Illegal Immigration, Refusing to Deport is a Deadly Option

Hat tip to this site for listing the victims of illegal immigrants.

Today in the House is a hearing questioning Sarah Saldana, the Director of the DHS for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Several terrifying facts were revealed and there are solutions to the policies, one is to simply enforce the law and quit with the exceptions. Further, stop releasing into the general population detained illegals arrested and sentenced with discretion. What about Congress eliminating the discretion clause? How about allowing local law enforcement to fully handle cases at the local level? There is additional legislation for loopholes including H.R. 2793 for sex offenders.

Further, what about the victim or the survivors of the victims? They just get a letter in the mail, stating what is not certain.

There is a database for all illegals that have been officially detained for any reason, but local law enforcement does not have the jurisdiction or authority to handle inside cases, they are referred to ICE. Not all jurisdictions participate in the database operation, it is not a mandated procedure. What? . Of note, inside cases means arrests made by agencies other than Customs and Border Patrol.

 

All 58 immigration courts are managed by the U.S. Department of Justice….this is where the politics enter the fray. Additionally, when a court does in fact order a foreign national to be deported, yet another cycle of paperwork and diplomatic procedures is started. Consider, there are many countries that refuse to take back their own citizens and in some cases even after approval when the plane is on the runway. Haiti is one such country. So, the matter is in the hands of the U.S. State Department, do we need to say more?

The statute says there is discretion in all cases. So, in 2015, 19723 criminal illegal aliens have been released for felonies including kidnapping and homicide. An order of removal is required to deport them but that is done by a judge….but if they have requested asylum or other exceptions, it is more often than not granted. For those that have been ordered for deportation, there is a maximum bed space of 33,000 waiting to leave, if those beds are full, then they too are released.

Secure Communities was an immigration enforcement program administered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2008 to 2014.

The program was replaced by Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) in July 2015. Obama ordered this program terminated.

PEP: The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) enables DHS to work with state and local law enforcement to take custody of individuals who pose a danger to public safety before those individuals are released into our communities. PEP was established at the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in a November 20, 2014 memorandum, entitled Secure Communities, that discontinued the Secure Communities program. PEP focuses on convicted criminals and others who pose a danger to public safety.

How it works

PEP begins at the state and local level when an individual is arrested and booked by a law enforcement officer for a criminal violation and his or her fingerprints are submitted to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks. This same biometric data is also sent to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) so that ICE can determine whether the individual is a priority for removal, consistent with the DHS enforcement priorities described in Secretary Johnson’s November 20, 2014 Secure Communities memorandum. Under PEP, ICE will seek the transfer of a removable individual when that individual has been convicted of an offense listed under the DHS civil immigration enforcement priorities, has intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang, or poses a danger to national security.

Here is a simple case from April of 2016. Illegal immigrants arrested during Alabama theft, kidnapping mission for Honduran drug enforcer, records state. You are encouraged to read those details.

Here is yet another bizarre case: An illegal immigrant with a 12-year criminal history and 35 arrests under his belt cannot be deported back to Palestine because the U.S. will not recognise his homeland as a country. What? We give millions to the Palestinian Authority and Obama, Hillary and John Kerry have all met with the Palestinian Authority for peace talks with Israel.

 

 

Gang Terrorism in the Bronx, Major Arrests

NY In Biggest Ever Drug Raid On Rival Gangs

 

Eighty eight suspected members of the 2Fly Ygz and Big Money Bosses gangs are arrested following raids in the Bronx.

Sky News US Team

Nearly 700 New York Police officers and federal agents have carried out the biggest drug gang operation in the city’s history, a federal prosecutor has said.

 

Some 88 people were arrested in a series of pre-dawn raids in the Bronx targeting two rival drug gangs from top to bottom on Wednesday.

US Attorney Preet Bharara told a news conference that more suspects were being sought in what he described as the biggest ever gang takedown in New York City.

He said: “We bring these charges so that all New Yorkers, including those in public housing, can live their lives as they deserve: free of drugs, free of guns and free of gang violence.”

Bronx drug bust against two rival gangs

The raids took place in the Eastchester Gardens housing projects. Pic: NYPD

The arrests stemmed from charges brought against 120 gang members and came after a 16-month investigation which began when police moved to address a surge in violence in the Bronx – particularly around the Eastchester Gardens housing projects.

Related: 2012 TEN MEMBERS OF BRONX GANG INDICTED IN VIOLENT TURF BATTLE: MURDER CONSPIRACY CHARGED

Related: Black Mob Crips (BMB)

  1. According to user sources, the Black Mob Crips have bases of operations in Los Angeles, New York, Virginia, Washington DC, Maryland, and Detroit
  2. Lithia Springs High School gang in Lithia Springs, Georgia, associated with the Crips. A BMB gang has also been reported in Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Related: 120 Charged in Bronx Gang Bust

Dozens of shootings, stabbings, beatings and robberies and the killings of a 15-year-old who was stabbed to death and a 92-year-old hit by a stray bullet have been tied to the two gangs – 2Fly Ygz and the Big Money Bosses – Mr Bharara said. More here.

He said 2Fly gang members stores guns and sold drugs at a playground in the centre of the housing project, with the rival gang operating a few blocks away.

  

Both gangs used social media to promote, protect and grow their organisations, including boasting about their exploits on YouTube, Mr Bharara said.

Officials are now investigating whether the city’s 400,000 public housing residents were being protected in safe conditions as required by federal law.

The Housing Authority said: “Many conditions influence the presence of a gang and other illegal activity, and we continue to work closely with the NYPD to address these challenges.”

The raids follow charges being filed against 36 members of two rival drug trafficking gangs operating out of three Housing Authority complexes in East Harlem.

During the raid on Wednesday, a man who was not part of the investigation but was wanted for a string of knife-point robberies jumped from a window and later died, police said.

 

 

WTH Tennessee, Against Pro-Life Voters?

In Tennessee, a Federal Judge Disenfranchises Pro-Life Voters

DFrench/NRO: No one should ever doubt the Left’s commitment to abortion. For the sake of preserving the right to kill an unborn child, the Left will sacrifice democracy and even reason itself. Pro-life lawyers have a term for liberal judges’ tendency to twist the Constitution for the cause of death — the “abortion distortion.” The latest example comes from Nashville, Tenn., where an Obama-appointee federal judge just wrote perhaps the least credible judicial opinion I’ve ever read. But first, some background. Before the 2014 election, Tennessee, one of America’s most conservative and religious states, had become the South’s abortion supermarket, all because of a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that declared that the Tennessee constitution protected the “right” to an abortion to a greater degree than did even Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Consequently, even if a pro-life law would have passed federal constitutional muster, Tennessee state courts would strike it down.

 KAGSTV

Tennessee voters responded by passing Amendment 1 — a pro-life constitutional amendment that reversed the state’s high court and unequivocally declared that “nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.” Tennessee’s amendment process is arduous. First, a proposed amendment has to pass with a majority in both houses. Then, after the next legislative election, the amendment has to pass with a two-thirds majority. Finally, it comes before the people. But even there an amendment faces a double hurdle. It has to pass with a majority of the vote, and the “yes” votes have to equal a “majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor.” For decades, Tennessee officials have interpreted this rule as merely requiring that the total “yes” vote exceed half of the total gubernatorial vote. In other words, a person could vote yes on the amendment and still have their vote count even if they didn’t vote for governor. In fact, amendment proponents expressly told voters that they could pursue exactly this strategy — they didn’t have to vote for governor to have their vote count.
After their loss, pro-abortion leftists sued in federal court, making the astonishing claim that this process violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Why? Because it didn’t give the “no” side enough advantages in the fight against the amendment. They claimed that Tennessee’s process violated their right to “participate on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.” They also claimed that the Tennessee Constitution required election officials to count only the votes of people who voted for governor. So if you wanted your vote to count for the amendment, you had to vote for governor.
On Friday, Judge Kevin Sharp did what liberal federal judges do: found a way to rule for abortion rights. He backed the plaintiffs, holding that the traditional manner of counting votes for constitutional amendments violated both the state and the federal constitutions. He then ordered a statewide recount, in which only the votes of those who voted in both the amendment contest and the gubernatorial race would be counted.
In an opinion full of insulting asides and other potshots at amendment supporters, Sharp claimed that the votes of those who voted in the governor’s race but against the amendment were “not given the same weight” as those who voted for Amendment 1 but did not vote in the governor’s race. In other words, he claimed that a voter who did not vote for governor but did vote for the amendment had more influence over the process than a voter who chose to vote in both elections. Yet that additional influence was the product not of discrimination but of voter choice, of deliberate voting strategy.
The judge’s solution to this fabricated problem was to give the votes of those who voted for the amendment but not for governor no weight at all. In other words, his concern for voting rights (he called the right to vote “precious” and “fundamental”) was so strong that he just went ahead and disenfranchised thousands of voters who relied on longstanding state-government interpretations of its own constitution. Moreover, he signaled that even if a recount shows that the amendment would still pass under his new, judicially created standard, he may still rule that the election itself should be voided.

When I was in law school, one of my radical leftist professors declared that the role of a judge was to first determine the “right” result, then to manipulate law and precedent to justify the pre-ordained outcome. He turned the process of judicial reasoning on its head, and my classmates loved it. Abortion jurisprudence is the product of exactly this ideology. Sexual revolutionaries aren’t just professors, activists, and lawmakers. Some are robed Robespierres, and you can always count on them to protect the culture of death. — David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

Bashir al Assad’s Alawite Sect Fissures, Talks Fail

A billboard sponsored by the chamber of commerce and industry shows pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (R) and his late father former president Hafez al-Assad in the coastal city of Latakia (17 March 2016) AFP, Syria’s Alawites are closely associated with Bashar al-Assad (R) and his late father Hafez (L) 

‘Muslim quality’

In part from BBC: The Alawites emerged in the 10th Century in neighbouring Iraq.

Little has been confirmed about their beliefs and practices since then because, according to the leaders, they had to be hidden to avoid persecution.

However, most sources say the name “Alawite” refers to their veneration of the first Shia imam, Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad.

Banners showing the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (L), and the current Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R), are held up beside one of a Lebanese Hezbollah commander killed in Syria (C) at a funeral in Baalbek (1 January 2014) AFP: Shia power Iran and Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah movement are assisting the Assad regime

For full comprehensive summary by the BBC, go here.

****

al-Arabiya: The most significant development coming from Syria in the last few days is not the killing of Al-Qaeda spokesperson in Idlib or the US-Russian chatter denying a plan to oust Bashar Al-Assad. It was a document leaked to the Western media and dubbed as the “declaration of identity reform” signaling signs of discontent from elders in the Alawite community towards the Syrian regime.

The news of the document is the most concrete evidence we have from Assad’s religious community since the beginning of the uprising in 2011, indicating that their patience is running out with the status-quo and they are openly seeking a third alternative. For such alternative to materialize, however, and for the Alawites to publicly start abandoning Assad, a political and security umbrella has to be extended from Russia and regional countries, guaranteeing their protection and role in a pluralistic future in a post-Assad Syria.

Alawite discontent

Syria’s Alawites have been both, the cornerstone for the regime’s survival and its Achilles’ heel. A 15% of Syria’s population (estimate of 3 million), the minority enjoys the lion’s share in the regime political and security hierarchy. Assad, the Chief of Staff of the Syrian Army, heads of the intelligence services are all from the powerful sect. When the state security proved not enough, a new militia was formed and allied with the regime and Iran to protect the Alawites along the coastline and in the mountain region over Latakia.

“The declaration from the Alawite leaders is a watershed moment in how the minority is publicly untying itself from Assad family, and attempting to pursue a pact of coexistence in Syria”, Joyce Karam.

The new declaration as leaked by European media, exposes fissures between the Alawites and the regime, and efforts to pursue a third option, instead of prolonging Assad’s military campaign, or getting overridden by extremist groups. According to the The Telegraph, the document authors “had been forced to act because of the extreme danger the sect was now facing” amid reports of enormous losses for the Alawites (a third of their young) in the 5-year-long war. In a political departure from the regime narrative, the declaration speaks of “a new relationship with Syria’s Sunni majority” while calling the regime as “totalitarian”, and the uprising “an initiative of noble anger”. The document also promotes a vision for secular, pluralist and democratic state of Syria.

By distancing themselves from the regime, the Alawite signatories are seeking a path that is not hostage to Assad’s strategy of war and outright military victories that could take years or lead to disintegration of Syria. From the beginning of the conflict, there were shy attempts from the Alawite community showing discontent with the Assad family and the war realities. In the last year the community has demonstrated in Latakia calling to execute Assad’s cousin, Suleiman, now serving a 20-year sentence in prison. In 2014, protests from members of the community broke out in Tartous and in Homs over the bombing of elementary schools and the failure of the security to protect their children.

Assurances from Region and Russia

The declaration from the Alawite leaders is a watershed moment in how the minority is publicly untying itself from Assad family, and attempting to pursue a pact of coexistence in Syria. However, and unless it’s met by political and security assurances from the West, the region and Russia, this momentum will not hold against a status quo of fear from extremism that forces Alawites to be more dependent on Assad and local militias.

For a minority whose roots are entrenched in the Levant and has survived the Mamluks, the Crusaders, and the Ottomans, it is only natural that its fate won’t be parallel and decided by the Assad family. It is the regime and not the family that holds higher priority for the Alawites, and even then, negotiating a new pact of governance is the most pragmatic and secure approach for the community’s future in Syria. The heavy toll of the war and the strong presence of Al-Qaeda’s Jabhat Nusra in Northern of the country are ominous signs of what could yet come if no political solution is achieved.

In that context, Russia’s intervention and establishing a presence in Khmeimim airbase in Latakia could make Moscow a key guarantor for the Alawites in a post-Assad Syria. Regional countries such as Saudi Arabia who helped assure the Lebanese Christians at the end of the civil war by brokering the Taif agreement, or Turkey who holds influence in Northern Syria could help in mediating between the Alawites and the opposition.

There is already plenty of buzz regionally of backchannel diplomacy to resolve the Syrian conflict, supervised by John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov, before U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office. There are also questions on recent reports of relieving Maher al-Assad of his duties in the Republican Guard, and what that could mean for the negotiations, for the Alawites and Moscow’s role.

The Alawite declaration this week from Syria, is a critical opportunity to start a conversation about the status of the minority in a post-Assad structure. Absent of guarantees in form of protection and political assurances, this paper will be shelved along a thick bundle of documents and goodwill gestures to resolve the conflict.

 USAToday

*****

WSJ: GENEVA—Talks aimed at ending the five-year war in Syria ground to a halt with the government and opposition divided over fundamental issues, including whether President Bashar al-Assad’s political fate even belongs on the agenda.

The regime insists that Mr. Assad remain in power, and the opposition demands that he step down. With an August United Nations deadline looming to form a new government and the peace process floundering, participants in the talks have floated alternatives aimed at breaking the deadlock that appease some parties but anger others.

Among the ideas are to transfer Mr. Assad’s powers to a handful of deputies; to form a new ruling council comprised of Syrian military officials and moderate rebel leaders; and to coalesce around a new Syrian leader who feuding camps could support.

None of the alternatives has gained traction, and each would face serious, possibly insurmountable, obstacles even if they garnered support in the Geneva talks. The discussions around them are a sign of the lengths to which negotiators are going in an effort to maintain some form of dialogue.

“Geneva is a process without content,” a senior Western diplomat said. Much more here.

A Judge Issued a Gag Order, Preventing Speech

Oregon Bakers Continue Legal Fight, Challenging ‘Gag Order’

Harkness/DailySignal

The Oregon bakers who were ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding filed a brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals on Monday, arguing the ruling against them was biased and violates both the Oregon and U.S. constitutions.

“In America, you’re innocent until proven guilty,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the group representing Aaron and Melissa Klein in their legal fight. “Commissioner Brad Avakian decided the Kleins were guilty before he even heard their case. This is an egregious violation of the Kleins’ rights to due process. We hope the Oregon Court of Appeals will remedy this by dismissing the government’s case against the Kleins.”

Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, was responsible for issuing the final ruling on the case. On July 2, 2015, he ruled that in declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding due to their religious beliefs, the Kleins violated an Oregon law that prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation against people based on their sexual orientation.

Avakian ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in mental, physical, and emotional damages to the couple whom they denied service.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (who have since married) filed a complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Ore., in February 2013, a month after the Kleins refused to make a cake for the same-sex couple’s wedding.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa in August 2013, six months after the agency received the initial complaint from Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer alleging the bakery owners discriminated against them.

Yet, in the appeal brief filed Monday, lawyers for the Kleins argued that Avakian had publicly declared the Kleins guilty before even waiting for an investigation to take place, citing a Feb. 5, 2013, Facebook post.

In that post, Avakian writes, “Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives.”

 

In August 2013, after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced it was opening an investigation to determine whether the Kleins had discriminated against the same-sex couple, Avakian also commented about the case, suggesting he had already decided that the Kleins were guilty. “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs,” he said in an interview with The Oregonian, “but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate.”

“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,” Avakian added.

Ken Klukowski, an attorney at First Liberty, told The Daily Signal that “it’s clear” Avakian demonstrated bias “that rises to the level of violating due process.”

In addition to ruling the Kleins must pay $135,000, Avakian also ordered the former bakery owners to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication … to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote in the final order.

The justification for this part of his final order originates from an interview Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in 2014. During the interview, Aaron said that they, “don’t do same-sex weddings,” and “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Avakian wrote those statements demonstrate a “prospective intent to discriminate.”

“This gag order that they’re under right now, where they have been ordered by the government that they can’t even discuss these things with the media,” Klukowski said, “is shockingly overbroad.”

“There are aspects of their beliefs and of this case, including aspects of their religious beliefs about marriage, that if they were to share these things publicly, that the government could punish them, saying that it amounts to the equivalent of advertising their intention to continue engaging in illegal discrimination,” Klukowski said.

“That censors so much protected speech.”

The punishment for violating the order is “notoriously unspecific,” Klukowski added. Because of that, lawyers for the Kleins are treading carefully on what they allow their clients to do and say in public.

“This is a couple with young children and where the law does not specify what the most severe penalty could be where as far as we know, the sky could be the limit, that’s where we owe it to our clients to err on the side of caution and try to shield them from additional exposure that could have consequences of unspecified severity,” he said.

In reviewing the appeal, the Oregon Appeal Court will determine whether or not the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ constitutional rights to religious freedom, free speech, and due process.

The Kleins maintain that they did not decline the same-sex couple due to their sexual orientation—stating in the brief that they have served one of the women who filed the complaint against them in the past. Instead, they maintain they were only declining to participate in an event that they disagree with because of their Christian beliefs about marriage.

Avakian ruled there is “no distinction” between the two situations.

Klukowski said he expects oral arguments to take place later this year. If the Oregon Court of Appeals rules against the Kleins, the next step would be appealing to the Oregon Supreme Court.