Another Poll Counters Media Narrative, Shows Support for Border Wall
The ringing narrative of the mainstream media is that the concept of a physical barrier on the southern border is both unpopular and unnecessary. However, a recent string of polls in important swing states show that narrative might not be as true as reported. A survey of 10 congressional districts that voted for president Trump in 2016, but elected a Democrat in 2018, found that a majority of respondents still support the president’s core agenda on immigration. The poll found that 61 percent of voters support the president’s positions on border security, including 53 percent who favor “building a border wall or barrier to improve security between the U.S. and Mexico. The polling agency, Public Opinion Strategies, conducted the survey for the Republican National Committee. The organization has a strong track record, including a “B” rating from Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, and has a higher accuracy rate than many major polling agencies, including the Morning Consult, Pew Research, and Gravis Marketing.The poll also found that voters were more likely to support the president’s immigration agenda when they are educated “about the need for a wall or barrier to improve national security.” In fact, the survey found that voters became 6 percent more likely to support a border barrier after learning more about the border crisis, including that 89 percent of Border Patrol agents believe that a barrier is necessary to secure the border..Americans are concerned about their security, and they are not blind to the fact that many in Washington seem uninterested in representing their best interests. President Trump rode a promise of true immigration reform into the White House in 2016. It should not come as a shock to anyone that Americans still support that agenda.
Are Democrats Inching Toward the Wall?
Cracks are appearing in the Democratic wall of opposition to President Donald Trump’s proposed border barrier.While party leaders attempt to maintain the hard line that precipitated the partial government shutdown, restive rank-and-file House members are chafing at top-down control.Virginia Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria, along with 30 other members, urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to make a deal with Trump.“He’s not talking about a wall from sea to shining sea,” Luria wrote in a letter to Pelosi. “We are talking about physical barriers as recommended by experts.”Other Democrats are speaking out, too. California Rep. Katie Hill, Washington Rep. Adam Smith and Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos have all conceded that fencing in certain areas is something they are not reflexively opposed to.By one Republican count, 60 House Democrats have indicated that they support some type of barrier, wall or fence at the U.S.-Mexico border.In the Senate, New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan said, “We all pledged to work in good faith to find common ground on border security. I think that really starts with making sure we’re listening to the experts on the front lines on this, and that may include strategic fencing in certain places.”Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., seconded that motion, saying, “Where folks say we need additional barrier protections, I’m all for it.”These comments leave wiggle room for toxic tradeoffs like legalization of illegal aliens and various “paths to citizenship.” And, as always, there are some wobbly Republicans, too.But outright opposition to the wall is crumbling as Border Patrol officers point to an ongoing “crisis” along the southern border and new polling in swing districts indicates steady support for a barrier. A Monmouth University survey this week showed nearly 90 percent of respondents oppose any type of amnesty-for-wall deal.Pelosi, of San Francisco, and other Democratic leaders ensconced in safely blue enclaves may think they can blow off border security without political consequence. Democrats from competitive districts and swing states don’t have that luxury. Neither do the American people.As Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., put it: “I think the one problem with my party is that we skip over border security, and you can’t.”With less than a three-week window for negotiations before another shutdown deadline, it’s encouraging that some Democrats are coming off the fence to support a wall. May many more make the leap, and mean it.
Media Go Heavy On Fear, But Light On Facts, When Covering ICE
The news about a recent report on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) courthouse arrests were packed like a sardine can with hyperbole and anti-enforcement propaganda. The only thing missing, naturally, were the facts.“ICE Courthouse Arrests Up 1700% Since Trump’s Inauguration: Report,” roared the Daily Beast.They followed up in the lead paragraph with a wild assertion that ICE courthouse arrests in New York (a small fact missing from the headline) “have become so sudden and aggressive that bystanders think they have just witnessed a kidnapping.”The New York Daily News’ lead paragraph “reported” that the arrests were “forcing immigrant families to endure terrifying episodes that witnesses have mistaken for kidnappings, according to a new report.”All of the parroted claims are based on findings from a report from the Immigrant Defense Project, an organization that, unlike the media, makes no attempt to hide its anti-immigration enforcement bias.IDP’s goals include ending “an immigration system that every year tears hundreds of thousands of immigrants with convictions from their homes, their families, and their communities” and “the current era of unprecedented mass deportation.”The IDP says the findings of the 15-page report released on Monday were drawn “from hundreds of reports collected by IDP’s staff over the course of 2018.” But there are no names, nor publicly-available information to verify the dates of arrests or whether any nature of force was used, as the report alleges.And the media simply replays allegations that it later contradicts with statements from court officials.For example, tacked onto the very end of one report is a statement from New York State’s Office of Court Administration (OCA), which oversees all state courts.According to OCA, ICE implemented a new policy in January in which the agency would limit arrests to criminal proceedings and make the arrests with Judicial warrants.“Additionally, as a result of our continued communication with them, they have effectively changed their tactics shying away from making arrests inside court facilities. Arrests inside of courthouses declined by over 50 percent from 2017 to 2018 from 40 to 13 in New York City and 54 to 26 statewide.”So, arrests inside courthouses have actually decreased in the last year.An article in the Queens Eagle claims arrests “have surged at Queens courts,” but that appears to conflict with a spokesman for Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown.“Despite the public attention, there have been relatively few instances of ICE making arrests in and around the courthouse. As far as making arrests in the courthouse, ICE agents appears to be complying with the court directive of identifying themselves to court personnel and stating their purpose,” said the spokesperson.Why would the media intentionally mislead the public on the matter of ICE fulfilling its mission?Consider that the IDP report is now a prominent and very public part of the debate over further limiting the presence of ICE in and around public courthouses – not to mention simply abolishing ICE.According to the New York Law Journal, the state’s Office of Court Administration is mulling the idea of barring federal immigration officers from arresting illegal immigrants “in state courthouses without a warrant signed by a federal judge.”Public support for this contemplated policy and the politicians who back it will be needed if it is to succeed. Given the news media’s prior history of biased reporting on immigration, only a fool would believe they do not have a dog in this hunt.
Suspected MS-13 Member, 2 Other Illegal Aliens Arrested In North Carolina Meth Bust
Three illegal aliens were recently arrested in North Carolina after allegedly trafficking $200,000 worth of methamphetamine. One of the suspects, Cristian Cabrera-Rivas, has already been deported multiple times and is reportedly a member of the notorious MS-13 gang, according to Breitbart.In December, prior to his most recent arrest, police apprehended Cabrera-Rivas on charges of “assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, assault by pointing a gun, [and] communicating threats and possession of a stolen gun.” However, Mecklenburg County released him despite his alleged criminal actions. Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise. The county, which was already a sanctuary jurisdiction, elected a new sheriff last year who campaigned against cooperation between local police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Shortly after taking office, he went even further by ending his department’s participation in ICE’s 287(g) program, which allows law enforcement from participating localities to train with ICE in handling federal immigration laws. But the situation with Cabrera-Rivas isn’t the first time Mecklenburg County released a potentially dangerous illegal alien back into the public. In December, the county accidentally released an illegal inmate, Sergio Coello-Perez, who allegedly committed murder in 2018. Law enforcement managed to detain him again, but the simple fact is both of these blunders occurred because county officials refused to cooperate with federal authorities.ICE issued a detainer for Coello-Perez after his first arrest that the county refused to acknowledge, and law enforcement had no business releasing an illegal alien like Cabrera-Rivas who already had a long criminal history.In addition to these two cases, local law enforcement is obviously dealing with a serious crime problem. A quick look at the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) data reveals that Mecklenburg County incarcerated almost 500 known illegal aliens in FY 2016. Localities receive reimbursements through SCAAP for illegal alien incarcerations, and the DOJ publicly releases that data each year. The number speaks for itself. With so many criminal aliens taken into custody, it’s time for county officials to do their job and protect their own citizens, rather than people who shouldn’t even be living there.As for Cabrera-Rivas, at least he is back in prison and this time in Gaston County, where the ICE detainer issued for him is likely to be honored. Hopefully justice will finally be served. However, without a physical barrier and increased security at our southern border, criminal aliens will continue returning to the United States after deportations and will likely commit even more crimes. Without the help of local law enforcement in major jurisdictions, North Carolina residents need all the help they can get.
Radical Left-Wing Democrats Demand Congress Cut Funding For Homeland Security
For weeks, Democrats in Congress have claimed they supported border security, but opposed a wall because it was expensive and inefficient.Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the third-ranking Democrat in the House, proposed a smart wall that would “create a technological barrier too high to climb over, too wide to go around, and too deep to burrow under.”Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), a top appropriator on the congressional panel set up to negotiate a spending deal and prevent another government shutdown, said “everything’s on the table” and that members of her caucus “will expand on” the $1.6 billion in already proposed border security programs.And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left open the door to “enhanced” or “Normandy” fencing (which is meant to stop vehicles) along the border, although she ruled out any chance of money for an actual wall.Even those minimal concessions are too much for three freshmen Democrats, who issued challenged to the new speaker and the new Democratic message by demanding cuts to funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“My colleagues @aoc @RashidaTlaib @AyannaPressley and I are telling Congress #not1dollar for child detention and for-profit detention by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE and [Department of Homeland Security] DHS, tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) Omar on Friday.In a “Dear Colleague” letter obtained by The Daily Beast, the freshmen lawmakers wrote that any deal reached by the Conference Committee “should not allocate any additional funding to this department or to the ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] CBP agencies.”In an interview, Omar insisted their simple message is that they are requesting “that Congress cut, not increase spending on detention facilities, stop using DHS as a slush fund, and include stronger accountability against DHS abuses under Donald Trump’s watch. We need to be the moral voice in calling attention to the abuses of ICE and CBP under Donald Trump.”To date, the Democrats’ initial proposal would provide about a 5 percent increase for ICE, which would bring the funding level to $7.44 billion — nearly $1.1 billion less than President Trump’s request.It also would allocate about $22 billion in total funding for CBP and ICE.The demands from three of the leaders of the so-called resistance comes out of the blue – and with a touch of hypocrisy.When the House held its first vote on Jan. 3, all three supported the passage of H.J. Res. 1, a continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 8. That, of course, included monies for ICE, CBP and other immigration enforcement agencies.And when the House considered two Democrat bills to re-open the government in late January, only Ocasio-Cortez voted against the measure. She cited opposition to funding ICE in her Instagram explanation of her vote.“We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding, and our community felt strongly about not funding that,” she said, according to Roll Call. The vote that eventually re-opened the government was passed in the House by unanimous consent.Reps. Omar, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley have demonstrated a knack for courting controversy and news coverage. We will know by the Feb. 15 government shutdown deadline whether they yield real influence within the Democratic caucus and whether their open-border, anti-enforcement voices speak for the larger Democratic Party.
A State Of The Union Stunt Makes The Case For E-Verify
At least two illegal workers formerly employed by Trump businesses will be in the House gallery for the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. That’s two more good reasons for Mr. Trump and Congress to insist on a mandatory E-Verify employment screening law.Courtesy of Democrats eager to make hay over illegal aliens on the payroll at Trump’s National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Victorina Morales and Sandra Diaz got reserved seats for the president’s speech.The Washington Times reported last month that just five of the 565 companies in the Trump Organization were signed up for the government’s E-Verify online vetting system.Attempting to improve the optics, the Trump companies announced they will start using E-Verify to weed out workers who are in the country illegally.“We are actively engaged in uniforming this process across our properties and will institute E-Verify at any property not currently utilizing this system,” said Eric Trump, executive vice president of the Trump Organization.Trump’s son blamed illegal aliens for submitting bogus paperwork that enabled them to be hired in the first place.His concern is legitimate. Counterfeit and stolen documents are widely used by illegal aliens to secure employment under false pretenses. This makes the case for E-Verify even stronger, and Trump & Co. should have put this tool to use long before now.“Much embarrassment for businesses and hardship for workers could be avoided if E-Verify were mandatory and only legal workers employed by all employers,” notes Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA.Research points to E-Verify’s effectiveness, with one study finding steep declines in illegal alien populations where the program was mandated.Indeed, E-Verify is key for any serious negotiations on immigration and border security. So it’s time for politicians on both side of the aisle to stop grandstanding and put E-Verify to work. Shut off the illegal jobs magnet, and illegal immigration will wane while American workers gain.
An Overdue Prosecution Of Birth Tourism Rings
On the morning of January 31, federal prosecutors in Southern California arrested three Chinese nationals and then unsealed indictments of other 19 individuals linked to the three “birth tourism” rings that received more than $3 million in wire transfers from China in just two years.The indictments are historic because they represent the first-ever federal criminal charges brought against operators and customers of “maternity houses,” which serve foreign mother who travel from abroad for the sole purpose of having a baby on U.S. soil.According to the indictment, Jing Dong, Michael Wei Yueh Liu, and Dongyuan Li operated the birthing and maternity houses that each promoted the advantages of giving birth in America, including that there was “better air,” that the U.S. had “priority for jobs in U.S. government,” and that they could get “free education from junior high school to public high school.”The women would first obtain fraudulent visas to enter the U.S. – often through ports of entry with less-vigorous vetting – and then would live in the houses until their babies were born. The cost to ensure their babies would be born in the U.S. ranged from $40,000 to $80,000.The women would receive coaching even before they entered the U.S. – even advising them to travel before 30 weeks so they would not be refused entry, according to The Los Angeles Times.Prosecutors, investigators from multiple agencies have been working on building the case since March 2015 when federal agents launched operations to break up the rings.In addition to engaging in tax evasion, the customers and operators were involved in defrauding the hospitals as well. According to USA Today, one of the new parents paid “just $4,080 of a $28,845 hospital bill, even though their bank account showed charges at Louis Vuitton, Rolex and Wynn Las Vegas hotel-casino.”During the 2016 presidential primary campaign, the media focused on how the illicit practice was phrased and whom it might offend, rather than on the damage is being done to the fabric of the nation by allowing the U.S. immigration system to be abused. Amazingly, The Huffington Post published an article asserted that cracking down on birth tourism involving Chinese nationals would be economically harmful and potentially racist.Others outside the rhetorical bubble, however, see the real risks to not getting tough on it.“Statements by the operators of these birthing houses show contempt for the United States, while they were luring clients with the power and prestige of U.S. citizenship for their children. Some of the wealthy clients of these businesses also showed blatant contempt for the U.S. by ignoring court orders directing them to stay in the country to assist with the investigation and by skipping out on their unpaid hospital bills,” said Nick Hanna, U.S. Attorney for the Central District California.If we are going to get really serious about stopping the birth tourism business, then we will have to address the problem before there is a visa issued to overstay or abuse.“The solutions to this problem wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. Consular officers should enforce the law rigorously. Their performance should be evaluated, at least in part, by their record of visa issuance. Ports of entry should limit visitors to 90 days, and extensions should be granted in only very rare cases. So-called tourists shouldn’t be able to enjoy an endless holiday. If they want to stay in the U.S. permanently, they first should be required to return home,” advises former diplomat Dave Seminara.Until that change is made, let’s hope more indictments are in the works.
Border Enforcement from Both Sides Now
In her hit version of Joni Mitchell’s “Both Sides Now,” American folk singer Judy Collins famously sang, “I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down, and still somehow, it’s cloud’s illusions I recall….”According to The Los Angeles Times two American immigration lawyers may have gotten a look at border enforcement from both sides now. And they may wish to heed Ms. Collins’ admonition about clouds giving rise to misleading illusions.The Times is reporting that two “U.S. immigrant rights attorneys and two journalists who have worked closely with members of a migrant caravan in Tijuana said they had been denied entry into Mexico in recent days after their passports were flagged with alerts by an unknown government.” Predictably, the affected parties have blamed the Trump administration, accusing it of retaliating against them for their opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies.The attorneys, Nora Phillips and Erika Pinheiro, work for a nonprofit group called Al Otro Lado (Spanish for “the other side”). The group describes itself as “a bi-national, direct legal services organization serving indigent deportees, migrants, and refugees in Tijuana, Mexico.”In reality, however, Al Otro Lado is part of a network of pro-illegal-alien organizations that regularly lodges questionable lawsuits against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These complaints are intended to prohibit immigration officers from performing their lawfully assigned duties. And they are nearly always filed in the Ninth Federal Judicial Circuit, which is both well known for judicial activism and overtly hostile to any type of immigration enforcement.So, yes, it is entirely possible that the U.S. government flagged Mmes. Phillips and Pinheiro, placing them on some type of watchlist. That would be particularly likely if either the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security were concerned that Al Otro Lado was sending employees to Mexico in order to encourage caravan-members to file bogus complaints against CBP or ICE personnel.However, no U.S. federal agency has publicly announced that it has any fears that Al Otro Lado, or any of its employees, are engaged in any type of illegal activity. Therefore, another explanation for Phillips’ and Pinheiro’s exclusion from Mexico is much more probable: they simply wore out their welcome.Mexican authorities are already faced with a volatile foreign mob camped out in Tijuana and causing conflict with the local Tijuaneros. Another caravan of Central Americans is on the way and expected to arrive in the greater Tijuana area sometime this week.Thus, it is more than likely that the authorities in Mexico City just determined that they did not want more foreign agitators making the situation worse. As a sovereign nation, Mexico is not under any obligation to allow American attorneys into its territory to advise illegally present Hondurans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorans on how to get into the United States.Rather than President Trump “retaliating” against open-borders activists, it might well be that Mexico has simply begun looking at border enforcement from both sides now. That’s a positive development.Meanwhile the activist lawyers of Al Otro Lado seem so lost in the clouds that all they can recall are anti-Trump illusions.
State Of The Union Guests Speak Volumes About Trump, Democrat Priorities
In January, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rescinded her invitation to President Trump to deliver the State of the Union address to Congress citing security concerns due to the partial government shutdown. Now, the government is running on a short term continuing resolution (which ends on February 15) and President Trump will address Congress from the House chamber this evening.One of the more anticipated parts of this gathering is the guests that are invited by Representatives, Senators, and the White House. While most lawmakers choose constituents or family members to attend the festivities, some exploit the event as an opportunity to further political debates. This year appears to be no exception. Many Democrats have invited individuals in direct protest of decisions made by the Trump administration on a variety of policy issues. However, the guests likely to receive the most attention are those that highlight the current standoff between Republicans and Democrats— border security and illegal immigration. Representatives Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) have both invited illegal aliens who previously worked at the president’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Additionally, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) invited a mother and daughter from Guatemala who were denied asylum in the U.S. and eventually were separated for two months last spring after they were caught illegally crossing the southern border.On the other side of the issue, President Trump will be accompanied by several guests as well, including individuals directly harmed by illegal immigration. Last month, Gerald and Sharon David of Reno, Nevada, were tragically murdered in their home by an illegal alien. The terrible loss has devastated both their community and three generations of their family who will be represented at the State of the Union: the Davids’ daughter Debra, granddaughter Heather, and great-granddaughter Madison. These guests will represent the thousands of families that have lost a loved one because of an illegal alien.The president also invited Elvin Hernandez, a Special Agent with the Trafficking in Persons Unit of the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations division. He has more than 18 years of Federal law enforcement experience investigating narcotics, gangs, and human trafficking. During his current seven-year assignment, Elvin has conducted numerous successful international human trafficking investigations involving transnational organized crime groups. Special Agent Hernandez will represent the brave men and women who fight against the dangers of our porous border every day. These guest lists are demonstrative of where the respective parties stand on the issue of illegal immigration. The Trump administration is staking out a clear position that border and interior enforcement is necessary to protect the interests and security of the American. The Democrats, on the other hand, remain steadfastly on the side of illegal aliens. To view the full list of President Trump’s guests, please click here.
Will ICE Deport the “Savage”?
Unbeknownst to many Americans, some of our most beloved entertainers are immigrants. William Shatner, who played the iconic Captain James Tiberius Kirk in the original Star Trek immigrated from Canada. Rocker Eddie van Halen came from Holland. And musician Dave Matthews is a native of South Africa.Given that America is a preferred destination for many talented performers, you’d think that Hollywood, Nashville, and New York would have keeping show-folk out of trouble with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) down to a science. But that isn’t always the case. In many instances, American showbiz has had a tense history with immigration law.In the last week, the tension that often colors relations between Tinseltown and immigration authorities has erupted once again. Grammy-nominated rapper 21 Savage (whose real name is She’yaa Bin Abraham-Joseph) has been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The performer, a citizen of the United Kingdom, is alleged to have overstayed a visa that expired at least 14 years ago, making him unlawfully present in the United States. He was also appears to have been convicted of felony drug charges in Fulton County, Georgia, in 2014.As one would expect, Abraham-Joseph’s lawyers claim that ICE arrested him in error because he has a U visa application pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (U nonimmigrant status is available to alien crime victims who assist law enforcement officials in prosecuting those who victimized them.) They also claim that the 2014 Fulton County charges were later expunged, a claim backed up by records discovered by entertainment news outlet TMZ.However, it is difficult to see where ICE may have made any errors:
- Alien visa overstayers are subject to removal from the United States on the mere basis of their unlawful presence.
- An expungement may not eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes.
- USCIS is not required to grant U visa status to anyone who asks for it.
- And Abraham-Joseph, whose entire career consists of musical boasts about crimes he says he has committed, doesn’t appear to be a good candidate for the exercise of discretion by either ICE or USCIS.
It now remains to be seen whether the Trump-era DHS will stand firm in this case. But the evidence doesn’t bode well:
- In 1973, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordered John Lennon (of Beatles fame) deported on the basis of a 1968 British drug conviction. Lennon appealed and, in 1975, a federal court overturned the deportation order. However, one wonders whether Lennon would have been allowed to stay in the U.S. if he hadn’t been a Beatle.
- In 2014, Canadian singer Justin Bieber was arrested for driving under the influence in Florida. Media outlets quickly began asking whether Bieber was likely to be deported. However, he reached a plea agreements and DHS elected not to place Bieber in removal proceedings. But, as with Lennon, one ponders whether the system would have been so tolerant with Bieber if he weren’t a music-industry cash cow.
And those are just a few of the more notable examples.Deporting 21 Savage would go a long way toward demonstrating that U.S. immigration law applies equally to all foreign miscreants, even those who are wealthy, famous and popular. Hopefully, the Trump administration won’t knuckle under to the global internationalists who run the entertainment business, giving fame and profit precedence over public safety.