Category Archives: Southern Border War

Genesis of U.S. Immigration Crisis

Posted on by

Well, we can for sure say that the Democrats side with the Communists, Marxists and Revolutionaries.

Hat tip to Glenn Beck and my buddy Ami Horowitz for the great foot work and investigations to determine where this illegal insurgency is really coming from. Beck pulled out his chalkboard again and his presentation is a good one.

So, while these democrats are not students of history while others have very short memories, there is a longer history to all of this immigration crisis. You see, a few years ago, I read a book titled From the Shadows, written by former CIA Director Robert Gates. Gates was also the Secretary of Defense as part of his long government service resume. He wrote that book in 1996. A particular page stayed in my memory and I did a search in my Book Nook today to find it.

Okay is there more? Yes.There are so many moving parts to the legacy immigration crisis today. Who is to blame? Too many it seems. But for context read on, history does repeat itself.

Going back to an article/summary from 2006, how did we get to this cockamamie asylum policy? It goes to a crisis that was born in 1980.

Citation: The year 1980 marked the opening of a decade of public controversy over U.S. refugee policy unprecedented since World War II. Large-scale migration to the United States from Central America began, as hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans fled north from civil war, repression, and economic devastation. That same year, in the last months of the Carter administration, the U.S. Congress passed the Refugee Act, a humanitarian law intended to expand eligibility for political asylum in the United States.

The Refugee Act brought U.S. law into line with international human rights standards, specifically the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The United States had ratified the Protocol in 1968, thus becoming bound by the Convention’s provisions. While the previous law recognized only refugees from Communism, the Refugee Act was modeled on the convention’s non-ideological standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution.”

The coincidence of the Central American exodus with the passage of the Refugee Act set the stage for a decade-long controversy that ultimately involved thousands of Americans. The protagonists in the controversy included, on one side, immigrants’ rights lawyers, liberal members of Congress, religious activists, and the refugees themselves. On the other side were President Reagan and his administration, the State Department, the Department of Justice (including the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)), and conservative members of Congress. The first group invoked international human rights and humanitarian and religious principles, while the Reagan administration’s arguments centered on national security and the global fight against Communism.

The public debate took place in a number of arenas and with several sets of participants. The federal courts were the venue for class-action cases contesting systemic INS violations of refugee rights, as well as for the criminal prosecution of religious humanitarians.

Unprecedented numbers of Americans became involved through their churches and synagogues, which proclaimed themselves “sanctuaries,” as well as in bar association efforts to provide pro bono representation to Salvadorans and Guatemalans. Throughout the decade, in hundreds of individual immigration hearings, lawyers for asylum applicants and INS lawyers waged a low-intensity struggle over the nature of the conflict in Central America and the rights of individual Central Americans to asylum status.

In Congress, members debated the war and laws aimed at helping Central Americans rejected as refugees. The refugees themselves became a voice in the U.S. public debate. They formed their own community assistance groups and advocacy centers, which worked with lawyers, religious groups, and the movement against United States involvement in Central America.

Cold War by Proxy and Human Rights in Central America

In El Salvador and Guatemala, civil war had been years in the making, as oligarchies supported by corrupt military leaders repressed large sectors of the rural population. In Nicaragua, the socialist revolutionary Frente Sandinista had ousted the brutal right-wing dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979. The civil war in El Salvador increased in intensity in early 1980. Government-supported assassins gunned down Archbishop Oscar Romero at the altar shortly after he had publicly ordered Salvadoran soldiers to stop killing civilians. In December 1980, four U.S. churchwomen were assassinated in El Salvador, an act of brutality that brought the violence “home” to the U.S. public.

The administration of President Ronald Reagan, who came to power in January 1981, saw these civil wars as theaters in the Cold War. In both El Salvador and Guatemala, the United States intervened on the side of those governments, which were fighting Marxist-led popular movements. In Nicaragua, however, the United States supported the contra rebels against the socialist Sandinista government.

During much of the early 1980s, international human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and Americas Watch — later part of Human Rights Watch) regularly reported high levels of repression in El Salvador and Guatemala, with the vast majority of human rights violations committed by military and government-supported paramilitary forces.

In El Salvador, the military and death squads were responsible for thousands of disappearances and murders of union leaders, community leaders, and suspected guerilla sympathizers, including priests and nuns. In Guatemala, the army’s counter-insurgency campaign focused on indigenous communities, resulting in thousands of disappearances, murders, and forced displacements.

The Intersection of Foreign Policy and Asylum Policy

It is estimated that between 1981 and 1990, almost one million Salvadorans and Guatemalans fled repression at home and made the dangerous journey across Mexico, entering the United States clandestinely. Thousands traveled undetected to major cities such as Washington, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York, and Chicago. However, thousands were also detained at or near the Mexico-U.S. border.

The Reagan administration regarded policy toward Central American migrants as part of its overall strategy in the region. Congress had imposed a ban on foreign assistance to governments that committed gross violations of human rights, thus compelling the administration to deny Salvadoran and Guatemalan government complicity in atrocities. Immigration law allowed the attorney general and INS officials wide discretion regarding bond, work authorization, and conditions of detention for asylum seekers, while immigration judges received individual “opinion letters” from the State Department regarding each asylum application. Thus the administration’s foreign policy strongly influenced asylum decisions for Central Americans.

Characterizing the Salvadorans and Guatemalans as “economic migrants,” the Reagan administration denied that the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments had violated human rights. As a result, approval rates for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum cases were under three percent in 1984. In the same year, the approval rate for Iranians was 60 percent, 40 percent for Afghans fleeing the Soviet invasion, and 32 percent for Poles.

The Justice Department and INS actively discouraged Salvadorans and Guatemalans from applying for political asylum. Salvadorans and Guatemalans arrested near the Mexico-U.S. border were herded into crowded detention centers and pressured to agree to “voluntarily return” to their countries of origin. Thousands were deported without ever having the opportunity to receive legal advice or be informed of the possibility of applying for refugee status. Considering the widely reported human rights violations in El Salvador and Guatemala, the treatment of these migrants constituted a violation of U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

As word of the conditions in Central America and the plight of the refugees began to come to public attention in the early 1980s, three sectors began to work in opposition to the de facto “no asylum” policy: the religious sector, attorneys, and the refugees themselves.

Although a number of Congressmen and women were influenced by the position of religious organizations, the administration thwarted their efforts. In 1983, 89 members of Congress requested that the attorney general and Department of State grant “Extended Voluntary Departure” to Salvadorans who had fled the war. The administration denied their request, stating such a grant would only serve as a “magnet” for more unauthorized Salvadorans in addition to the hundreds of thousands already present. In the late 1980s, the House of Representatives passed several bills to suspend the deportation of Salvadorans, but none passed the Senate.

The Sanctuary Movement

The network of religious congregations that became known as the Sanctuary Movement started with a Presbyterian church and a Quaker meeting in Tucson, Arizona. These two congregations began legal and humanitarian assistance to Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees in 1980.

When, after two years, none of the refugees they assisted had been granted political asylum, Rev. John Fife of Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson announced — on the anniversary of the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero — that his church would openly defy INS and become a “sanctuary” for Central Americans. The Arizona congregations were soon joined by networks of religious congregations and activists in Northern California, South Texas, and Chicago.

At the Sanctuary Movement’s height in the mid 1980s, over 150 congregations openly defied the government, publicly sponsoring and supporting undocumented Salvadoran or Guatemalan refugee families. Another 1,000 local Christian and Jewish congregations, several major Protestant denominations, the Conservative and Reform Jewish associations, and several Catholic orders all endorsed the concept and practice of sanctuary. Sanctuary workers coordinated with activists in Mexico to smuggle Salvadorans and Guatemalans over the border and across the country. Assistance provided to refugees included bail and legal representation, as well as food, medical care, and employment.

The defense of the Salvadorans and Guatemalans marked a new use of international human rights norms by U.S. activists. Citing the Nuremberg principles of personal accountability developed in the post-World War II Nazi tribunals, religious activists claimed a legal precedent to justify their violation of U.S. laws against alien smuggling. Other activists claimed that their actions were justified by the religious and moral principles of the 19th-century U.S. abolitionist movement, referring to their activities as a new “Underground Railroad.” Many U.S. religious leaders involved in the Sanctuary Movement had prior experience in the 1960s civil disobedience campaigns against racial segregation in the American South.

The Department of Justice responded by initiating criminal prosecutions against two activists in Texas in 1984, followed by a 71-count criminal conspiracy indictment against 16 U.S. and Mexican religious activists announced in Arizona in January 1985. The Texas trials resulted in split verdicts, one conviction and one acquittal.

The Arizona trial became a major focus of organizing and publicity for the Sanctuary Movement, attracting a stellar team of volunteer criminal defense attorneys. Although the Department of Justice maintained the case was an ordinary alien-smuggling prosecution, the general counsel of INS attended sessions of the lengthy trial.

Despite the judge’s order barring the defense from presenting evidence of conditions in El Salvador or Guatemala, the Sanctuary Movement managed to turn the publicity surrounding the trial into an indictment of the Reagan administration’s war in Central America and its treatment of the refugees. All the Arizona defendants were convicted, but none were sentenced to jail time. After the Arizona trials, the movement continued to attract more congregations.

The Department of Justice did not bring any more criminal indictments of sanctuary activists after the Texas and Arizona cases.

The Lawyers

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, from the Rio Grande Valley to San Diego, local lawyers and religious activists set up new legal services projects to help detained refugees. In Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Chicago, and other cities, existing nonprofit legal services projects and lawyers in private practice started representing individual refugees. Pro bono panels put together by local and national bar groups — including the National Lawyers Guild Immigration Project, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American Bar Association — supplemented their work.

Through coordinated strategies in individual cases, these lawyers began to address detention conditions as well as develop the new case law of the Refugee Act. In California and Texas, civil rights lawyers filed class-action cases to establish basic due process rights. While some of the cases (regarding work authorization, translation assistance, and transfer of detainees between facilities) were not successful, other decisions established national standards for the treatment of detained Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers.

The refugees and their lawyers faced enormous challenges in asylum hearings, as the required opinion letters from the Department of State, which greatly influenced immigration judges, uniformly denied the existence of human rights violations in El Salvador and Guatemala. However, in some cases, attorneys won important victories before the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal circuit courts that established precedents helpful to all asylum applicants. Other efforts, such as an attempt to establish that all Salvadoran civilian young men were a social group persecuted by the government, were less successful.

Finally, a group of lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations brought a major, national class-action case on behalf of religious organizations, legal services projects, and Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees, claiming that the administration’s wholesale denial of political asylum claims and prosecutions of those who assisted refugees violated their constitutional, statutory, and internationally recognized human rights.

In the case, known as American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, the federal courts had dismissed religious organizations’ claims. However, in 1991 the U.S. District Court in San Francisco approved a settlement that allowed the reopening of denied political asylum claims and late applications by refugees who had been afraid to apply. The decision also granted class members work authorization and protection from deportation.

The settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the government (by that time the Bush administration) included language stating that government decisions on political asylum cases would not be influenced by foreign policy considerations.

The Refugees

In many cities, Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees formed mutual assistance organizations. Projects such as Casa Guatemala, Casa El Salvador, Comite El Salvador, and others gave the community the ability to get legal advice and information about conditions back home as well as to learn about local health care and food assistance. These groups also worked with local lawyers’ organizations and religious and antiwar activists, who assisted in decisions regarding class-action litigation and supported individual asylum applicants.

Over 20 years later, a number of these immigrant-led projects, including Centro Presente in Boston, Centro Romero in Chicago, and El Rescate in Los Angeles, still exist as full-service, nonprofit legal and community services centers. Many of the leaders of these efforts remain active in the immigrants’ rights movement, as well as in other social justice projects in the United States, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Congress

In 1990, after its earlier frustrations to address the Central American asylum seekers, Congress finally passed legislation allowing the president to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to certain groups in need of a temporary safe haven. The first TPS legislation contained one provision (never codified as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act) explicitly designating Salvadorans for TPS.

Through the early 1990s, Salvadoran and Guatemalans who had arrived in the 1980s were able to stay in the country under a series of discretionary measures and under the terms of the 1991 settlement in the American Baptist Churches litigation. It was not until the late 1990s that their status was finally settled in a legislative agreement with the supporters of the anti-Sandinista Nicaraguans. The passage of the 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act finally allowed Salvadorans and Guatemalans protected under the American Baptist Churches settlement to apply for permanent residence.

Conclusion

What spurred the activism of the Sanctuary Movement and Central American refugees and their lawyers was the manner in which the Reagan administration linked the fate of individual asylum seekers to its foreign policy interests. Today, the use of immigration enforcement as a “magic bullet” for national security concerns requires close examination by the U.S. public.

Immigrant communities, members of Congress, policy analysts, religious leaders, and legal experts must determine whether the human rights of individual immigrants and asylum seekers are being trampled in a rush to create a public perception of effective security.

The development of a stronger anti-immigrant grassroots movement in certain areas of the country presents new challenges. Similarly, restrictions on access to the federal courts for review of certain immigration decisions create new obstacles for advocates to overcome. However, at the same time, immigrant-led organizations and immigrants’ rights coalitions have become more sophisticated in their lobbying and public education efforts.

The proimmigrant religious sector (particularly the Catholic Church) is vocal once again, as humanitarian assistance to the undocumented may be criminalized in proposed legislation. Whether the current decade will end with even limited victories for the human rights of immigrants is as yet unknown.

 

 

Huge ICE Raid Nabs 280

Posted on by

And the Democrats continue to say to the media that illegals dont take jobs Americans need, they only do the jobs Americans won’t do.

Related image

Hat tip to those that called in tips and to HSI for doing lots of homework, for about a year prior to the raid. At issue are fake ID’s and hiring undocumented immigrants. This is another reason that all states/companies must use E-Verify.

Related image

It goes like this:

U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement announced Wednesday that it had arrested some 280 individuals in an immigration enforcement sting in northern Texas, the largest such raid in at least a decade.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arm executed criminal search warrants at the headquarters of CVE Technology Group Inc., a technology repair company located in the suburbs of Dallas, Texas. Officials told KERA News that the action was the largest worksite raid in the country in ten years.

The raid was prompted by several tips, provided to HSI, which indicated that CVE had been knowingly employing illegal immigrants, and that a number of its employees were using fraudulent documents for identification. In January, HSI audited CVE’s I-9 forms, which led to the unearthing of “numerous irregularities,” the press release explained.

“Businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens create an unfair advantage over their competing businesses,” said Special Agent in Charge Katrina W. Berger, HSI Dallas. “In addition, they take jobs away from U.S. citizens and legal residents, and they create an atmosphere poised for exploiting their illegal workforce.”

CVE is a cellphone refurbisher. One employee, who spoke to KERA News, described the raid.

“Man, it was crazy,” employee Yessenia Ponce said. “We were working like a normal day. … We just heard screaming, you know, people screaming and stuff. We went out and an officer just said ‘follow my voice, follow my voice.'”

The raid on CVE was larger than the previous record holder for the decade, a worksite enforcement action against a trailer manufacturer also in northern Texas. That event led to the arrest of 159 illegal workers.

The largest raid in U.S. history, by way of comparison, took place in Postville, Iowa in 2008. That day, HSI officials arrested some 400 men, women, and teenagers, according to the Des Moines Register.

DHS Spending Bill IS FULL of Nasty Things

Posted on by

The bill is here if you choose to read it.

Image result for dhs funding border wall

1. The bill has language in that actually restricts who can do immigration sweeps and deportations.

2. That 55 miles of alleged construction has many caveats to it including approvals or denials by the land-owners for any kinds of barriers. Further, there is an historic church and a butterfly sanctuary that is restricted from any barrier construction.

3. There is NO money for an additional 750 Border Patrol agents and there is NO money for 2000 more ICE agents.

4. Any construction of a border wall cannot use any of the prototypes offered to the Federal government.

5. The bill would prohibit DHS from detaining or deporting a sponsor, potential sponsor, or household member of an unaccompanied minor based on information shared with HHS. (this means that all unaccompanied themselves their own sanctuary).

6. Detention for up to 100,000 illegals would require other options including wearing ankle bracelets or simply using a phone. This means essentially detention centers could be rendered obsolete.

7. A larger or perhaps a separate oversight committee/team will be established to manage all ICE activities.

8. There is a cap to immigrant beds at 45,274.

Meanwhile, it seems while unaccompanied children and the agencies that deal with them have full amnesty. So, Trump is declaring a national emergency. What does that mean?

Making this declaration out of a ‘fake emergency’ as the democrats like to label it does give the democrats the precedent to do the same with regard to climate change and or gun violence.

In December of 2017, Trump signed an Executive Order.

 

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2018.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

*** When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

***

SUBCHAPTER IV—ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENT

§1641. Accountability and reporting requirements of President

(a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency

When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.

(b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress

All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.

(c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress

When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures.

(Pub. L. 94–412, title IV, §401, Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1257.)

SUBCHAPTER V—APPLICATION TO POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ACTIONS TAKEN THEREUNDER

§1651. Other laws, powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder; Congressional studies

(a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder:

(1) Chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41;

(2) Section 3727(a)–(e)(1) of title 31;

(3) Section 6305 of title 41;

(4) Public Law 85–804 (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972; 50 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);

(5) Section 2304(a)(1) 1 of title 10; 2


(b) Each committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate having jurisdiction with respect to any provision of law referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall make a complete study and investigation concerning that provision of law and make a report, including any recommendations and proposed revisions such committee may have, to its respective House of Congress within two hundred and seventy days after September 14, 1976.

(Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §502, Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95–223, title I, §101(d), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1625; Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §507(b), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2919; Pub. L. 105–362, title IX, §901(r)(2), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3291; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, §1062(o)(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2652.)

*** Given the text of this Executive Order as case can be made that it applies to the crisis at the Southern border. The president does have the power and authority to amend that order or to annex it to be more exact to include the matter specifically at the border and other areas including visa overstays, a port of entry emergency due to fentanyl and other opioids, where 70,000 people a year die from overdoses.

Frankly, Trump should order an increase in funding to DEA to aid Border Patrol and ICE and install narco-training and drug use education in all public schools and universities.

El Chapo on his Way to Florence, Colorado Forever

Posted on by
Murder On The Road To ADX Supermax | Prison Writers
The prison holds an estimated 400 inmates, the worst of the worst, including convicted al Qaeda operatives, Terry Nichols, Robert Hanssen, Dzhokar Tsarnaev and Vincent Basciano.

El Chapo, I Need a Doctor, I'm Going Nuts in Jail ...

Joaquin “El Chapo’ Guzman, Sinaloa Cartel Leader, Convicted Of Running A Continuing Criminal Enterprise and Other Drug-Related Charges

Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera, known by various aliases, including “El Chapo” and “El Rapido,” was convicted today by a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York of being a principal operator of a continuing criminal enterprise – the Mexican organized crime syndicate known as the Sinaloa Cartel – a charge that includes 26 drug-related violations and one murder conspiracy.  Guzman Loera was convicted of all 10 counts of a superseding indictment, including narcotics trafficking, using a firearm in furtherance of his drug crimes and participating in a money laundering conspiracy.  The verdict followed a 12-week trial before U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan.  Guzman Loera faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment at his sentencing scheduled on June 25.

Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Richard P. Donoghue for the Eastern District of New York, U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida, Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI Director Christopher Wray, Executive Associate Director Derek Benner of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Acting U.S. Marshal Bryan T. Mullee of the Eastern District of New York, announced the verdict.

The Evidence at Trial:

As proven at trial, Guzman Loera was a principal leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, a Mexico-based international drug trafficking organization responsible for importing and distributing vast quantities of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin into the United States.  The evidence at trial, including testimony from 14 cooperating witnesses; narcotics seizures totaling over 130,000 kilograms of cocaine and heroin; weapons, including AK-47s and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher; ledgers; text messages; videos; photographs and intercepted recordings, detailed the drug trafficking activity of Guzman Loera and his co-conspirators over a 25-year period from January 1989 until December 2014.  Guzman Loera was repeatedly referred to by witnesses as one of the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Guzman Loera oversaw the smuggling of narcotics to wholesale distributors in Arizona, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and elsewhere.  The billions of illicit dollars generated from drug sales in the United States were then clandestinely transported back to Mexico.  Guzman Loera also used “sicarios,” or hit men, who carried out hundreds of acts of violence in Mexico to enforce Sinaloa’s control of territories and to eliminate those who posed a threat to the Sinaloa Cartel.

Drug Trafficking

In the course of the decades-long drug trafficking conspiracy, the Sinaloa Cartel transported tens of thousands of kilograms of narcotics from Central and South America for distribution in the United States.  Guzman Loera used various methods to transport the cartel’s narcotics into the United States, including submarines, carbon fiber airplanes, trains with secret compartments and transnational underground tunnels.  Multiple witnesses testified about seizures by law enforcement officers of massive amounts of cocaine, heroin and marijuana linked to the Sinaloa Cartel.  One of the largest seizures of drugs bound for the United States involved over seven tons of cocaine concealed in jalapeño cans.

The jury also heard recordings of Guzman Loera’s own damning words discussing his drug trafficking, corruption and violence.  The calls included Guzman Loera discussing sending “ice,” meaning methamphetamine, to Los Angeles, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Ohio and Tucson, Arizona.

Communications Network

Guzman Loera also utilized a sophisticated encrypted communications network to operate the global narcotics trafficking operation.  As an information technology engineer testified at trial, Guzman Loera paid him one million dollars to purchase and set up a network to enable the defendant to communicate via the internet with his drug trafficking associates in Colombia, Ecuador, Canada and the United States without fear of being intercepted by law enforcement or his rivals.  The witness devised a secret and secure system, consisting of encrypted cell phones and encrypted apps.

Cartel Violence

The success of the Sinaloa Cartel relied upon the use of violence to maintain their power throughout the region and beyond.  Numerous co-conspirators testified that Guzman Loera directed his hitmen to kidnap, interrogate, torture and shoot members of rival drug organizations, at times carrying out acts of violence himself.  A former hitman testified that Guzman Loera beat two men with a tree branch until their bodies “were completely like rag dolls,” before shooting the men and ordering their bodies be tossed into a bonfire.  The former hitman also testified that Guzman Loera interrogated a rival drug cartel member, shot him and ordered that he be buried alive.  In an intercepted call, the jury heard Guzman Loera order one of his sicarios to kidnap rival cartel members, but not to kill them without first checking with him.

Weapons

The Sinaloa Cartel had unfettered access to weapons.  A law enforcement witness showed the jury over 40 AK-47s that were seized in El Paso, Texas before they could be delivered to Guzman Loera in Mexico.  Additionally, witnesses identifed photographs of various weapons, including grenades and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher utilized by the Sinaloa Cartel.  Guzman Loera’s personal arsenal included a gold plated AK-47 and three diamond-encrusted .38 caliber handguns, one emblazoned with his initials, “JGL.”

Corruption

The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that to further the interests of the Sinaloa Cartel, Guzman Loera and his organization took advantage of a vast network of corrupt government officials.  These officials ranged from local law enforcement officers, prison guards, state officials, high ranking members of the armed forces, as well as politicians.  These corrupt officials assisted Guzman Loera and his organization in exchange for millions of dollars’ worth of bribery payments.  For example, according to the testimony of several witnesses, in many instances, Guzman Loera and his workers were warned of pending law enforcement operations which allowed Guzman Loera to avoid capture on multiple occasions.  In other instances, Guzman Loera, through his employees, paid officials to turn a blind eye to trafficking activities in an effort to facilitate the shipment of drugs, weapons, and bulk cash.

Money Laundering

Guzman Loera’s lucrative drug trafficking business generated billions of dollars in illicit proceeds.  Guzman Loera used various methods to launder money including bulk cash smuggling from the United States to Mexico.  One of the largest seizures was of $1.26 million seized from hidden compartments in a truck driven by Guzman Loera’s brother in Douglas, Arizona in 1989.  In addition to the bulk cash smuggling, Guzman Loera oversaw numerous shell companies, including a juice company and a fish flour company to launder the cartel’s narcotics trafficking proceeds.

“I am pleased that the Department has brought Joaquin Guzman Loera (El Chapo) to justice by securing a conviction against this drug kingpin, who was a principal leader of the Sinaloa Cartel,” said Acting Attorney General Whitaker.  “As was clear to the jury, Guzman Loera’s massive, multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise was responsible for flooding the streets of the United States with hundreds of tons of cocaine, as well as enormous quantities of other dangerous drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine.  The trial evidence also overwhelmingly showed that Guzman’s unceasing efforts to expand his cartel’s control and consolidate its power left a wake of corruption and violence in communities in both Mexico and the United States.  This case demonstrated the extraordinary reach of the U.S. government, our tenacity and commitment to pursuing kingpins like Guzman whom if their power is unchecked — will, like Guzman, develop what for 25 years was an almost unstoppable capacity to move massive quantities of drugs into our country.  Guzman had the capital to absorb huge losses and run his enterprise with impunity; the enormous power to corrupt; and the capability to employ violence on a massive scale.  This case, and more importantly, this conviction serves as an irrefutable message to the kingpins that remain in Mexico, and those that aspire to be the next Chapo Guzman, that eventually you will be apprehended and prosecuted.  Finally, this verdict demonstrates that the United States, working in close partnership with the Mexican government, will continue to bring all possible resources to bear in its fight against international drug traffickers and their violent organizations.”

“The guilty verdict against Joaquin Guzman Loera, one of the most violent and feared drug kingpins of our time, is a testament to the hard work and courage of America’s frontline law enforcement personnel, including ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations,” said DHS Secretary Nielsen.  “They gathered substantial evidence over multiple investigations, which made his extradition to the United States and a successful prosecution possible.  Today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to transnational criminals: you cannot hide, you are not beyond our reach, and we will find you and bring you to face justice.  Like Guzman, you will suffer the consequences of your criminal behavior.  I applaud the brave men and women at DHS who helped make this conviction possible and thank our interagency and international partners for their exceptional work.”

“Guzman Loera’s bloody reign atop the Sinaloa Cartel has come to an end, and the myth that he could not be brought to justice has been laid to rest,” said U.S. Attorney Donoghue.  “Today, Guzman Loera has been held accountable for the tons of illegal narcotics he trafficked for more than two decades, the murders he ordered and committed, and the billions of dollars he reaped while causing incalculable pain and suffering to those devastated by his drugs.  Today’s verdict is the culmination of the tireless work of countless brave members of law enforcement, here and abroad, and we congratulate them.  The Department of Justice is committed to eradicating criminal organizations that fuel America’s drug epidemic, and our mission will continue until it is completed.”

“The conviction of former Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin Guzman Loera strips the power from a man who employed horrific acts of violence to infect communities, throughout the United States and abroad, with the venom of illicit drugs,” said U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan.  “Today’s verdict is a reminder to all, that our international borders do not protect narco-traffickers and the cartels’ criminal enterprises from federal prosecution.  U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the nation stand united with our domestic and foreign law enforcement partners, as we continue our fight against transnational criminal organizations.”

“The reign of Joaquin Guzman Loera’s crime and violence has come to an end,” said FBI Director Wray.  “As leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Guzman Loera carried out and directed acts of brazen violence as he oversaw the import and distribution of vast amounts of illegal drugs throughout the United States.  But today, through the steadfast determination and collective efforts of the FBI and our law enforcement partners both domestic and abroad, and due to our continuing partnership with the Government of Mexico, justice has been served.”

“Today’s conviction of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman demonstrates the dedication and determination of the men and women of DEA to bring the world’s most dangerous and prolific drug trafficker to justice,” said DEA Acting Administrator Dhillon.  “Those who bring drugs and violence into the United States that destroy lives and communities will not be tolerated, nor evade our reach. The success of this case is a testament to the strength of our relationship with our Mexican counterparts. DEA will continue to pursue justice worldwide and protect Americans.”

“HSI is committed to using our unique border authority to target and dismantle transnational criminal organizations responsible for trafficking narcotics and bringing violence into the United States,” said HSI Executive Associate Director Benner.  “Through collaboration with local, federal and international law enforcement partners, HSI special agents were able to bring an end to Joaquin Guzman Loera’s criminal activities, and help ensure he was brought to justice.”

“The conviction of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman demonstrates what is possible when law enforcement works collectively and coordinates their efforts,” said Acting U.S. Marshal Mullee.  “The U.S. Marshals Service ensured the integrity of the judicial process in this case.  From providing safe and secure detention and transportation of the world’s most notorious drug kingpin to ensuring the anonymity of the jury, protecting the judge, attorneys, witnesses and the public, the Marshals Service proudly played its important role in the process.  I would like to express my gratitude to all of our law enforcement partners who worked tirelessly in support of our mission.  They are the talented men and women of the New York City Police Department, Federal Protective Service, 24th Civil Support Team of the New York National Guard, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  The U.S. Marshals take our responsibility of protecting the federal judicial process very seriously.  We must anticipate and deter threats, while continuously developing and employing innovative protective tactics.  We carry out these responsibilities with precision every day across the country.  The successful prosecution of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman stands as a shining example of our mission.”

When sentenced by Judge Cogan, Guzman Loera faces a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for leading a continuing criminal enterprise, and a sentence of up to life imprisonment on the seven remaining drug counts.  After the verdict, the government will seek a forfeiture money judgment for billions of dollars constituting the cartel’s illegal drug-trafficking proceeds.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorneys Amanda Liskamm, Anthony Nardozzi, Michael Lang and Brett Reynolds of the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gina Parlovecchio, Andrea Goldbarg, Michael Robotti, Patricia Notopoulos and Hiral Mehta of the Eastern District of New York and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adam Fels and Lynn Kirkpatrick of the Southern District of Florida.

The case was investigated by the DEA, HSI and the FBI, in cooperation with Mexican, Ecuadorian, Netherlands, Dominican, and Colombian law enforcement authorities. Substantial assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Texas, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of California and the District of New Hampshire.  The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs also played an integral role in securing the extradition of Guzman Loera to the United States, in cooperation with authorities of the Mexican government, without which his extradition and prosecution would not have been possible.  The investigative efforts in this case were coordinated with the Department of Justice’s Special Operations Division, comprising of agents, analysts and attorneys from the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section; DEA New York, DEA Miami, FBI Washington Field Office, FBI New York Field Office, FBI Miami Field Office; HSI New York, HSI Nogales; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; IRS Criminal Investigation; U.S. Bureau of Prisons, NYPD and New York State Police.

This case is the result of the ongoing efforts by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), a partnership that brings together the combined expertise and unique abilities of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, dismantle and prosecute high level members of drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and enterprises.

Pelosi/Schumer Against Wall, Why? Quanergy Systems

Posted on by

This could be the real ah hah!

A stealth wall and they are tapping Pelosi and Schumer:

And how cool is it that Quanergy completed Series C financing with a valuation surpassing $2 BILLION only happened last October. Really? Yuppers and an IPO process is on track. It is all about Silicon Valley and we know those pesky democrats are quite tied, obligation and dependent on Silicon Valley money.

A stealth wall? A digital wall? A virtual wall? Yuppers again.

You see Silicon Valley wants Nancy and all the other democrats to win over this wall debate and not Trump. Other companies include advances in artificial intelligence, digital cameras, lidar, advanced and surveillance technology.

Oh wait there is more. We have yet another company called Anduril. The founder of Anduril is Palmer Luckey who built a a virtual reality enterprise and sold it to who? Oh—–> FACEBOOK in 2014 for a mere $2BILLION.

Okay, how about Cogniac? Well they offer technology identifying people and objects in digital images and cameras.

Okay, I am all for VERY advanced technology and this could be a real prudent solution to several variations of miles along our southern border.

This all seems to go back as far as 2008 and lil Ms. Nancy was on board back then.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called upon Silicon Valley leaders on Monday to send Washington their ideas on how the United States can reverse global warming, improve education and health care and rebuild U.S. infrastructure.

‘We have to pass this planet on to the next generation better than we found it,’ she told a meeting of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which celebrated its 30th anniversary in Santa Clara Convention Center with coffee and cake for several hundred people. ‘I will compete with any initiative anyone wants to put forward for funding.’

The group was founded by David Packard in 1978 as the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group. Packard wanted to improve the region’s economy and quality of life, and the group started with 33 companies. It has evolved into a policymaking forum for 260 companies that tackle issues of global importance.

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, was one of a many speakers who talked Monday about how the country can stay competitive in the global economy. She got a standing ovation as she took the stage.

She called for ‘a massive infusion of resources’ into basic biomedical research, investment in electronic health records, preventive medical care and innovations in green technology to create American jobs.

She also called on Silicon Valley leaders to follow in the footsteps of Presidents Thomas Jefferson, who built roads and canals through the territories of the Louisiana Purchase, and Theodore Roosevelt, who established the national park system.

‘We have a responsibility to build infrastructure in America … and to do it in a green way and think in an entrepreneurial way,’ she said. ‘Our competitors are way ahead of us on this.’

The group also heard from U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; George Miller, D-Martinez; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who is working on a bill to help the United States retain talented immigrants who graduate from American universities. ‘Why send them home to compete with us when they could be part of our team?’ Lofgren asked.

Bill Watkins, chief executive officer of Seagate Technology in Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County, said the United States and California in particular has to improve its schools and provide health insurance for children. ‘We have the best military in the world because someone sticks up and demands it,’ he said. ‘People in this room need to start demanding the best education system.’

Other speakers included Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, and venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who called on companies to contribute to his Middle School Math Initiative, which trains teachers to teach math, by adopting at least one school in Silicon Valley for $5,000 a piece. ‘If these kids don’t have a math ‘Aha!’ moment, we’re going to lose them,’ he said.

Not to be left out is Senator Kamala Harris and her overwhelming admiration for social planning by the ‘Valley’.

President Trump is not against advanced technology along the border either, in fact he has said there should be various types of barriers and technology where feasible. Of note, Quanergy Systems is constructing a pilot program applying lidar border security along the India-Pakistan border. The founder of Quanergy, Mr. Eldada declares that concrete walls are an eyesore and they intrude on the environmental landscape impeding the free movement of wildlife.

The time is now to get on with the solution to the government shutdown and begin the pilot programs at our border with perhaps variations of technology and concrete…at least Pelosi and Schumer should go through those open doors and the White House and get on with it all.