the name of globalist altruism. Given Europe’s ongoing battle with domestic terrorism due in part to the flood of refugees from the Middle East, it would have been irresponsible not to immediately review our policies in this regard.

Yet, as the saying goes, the road to Hell — or in this case the federal court system — is paved with good intentions . . . and, poor execution.

Such seems to be the case with the so-called “travel ban” executive order. Instead of working with the various federal agencies involved with immigration policy — prepping them on the incoming changes and soliciting their advice for its implementation — the Trump White House reportedly rushed its release; giving little notice to Homeland Security and failing to have the policies properly reviewed by the Justice Department. The final result of what should have been a noteworthy policy change was mass confusion, mass protests, and a continuing court battle over its constitutionality.

The White House did itself no favors with the release of the order or in its subsequent explanations; using terms like “extreme vetting” to describe the changes, without ever defining what, exactly, “extreme vetting” actually means.

For starters, “vetting” is not a legal term, so its use to describe changes to a legal process only muddies the water. Secondly, the federal government (and the president in particular) already possesses broad powers to police America’s borders and ports of entry. Such powers include warrantless searches of persons, luggage, or vehicles; powers which the president or those agencies involved can change or expand anytime, without issuing an executive order or calling on Congress for legislative authority.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration frequently asserted the government’s right to inspect and detain electronics from all persons traveling into the United States, and to copy any information stored on those devices. Add to this the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently started collecting social media account information for those applying for travel to the United States, and you have an extremely robust “vetting” process already in place.

Thus, outside of any updates to the internal processes of the State Department and other agencies involved in approving refugees or foreign travelers, the government already has at its disposal a broad arsenal of “extreme vetting” powers. So, if the changes were, in fact, behind-the-scenes, why was this not explicitly detailed by the Trump Administration when announcing the policy, rather than brushing aside the changes with overly simplistic and utterly meaningless terminology?

Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with the changes made by the executive order, Administration officials, if not Trump himself, have a responsibility to clearly and precisely explain significant policy changes. There is a practical reason for this, as the chaos following the immigration policy illustrated. So-called “Green Card” holders were left stranded in airports — a result that allowed the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hang their hat in finding Trump’s Order unconstitutional.

If the White House will not define its policy changes, others will, including Democrats looking for any chance to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Administration. That is exactly what happened here; and guess with which narrative the Mainstream Media ran?

Trump has already proven detractors of his abilities as Executive-in-Chief wrong with several of his cabinet picks, not to mention his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Avoiding stumbles like his immigration executive order, by keeping in mind that he is no longer on the campaign trail, will help him keep this momentum and out of unnecessary controversies; otherwise, further unnecessary challenges and set backs will result.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -
A Fourth of July Party at the U.S. Embassy in London held for diplomats and their close friends -- tab went to the U.S. Taxpayers

The United States Department of State has a problem.

The isolated employees of this government agency that serves as the face of America across the world appears to have their own agenda regardless of who is serving in the White House.

A “dissent cable” is being reported widely within the corporate media and has garnered 1,000 signers of State Department employees . . . and it’s still being circulated.

The letter started in an office in Washington, D.C. then electronically shuffled its way around the world, showing up in one embassy after another.

The Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) document is reproduced in full below.

The memo, while written in a standard government format that is difficult to understand due to overuse of acronyms and “inside talk” essentially vents about the Executive Order signed by President Trump.

The order temporarily blocked refugees from seven hostile nations.

Standing out within the document is its emotional tone that is designed to invoke sympathy for non-Americans. The memo recalls an Iranian boy whose parents had spent $6,000 on a trip to NASA who asked, “Can I not go because I am Iranian?”

Other sob stories told by State Department employees included an Iranian couple who were traveling to see their son who was dying of cancer in the United States, and another Iranian man, married to an American who wanted to travel to see the birth of his child.

The author of the sensitive document, along with its 1,000 signers clearly place the personal interests of foreign nationals over the security of the United States.

But it’s nothing new.

The “dissent channel” has existed within the United States Department of State since the Vietnam War.

It is an unusual method to voice complaints and resolve conflicts that creates confusion abroad and discontent at home as the internal memos are nearly always leaked.

In June of 2016, 51 American diplomats circulated a similar dissent cable critical of President Obama’s Syrian policy and called for “bombing” within the war-torn nation. The bombing runs were promoted by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The corporate media of course buried that story.

Fast forward just four days, and President Trump’s discussions with foreign leaders were leaked to the press and offered in a way to embarrass the new president.

The Drudge Report blared with the headline. “Trump Threatens Troops in Mexico” while another story recalled a tense discussion with the Australian Prime Minster over Syrian refugees.

Who would have had access to these transcripts?

Employees of the Department of State.

Who leaked them? Take a guess.

Diplomats and their many employees and assistants, paid for by American taxpayers, have for many decades taken a “let’s all get along for a better world” mentality rather than doing what they are paid to do which is placing America’s interests above all else.

Compromise appears to be their only solution as they mingle with their well-healed foreign counterparts; attend their cocktail parties and treat any foreigner with power as close as family.

The loyalty of these entrenched diplomats appears to stop at the borders of their own nation.

It’s time for President of the United States to clean house and terminated the jobs and contracts of anyone and everyone working for the Department of State. Their institutional knowledge is best forgotten and replaced with the acumen of American business leaders who have had no other choice but to deal with foreign nations fairly yet firmly.

Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the example of the type of diplomat America needs at this point in time.

For far too long, our nation has served as not only the World’s Police Force, but the wealthy, dumb uncle that everyone takes advantage of.

One-by-one, Trump can take pleasure in marching in every State Department employee . . . down to the last secretary . . . and repeating the words, “You’re fired.”

“Dissent Cable” printed below.

Subject: Visa Applicants at Consulate General Dubai Seek Clarification on Executive Order
SUMMARY
1. (SBU) Begin summary. For the second consecutive day, pursuant to official guidance from Consular Affairs on the President’s January 27 Executive Order (EO) on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, Consulate General (CG) Dubai canceled over 180 visa interviews on January 30. Consular officers once again staffed the security checkpoint at the Consular Services Entrance and personally provided letters explaining the appointment cancellations to over 50 Iranian nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants; consular staff also informed several Legal Permanent Residents and immigrant visa beneficiaries who had not yet entered the United States about the EO. Consular officers witnessed significant frustration and confusion, especially among the mostly Iranian NIV applicant pool, as they relayed and explained the new policy. End summary.
GREEN CARD HOLDERS AND IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS
2. (SBU) Several green card and immigrant visa holders sought clarification on their ability to travel to the United States. An Iraqi man, who previously obtained a Special Immigrant Visa for his work as an interpreter with the U.S. Army in Iraq, provided a letter of recommendation from the U.S. military and said, “I just don’t know what to do.” Another young Iraqi man with an approved immigrant visa, accompanied by his Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) mother, inquired as to whether he or she could travel to the United States. An Iranian green card holder expressed concern that the 90 day suspension would affect her LPR status.
FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL IMPACT ON IRANIAN NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS
3. (SBU) Over half of the Iranian NIV applicants appeared for their canceled January 30 appointments, despite Consulate General Dubai’s GSS contractor having informed them on January 29 of their appointment cancellation. [Note: While NIV appointments for January 30 included applicants from the other six countries affected by the EO, none appeared at the consulate for their interview. CG Dubai’s GSS Contractor notified all applicants affected by the EO of the interview cancellations via email and text message. End Note] Many applicants lamented the financial burdens incurred in traveling from Iran to Dubai for an interview that had been canceled. One couple said that they had waited for over six months for their appointment date; they expressed concern about the difficulty of rescheduling if the ban is lifted.
4. (SBU) Several applicants were elderly parents trying to visit their children in the United States. One Iranian woman stated, “I haven’t seen my daughter in two years. I was going to meet my new grandchild. I pray this all gets situated. We were hoping we could have been interviewed and have our cases put on hold. Then we would have felt that we had made some sort of progress.” Another Iranian applicant accompanied by his wife and daughter complained about “the arbitrariness” of the EO. He stated, “Tell President Trump that my government is the terrorist, but we the people are not terrorists.”
5. (SBU) Applicants became extremely emotional while interacting with consular officers, believing that the recent reports of a judicial stay on the EO applied to them. An Iranian man with a pregnant American citizen wife in the United States pleaded, “Please, can I just go see the birth of my child? Is there any exception? I will have to have my wife come to Iran for the birth. I want to be there to see my child.” Another Iranian couple said that they were traveling to care for their dying son in the United States, stating, “By the time the ban is lifted, my son is going to be dead from cancer.”
6. (SBU) A thirteen-year old Iranian boy also came to the Consulate to inquire about the validity of his previously issued U.S. NIV. He said that his parents had paid $6,000 for an upcoming school trip to NASA. He asked, “I heard about the Presidential order. Can I not go because I am Iranian?”
COMMENT
7. (SBU) CG Dubai is still inundated with Iranian NIV applicants, green card holders, and immigrant visa holders affected by the EO who are seeking clarification and explanations. Post believes that communication challenges reaching individuals inside Iran mean that applicants are not receiving appointment cancellation notifications from Post’s GSS contractor and continue to travel to Dubai to attend their visa appointments. CG Dubai will continue to deploy consular officers to directly engage with those who have questions or complaints about interview cancellations or bars on U.S. travel. CG Dubai seeks updated talking points on how the EO impacts legal permanent residents seeking to return to the United States and dual nationals of countries of concern.

by -

A few days after the Chicago City Council approved a $1.3 million legal defense fund to help illegal immigrants facing deportation, officials in Los Angeles unveiled their version with more than seven times the money. It appears to be a growing trend of using public funds to protect those who have violated federal law. The offenders are municipalities that have long offered illegal aliens sanctuary and an array of taxpayer-funded benefits.

Last week Chicago officials proudly announced their legal defense fund to help immigrants threatened with deportation. It was created to prepare for President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise to deport thousands of illegal immigrants. One Chicago alderman admitted he probably has illegal aliens working in his city office. The lawmaker, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, said this in a local news report: “Donald Trump, we are sending you a message, you will not tear apart our families, we will stay together. We will defend and protect our communities.” The money to defend illegal immigrants for violating the nation’s federal statutes will come from Chicago property tax rebate funds.

An African-American alderman who represents Chicago’s South Side went along with the measure to help the city’s illegal immigrants, but made it clear that the struggling communities she represents should have priority. “I’d like to see the administration put the same amount of effort into creating a legal representation fund for all of those young black boys and black girls that are racially profiled in this city or are shot by the police unnecessarily or to support programs like CeaseFire to quell some of the violence in our community,” said Alderman Pat Dowell. “When the mayor talks about wanting to keep the immigrant communities safe, secure and supported, those are the same needs that other communities have. … To raise the immigrant communities’ issues to the forefront, I think is something we should do. But, I’d like to see the same attention to some needs we have in our community.”

A few days after Chicago’s announcement, another sanctuary city more than 1,700 miles away launched a $10 million fund to help illegal immigrants dodge justice. The local newspaper called it “the region’s boldest move yet as it prepares for an expected crackdown on illegal immigration by Donald Trump.” The L.A. city attorney, whose office prosecutes crimes and represents the city in litigation, said the money will ensure that there is “more fairness and more effectiveness in the immigration system,” which, of course, is a federal and not a state matter. L.A.’s mayor said the taxpayer dollars allocated to this cause will help the region’s “most vulnerable” immigrants. The money will come from the city’s general fund, which is used for services such as street repairs, fire and police protection.

Shortly after the city announced its fund, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors offered to kick in another $3 million to provide lawyers for illegal aliens that may face removal under the new administration. The board voted 4-1 in favor of contributing to the L.A. Justice Fund. The supervisor who voted against it, Kathryn Barger, said it’s irresponsible for the board to allocate funding for such a program. Several residents also spoke out at the meeting, according to news reports, that described it as a “heated” event. One resident said “illegal immigration is a crime, let’s be honest. We’re talking about spending millions of dollars protecting criminals from justice.” Another L.A. resident opposed to using tax dollars to help illegal aliens pointed out that “when you come across that border, and you don’t have the right to be here, you’re illegal. It’s the same as selling dope, shooting somebody. Illegal is illegal.”

by -
obama

After rolling out the welcome mat for central American illegal immigrants, the Obama administration is scrambling to halt the flow because government detention centers and charity shelters are overwhelmed with the bombardment of migrants.

In the fiscal year that ended in September, the U.S. Border Patrol detained 137,366 illegal aliens—women with children or minors—at the Mexican border who qualified to stay in the country under the president’s humanitarian crisis measure. That’s an eye-popping 90% increase from 2015, according to government figures.

In October, the first month of the new fiscal year, 46,195 individuals were apprehended on the southwest border compared to 39,501 in September and 37,048 in August, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures show. As a result, there are 41,000 individuals in immigration detention facilities, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson revealed last week, when the number typically fluctuates between 31,000 and 34,000.

Johnson has authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to acquire additional detention space for single adults “so that those apprehended at the border can be returned to their home countries as soon as possible.” Johnson added that the U.S. has engaged with a number of countries to repatriate their citizens more quickly.

The open borders frenzy has clearly backfired and the administration appears to be scrambling to contain the crisis it created. “Our borders cannot be open to illegal migration,” Johnson proclaimed just a few days ago in a DHS announcement. “We must, therefore, enforce the immigration laws consistent with our priorities. Those priorities are public safety and border security.” The DHS secretary continued: “Those who attempt to enter our country without authorization should know that, consistent with our laws and our values, we must and we will send you back.” Additionally, DHS has launched a campaign to scare migrants out of making the trek north with videos featuring traumatized illegal aliens who made it and are currently in U.S. custody. The government is trying to clean up its own mess.

The influx of central Americans came after the administration did a fantastic job promoting a special program—in English and Spanish—for illegal aliens from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala who claim to flee violence.

Media outlets throughout Latin America reported it widely and madness ensued. When droves of central Americans started appearing at U.S. ports of entry along the Mexican border, the administration tried to slow the pace by creating a program to pre-screen candidates before making the journey.

Johnson said it was an alternative, safe and legal path to the United States for vulnerable individuals while combating human smuggling operations that had already brought in tens of thousands of illegal aliens. Officially this is known as Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program.

But it’s not just kids who qualify for the special parole, which is extended to those up to the age of 21. Family members are also eligible, including “unmarried children of the qualifying child or in-country parent who are under the age of 21” and members of the same household and economic unit as the qualifying child as well as the spouse of a remarried parent. How the U.S. government confirms any of this is anybody’s guess.

In some cases, immigration authorities require DNA tests to prove biological connections between children and parents and Uncle Sam picks up the tab for that.

The number of foreigners filing asylum applications has skyrocketed in the last year and is about 10 times higher than it was before Obama became president, the Washington D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) revealed last month. Citing figures obtained from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the nonprofit published a report stating that the increase in so-called credible fear claims follows a 2009 executive order that calls for such arrivals to be granted parole in the U.S. while they pursue asylum.

“Judging by current approval statistics from the immigration courts, ultimately few will be found qualified for asylum, but nearly all are allowed into the country, and they are not considered a priority for deportation under current policy,” CIS writes.

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

by -
obama

Our immigration policies are not working in America and now Obama wants to bring in 57% more refugees in 2017.

Immigration is a big issue right now in the elections and Obama could be helping Trump when it was announced the White House and the Democrats want to raise the number of imported refugees to 110,000 next year.

The increase is huge.

We brought in 70,000 refugees in 2013, 2014, 2015 and the White House raised the number to 85,000 in 2016.

Now Obama wants to bring the number up to 110,000 in 2017 with most of the refugees coming from Syria.

Obama even took to the airways to urge Americans to accept the Syrian refugees.

Helping refugees is something that we should do, but importing so many people from a place that where core beliefs contradict with Western equality could become very dangerous.

One thing that Republicans must consider is the combination of the increased refugees and the illegal immigrants and the potential threat to the balance of power in America. If amnesty was pushed through, there could be a large amount of newly registered Democrats.

Amnesty could be devastating due to the fact that many live in red states like Texas, but many have also been settled in battleground states.

There have been reports that the government is even paying to relocate many illegals and refugees into the middle of America, the area that normally always goes red in most elections.

If Republicans ever want to keep any power they have, then they cannot allow a broad sweeping Amnesty deal that would make many illegals and refugees citizens of the USA.

Do you think we should bring in 110,000 new refugees next year? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
African

Herds of African immigrants are being housed in shelters in the Mexican border town of Tijuana while they await entry into the United States under what appears to be a secret accord between the Obama administration, Mexico and the Central American countries the Africans transited on their journey north.

A backlog of African migrants is overwhelming limited shelter space in Tijuana and Mexican officials blame the slow pace of U.S. immigration authorities in the San Isidro port of entry for granting only 50 asylum solicitations daily.

Details about this disturbing program come from Mexico’s immigration agency, Instituto Nacional de Migracion (INM), and appear this week in an article published by the country’s largest newspaper. “Mexico is living through a wave of undocumented Africans, due to a humanitarian crisis on that continent, that has saturated shelters in Tapachula, Chiapas, and generated pressure on shelters in Tijuana, Baja California,” the news article states.

The African migrants’ journey begins in Brazil under a South American policy that allows the “free transit” of immigrants throughout the continent. Ecuador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama facilitate the process by transferring the concentration of foreigners towards Mexico based on an agreement that Mexico will help them gain entry into the U.S. so they can solicit asylum.

The Africans are mostly entering Mexico through the southern state of Chiapas, which borders Guatemala. This week alone 424 Africans arrived at the Chiapas immigration station, which is situated in Tapachula.

Shelters in Tijuana currently have 154 migrants from African countries waiting on their U.S. asylum solicitations, according to figures provided by the INM. “The undocumented don’t want to stay in Mexico,” the news article clarifies.

“They want to make it to U.S. territory to solicit asylum based on the life conditions that prevail in the continent.” Authorities in Tijuana are offering support to migrants from El Congo, Somalia, Ghana and Pakistan to facilitate entering the U.S. through the San Isidro crossing, according to the news story. San Isidro is the largest land border crossing between San Diego, California and Tijuana.

The Obama administration has done a great job of promoting its various back-door amnesty programs, which include perpetually extending a humanitarian measure designed to temporarily shield illegal immigrants from deportation during emergencies.

It’s known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and in the last few years migrants from several African countries have received it so the new influx is not all surprising. Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone got TPS back in 2014 over the lingering effects of the Ebola Virus and earlier this year Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson extended it.

The administration cited the “continued recovery challenges” the African countries face for the extension.

Last summer Johnson extended a TPS for Somalians until March 17, 2017, which could have served as a driving force behind the sudden surge via Latin America. A notice in the Federal Register says the extension was warranted because the conditions in Somalia that prompted the TPS designation continue to be met.

“There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Somalia due to ongoing armed conflict that would pose a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Somali nationals, as well as extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country that prevent Somali nationals from returning to Somalia in safety,” the notice states. “The Secretary has also determined that permitting eligible Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

by -
cake in the face

A German political recently called for a limitation to the number of refugees that Germany can receive, but a liberal activist group disagrees.

Instead of debating the issue like rational adults, an activist was able to get hit the German MP with a chocolate cake. Something you don’t see every day.

Watch for yourself.

The activist was arrested and the German MP was able to wipe off the cake and dry clean her clothes. What didn’t happen, unfortunately, she didn’t immediately stand up and say, “You want a piece of me?” Clearly we can’t have our cake and eat it too.

Meanwhile in America, babies want to kill Trump.

If you could put cake in the face of any politician who would it be? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
MS-13

A major bust involving the nation’s most violent street gang reveals that the criminal enterprise—known as Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13—continues to be energized with new recruits provided by the steady flow of illegal immigrant minors entering the U.S. through Mexico.

The affiliation between gangs and the hordes of Central American illegal immigrants who continue invading the U.S. is a story Judicial Watch has been reporting for more than a year. The Obama administration calls them Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and tries to portray them as innocent, desperate kids fleeing violence and famine in their homeland. The reality is much different, as top Homeland Security sources have told JW in the course of an ongoing investigation into the dangerously porous southern border.

As soon as the UACs started arriving in the summer of 2014, Homeland Security sources told Judicial Watch that many had ties to gang members in the U.S. In fact, JW reported in 2014 that street gangs—including MS-13—went on a recruiting frenzy at U.S. shelters housing the illegal immigrant minors and they were using Red Cross phones to communicate. The MS-13 is a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs.

Just a few months ago JW reported that the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that the MS-13 is a top tier gang thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that crossed into the state. The number of MS-13 members encountered by U.S. Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector has increased each year, accelerating in 2014 and coinciding with increased illegal immigration from Central America during the same period, the agency disclosed in a report linked to JW’s story. This clearly refers to the UAC crisis that saw over 60,000 illegal immigrants—many with criminal histories—storm into the U.S. in a matter of months.

Now we learn that dozens of MS-13 members were recently indicted in Boston for serious crimes including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, firearm violations, federal racketeering and immigration offenses. Several of the defendants are responsible for murdering at least five people since 2014 and the attempted murder of at least 14 in Chelsea and East Boston, according to the federal indictment. MS-13 members also sell cocaine, heroin and marijuana and commit robberies to generate income to pay monthly dues to incarcerated gang leadership in El Salvador, federal prosecutors say. The money is used to pay for weapons, cell phones, shoes, food and other supplies for MS-13 thugs in and out of jail in El Salvador.

In their announcement of this substantial gang bust, federal prosecutors in Massachusetts reveal that MS-13 actively recruited prospective members in high schools situated in communities with “significant immigrant populations from Central America.” The recruits are known as “paros” and they are typically 14 or 15 years old, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The perspective members then must engage in violent criminal activity before becoming a full-fledged MS-13 member. With a direct line of access to thousands of new recruits, Obama’s ongoing flow of UACs, it’s logical to conclude the problem will only get worse. Authorities in Texas predict the gang problem will grow. “Gang members from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador could be destined for locations in Texas with large Central American communities, including the Houston and Dallas areas,” the Texas Department of Safety writes in the report JW cites above. Even if that doesn’t materialize, the state already has a serious gang crisis as do other border states with high illegal alien populations.

 

TRENDING STORIES

On Thursday there were two large terror attacks and a terrorist was caught in London, but the corporate media focused on Trump’s press conference. On...