20 Step Refugee Vetting Process, Nuts…

Posted on February 6, 2017February 6, 2017 by Denise Simon

So, that is the process, allegedly done with extreme scrutiny…ahem. But what about those that come into the United States by other nefarious methods such as sneaking across our borders? They get a pass?

It is the exact time in our country to have this debate and the arguments must include the safety and financial consequences, both of which never are part of the wider discussion.

California is working to become a sanctuary state, putting all other CONUS states at extreme risk as people can travel freely. (CONUS = Continental United States).

San Francisco is at the hub of the issue, how so? The mayor via the police force refuse any collaboration as noted below:

SFPD Cuts Ties With FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force

San Francisco Police Department officials announced Wednesday that they have suspended participation with the FBI’s controversial Joint Terrorism Task Force.

According to San Francisco Police Commission protocol, all contracts require approval by the Board of Supervisors after 10 years.

The JTTF Memoranda of Understanding was signed in 2007, so that time has come, according to department officials.

The department will update its guideline for First Amendment activities and will “seek clarification” from the Police Commission as to this guideline’s application to JTTF investigations.

Once that new guideline is adopted, the department may consider renegotiating the JTTF memoranda with the FBI with guidance from the police commission.

Last month, the Asian Law Caucus, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ San Francisco Bay Area office and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California sent a letter to San Francisco Police commissioners urging them to cease the department’s participation in the JTTF.

In the Jan. 5 letter, the groups speculate that, following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the JTTF would likely increase surveillance of Muslim communities like the New York City police did after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the FBI, 71 JTTF field offices have been established since 2001. The first was established in New York City in 1980.

“The SFPD is committed to public safety and will continue to work diligently to keep San Francisco safe for everyone,” San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said in a statement.

(That last statement gets a BIG REALLY DUDE?)

*** Back in 2008:

Refugee Program Halted As DNA Tests Show Fraud

Thousands in Africa Lied about Families To Gain U.S. Entry

The State Department has suspended a humanitarian program to reunite thousands of African refugees with relatives in the U.S. after unprecedented DNA testing by the government revealed widespread fraud.

The freeze affects refugees in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea and Ghana, many of whom have been waiting years to emigrate. More here from the WSJ. Lying and making up ghost people to get other permits? Hah….

*** Back in 2004, as a result of the 9/11 Commission Report on the issue of immigration, many robust recommendations were made of which all members of Congress at the time signed off on. They need to be reminded of that, as does the California legislature at a minimum. But going deeper in factual history, others need to be reminded of the following: (In part from Migration Policy dot org.)

Kerry Outlines Ideas on Immigration Reform

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on June 30 announced his platform on immigration reform. In a speech to the National Council of La Raza’s national conference, Kerry said that within 100 days of taking office, he would propose a four-part plan that would give “good people who are undocumented but living here, working here, paying taxes, [and] staying out of trouble . . . a path to equal citizenship.” In addition, he said that immigrants would be required to take civics and English classes. Kerry also promised to sign two bills currently pending in Congress: the AgJobs agricultural worker program, and the DREAM Act, which would allow young, out-of-status immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates while attending college. Both bills create a path for immigrants to eventually receive legal resident status.

In an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo on June 29, Kerry took stances on other immigration-related issues. He stated that granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants violated the spirit of the law, and that immigration authorities had the right to perform raids to capture unauthorized immigrants who had broken other laws. Some analysts believe that Kerry’s comments regarding driver’s licenses could hurt his standing with Latino voters in the election. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reported on July 22 that Kerry currently has a 2 to 1 advantage over his opponent, President George W. Bush, among registered Latino voters.

Hmong Refugees Resettled to the United States

Around 15,000 Hmong refugees are expected to arrive in the United States this year. The first members of the group have already reached the U.S., and up to 3,000 more are expected by the end of August, with the remainder arriving by the end of 2004. The new arrivals fled their native country because of persecution they suffered due to their alliance with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. One third of the refugees will be resettled to Minnesota, a third will be sent to California, and the rest will be distributed among more than a dozen other states. Many of the refugees have been living illegally in a makeshift camp in Thailand, having passed up the opportunity for resettlement to the United States in the 1980s and 1990s as they clung to the hope of returning to Laos. Because the Thai military plans to close the camp by the end of 2004, most residents plan to accept the resettlement opportunity offered by the U.S. Department of State.

The refugees will receive initial assistance from U.S. resettlement agencies, which will help meet basic needs such as housing, school, language, employment, and health services. To fund these services, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on June 24 announced an additional $3.3 million allocation for Hmong resettlement costs. After one year of living in the U.S., refugees can apply to adjust their status to permanent residency and acquire a “green card.” They eventually become eligible for citizenship. In addition, unlike other immigrants, refugees are not barred from receiving welfare benefits in their first seven years of residence in the United States. The next group of Hmong refugees, approximately 2,000 individuals, is expected to arrive by the end of August.

U.S and Mexico Sign Pact on Social Security

The United States and Mexico on June 29 signed a pact enabling Mexican workers in the U.S. and American workers in Mexico to transfer social security benefits across national borders. The pact is similar to international Social Security agreements the U.S. has with Britain and Canada, and allows workers to contribute to only one benefits system at a time. According to estimates by U.S. Social Security officials, only 7,500 U.S. citizens working in Mexico will qualify for retirement benefits, as compared to 41,000 Mexican employees likely to qualify for Social Security in the United States. Even so, the plan will have an initially limited effect because it excludes, unless or until they are legalized, an estimated six to eight million undocumented Mexican workers currently employed in the United States. While the pact will not become law without legislative approval, the United States Congress and the Mexican Senate are expected to pass the measure; U.S. lawmakers have routinely approved similar agreements with 20 other nations. (For more information on International Agreements of the Social Security Administration, see this January 2004 Migration Policy Institute Immigration Fact Sheet)

State Department Halts Mail Renewal of Visas

The Department of State on July 16 stopped accepting applications for mail renewals of visas. Under the new policy, announced on June 23, foreigners who work in the United States must return to U.S. embassies abroad to be interviewed and fingerprinted for visa renewal. The policy, which does not apply to foreign diplomats or employees of international organizations, is part of the U.S. effort to improve border controls after the September 11, 2001 attacks. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated that the switch was made to overseas processing because of the better capacity of U.S. embassies abroad to interview and fingerprint visa applicants. More than 50,000 people from more than 60 countries were processed in 2003.

Tech Companies Filed Amicus Brief, Supports Foreign Workers

Posted on February 6, 2017February 6, 2017 by Denise Simon

Amicus Brief Tech companies This is an employment epidemic across the nation where companies sponsor foreign national for domestic jobs, leaving thousands to train their replacements. We have not addresses how many could be purposely placed for industrial espionage.

***

Apple, Google, Microsoft pile in: 97 US tech firms file brief against Trump’s travel ban

In part from ZDNet: Immigrants or their children founded 200 US companies that generate $4.2 trillion in annual revenues, the brief highlights, among them Apple, AT&T, and Google, as well as Ford, General Electric, McDonald’s, Boeing, and Disney.

“Businesses and employees have little incentive to go through the laborious process of sponsoring or obtaining a visa, and relocating to the United States, if an employee may be unexpectedly halted at the border.

“Skilled individuals will not wish to immigrate to the country if they may be cut off without warning from their spouses, grandparents, relatives, and friends. They will not pull up roots, incur significant economic risk, and subject their family to considerable uncertainty to immigrate to the United States in the face of this instability.” Full article here.

***

The H1-B visa program has a cap to the number allowed to be issued. It is a visa program that needs more scrutiny by Congress for the sake of American employees. There have been abuses to the program and further companies like Disney hire foreign nationals to replaced domestic employees driving down the salary costs.

Janet Napolitano, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland security and now the president of the University of California system knows it all so well and how to work the system.

In part from the LATimes: Using a visa loophole to fire well-paid U.S. information technology workers and replace them with low-paid immigrants from India is despicable enough when it’s done by profit-making companies such as Southern California Edison and Walt Disney Co.

But the latest employer to try this stunt sets a new mark in what might be termed “job laundering.” It’s the University of California. Experts in the abuse of so-called H-1B visas say UC is the first public university to send the jobs of American IT staff offshore. That’s not a distinction UC should wear proudly. Full op-ed here.

*** One of 5 huge examples beyond California is:

Pfizer Connecticut R&D

In 2008, workers at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s New London and Groton (Connecticut) research and development campus raised the alarm: They were being replaced by Indian workers on H-1B visas and forced to train their replacements. Those outsourced workers were scheduled to return to India, where they will run the same systems as their U.S. counterparts, albeit at a cheaper rate and with diminished benefits. The move was part of an outsourcing agreement signed in 2005 between Pfizer, Infosys Technologies and Satyam Computer Services. More here.

***

A 100 page Joint Venture report for tech companies includes the following text:

Foreign-Born Residents

Silicon Valley has an extraordinarily large share of residents who are foreign born (37.4%, compared to California, 27.1%, or the United States, 13.3%). This population share increases to 50% for the employed, core working age population (ages 25-44), and even higher for certain occupational groups. For instance, nearly 74% of all Silicon Valley employed Computer and Mathematical workers ages 25-44 in 2014 were foreign-born. Correspondingly, the region also has an incredibly large share of foreign-language speakers, with 51% of Silicon Valley’s population over age five speaking a language other than exclusively English at home (compared to 43% in San Francisco, 44% in California, and 21% in the United States as a whole). This majority share in 2014 was up from 49% in 2011.

*** The Senate held a hearing in 2015 with a few former employees that were forced to train their foreign replacements. Many of these employees are paid a severance package but it also includes a major stipulation to remain mute on the topic as noted below:

My former company, a large utility company, replaced 220 American IT workers with H-1Bs…we would have to train them in order to receive our severance packages. This was one of the most humiliating situations that I have ever been in as an IT professional.

The whole IT department was going through the same fate as myself. Those were the longest and hardest five months of my life. Not only did I lose a work family, but I lost my job and my self-esteem. We had constant emails sent by HR that we could not talk about this situation to anyone or make posts to social media. If we did, we would be fired immediately and not get our severance. Read the full article here.

FY SCAAP 2016: Criminal Aliens $189,008,372.00

Posted on February 3, 2017February 3, 2017 by Denise Simon

A faithful reader of this website, reached out to me and asked for an update on a previous post. Hat tip for this great reminder. Grrr….when looking at the dollars, it has hard not to jump and down in frustration.

With a little effort in research, the last time the Government Accountability Office did any estimate to the cost of the U.S. economy for all things illegal/immigration related was 2011.

Image result for criminal aliene detention

The cost at the State level fluctuates based on deportations and beds available. The Federal government out of the Justice Department helps pay respective states for the costs of alien incarceration. It must be understood that aliens come from hundreds of countries and since there are some countries that allegedly refuse to take back their citizens by deportation, at least the Justice Department should work all the diplomatic channels that the home countries of the criminals should pay up for all expenses and associated future costs.

Three groups of criminal aliens can be distinguished.

 All criminal aliens include both unauthorized aliens, most of whom are potentially removable, and legal aliens10 who may or may not be removable depending on specific crimes committed. This population contains the set of criminal aliens who are removable on the basis of specific crimes committed.

 Criminal aliens who have been convicted of removable criminal offenses are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) even if they are otherwise legally present.11 For example, a legal permanent resident (LPR) convicted of cocaine possession is subject to removal,12 but an LPR convicted of public intoxication is not. This population also includes aggravated felons.

 Criminal aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies13 are ineligible for most forms of relief from removal14 and are ineligible to be readmitted to the United States.15

As noted above, all three of these subpopulations—criminal aliens, removable criminal aliens, and aggravated felons—comprise an unknown mix of legally present noncitizens and unauthorized aliens.

State by state and listed by country, click here for what the Bureau of Justice released for FY 2016.

SCAAP Overview

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, administers SCAAP, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and who are incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.

SCAAP Legislative Authority

SCAAP is governed by Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(i), as amended, and Title II, Subtitle C, Section 20301, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322. In general terms, if a chief executive officer of a state or a political subdivision exercises authority over the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens and submits a written request to the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorney General may provide compensation to that jurisdiction for those incarceration costs. SCAAP is subject to additional terms and conditions of yearly congressional appropriations.

***

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 8 U.S.C. § 1373

****

Just a view from the State of Texas for aliens that are not being detained or incarcerated as noted in a report from 2013:

In part from FAIRUS.org: In 2013, illegal immigration cost Texas taxpayers about $12.1 billion annually. That amounts to more than $1,197 for every Texas household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. The taxes paid by illegal aliens — estimated at $1.27 billion per year — do not come close to paying for those outlays, but we include an estimate of revenue from sales taxes, property taxes, alcohol taxes, and cigarette taxes.

Examining Texas’s fiscal outlays from the perspective of the current debate over adopting an amnesty for illegal aliens, we find that the fiscal burden to taxpayers would not be significantly lessened even if an amnesty like that proposed in the Senate’s S.744 were enacted. In fact, it becomes clear that the only way to significantly reduce the fiscal burden is to reduce the size of the population that illegally entered the country. State and local policymakers have options available to accomplish that objective. In Arizona, efforts to discourage the arrival of additional illegal residents and to hold employers accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers have been effective in reducing the illegal alien population and, thereby, the fiscal costs associated with that population.

Trump Signs New Sanctions on Iran

Posted on February 3, 2017February 3, 2017 by Denise Simon

For more information on Iran sanctions, go here.

Image result for iran sanctions

U.S. Treasury Department Announces New Sanctions On Iran

NPR: The U.S. Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Iran on Friday, less than a week after a ballistic missile test prompted the Trump administration to accuse Iran of violating an international a weapons agreement.

The newly announced sanctions target people and businesses the U.S. government says support Iran’s ballistic missile program and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, according to a Treasury Department statement. They are in line with previous sanctions, implemented over what then-President Barack Obama called Iran’s “violations of human rights, for its support of terrorism and for its ballistic missile program.”

The acting director of the Treasury unit in charge of sanctions, John Smith, said the latest sanctions do not violate the international nuclear deal reached with Iran in 2015, which required Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some economic sanctions.

A top Treasury Department official tells NPR’s Michele Kelemen that the actions are part of the U.S. efforts to counter Iranian “malign activity abroad.”

The public text of the sanctions lists 12 companies and 13 individuals, blocking assets and prohibiting U.S. citizens from dealing with them. Among the individuals, four are listed as Iranian citizens, two are Lebanese, one is Chinese, and one holds a passport from the island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis. It also announced changes to previous, unrelated sanctions on a 14th individual.

The businesses are based both inside and outside Iran.

According to the Treasury Department, the sanctions target:

“several networks and supporters of Iran’s ballistic missile procurement, including a critical Iranian procurement agent and eight individuals and entities in his Iran- and China-based network, an Iranian procurement company and its Gulf-based network, and five individuals and entities that are part of an Iran-based procurement network.”

Hours before the sanctions were announced, President Trump addressed Iran in a tweet, writing, “Iran is playing with fire — they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!”

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted an hour later that “we will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense.”

***

We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.pic.twitter.com/xwGquvqLvb

Both U.S. and Iranian officials weighed in on whether Sunday’s missile test broke the terms of the nuclear deal.

Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner told The Associated Press on Monday that the U.S. was looking into whether the test violated a 2015 side agreement to the nuclear accord, and that the U.S. would “hold Iran accountable” if it did.

Zarif said Tuesday, that “the missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal.”

National Security Adviser Mike Flynn said a day later that former President Barack Obama had gone too easy on Iran, but that “as of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

Flynn also listed the administration’s grievances with Tehran, including its test of a ballistic missile and what he said were attacks by proxy forces in Yemen on U.S. and Middle Eastern ships, as we reported.

One of the incidents he appeared to be referring to occurred in October 2016, when U.S. Navy ships off Yemen’s southwestern coast came under missile attacks twice in four days.

According to the Pentagon, the missiles came from an area controlled by Houthi forces, who are fighting against the government of Yemen and who the U.S. government says are backed by the Iranian government, which is supplying weapons to the rebel group.

But it was unclear who ordered October’s missile launches, as NPR’s Philip Ewing reported. Houthi leaders denied the attacks, and Tehran has denied U.S. accusations that Iran is supporting Houthi forces. Nonetheless, the U.S. carried out airstrikes against what the Pentagon said were radar installations in Houthi-controlled areas.

In December, Congress extended U.S. sanctions against Iran originally imposed in 1996 until 2026.

UC Berkeley, Protests over Milo and $370 Million

Posted on February 2, 2017February 2, 2017 by Denise Simon

How did it all happen? It continues to happen…

Exactly who is boycotting/protesting who? Napolitano protesting Federal law perhaps?

UC Berkely, the birthplace of ‘free speech’ is the campus where Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak. The Republican student organization extended the invitation and the university officials said fine if you put up $6000.00 for security teams. They agreed and did. Then Milo, a foreign national in the United States on a green card, actually travels the country doing talks with his own bodyguard. Once Milo was inside the student union building, things began to go sideways and Milo was evacuated. So much for free speech.

***

Berkeley students were still receiving texts from university police to “shelter in place” as of 9pm PT, and helicopters could be heard overhead well into the evening. More here from Forbes.

NBC

The Star

So, where did all this come from?

UC President Janet Napolitano reiterates vow to protect immigrant students

University of California President Janet Napolitano assured vulnerable immigrant students Wednesday that, despite fear and uncertainty about President Trump’s intentions, the university would protect them.

“UC chancellors and I have reaffirmed our intentions to ensure that every corner of the University of California remains welcoming, safe and inclusive for all,” Napolitano said at a two-day meeting of the Board of Regents in San Francisco.

Trump signed executive orders Wednesday signaling a crackdown on illegal immigration, but he has not yet moved to end an Obama administration program that deferred deportation against young people who are in the country illegally. The program, Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was created by Napolitano when she served as Homeland Security secretary under Obama.

UC officials indicated that they intend to fight back if Trump does end the program, which could jeopardize an estimated 3,700 UC students who are living in the country illegally.

The regents plan to discuss the “prelitigation potential” of possible university responses to Trump’s actions on immigration in a closed session Thursday, Regent George Kieffer said. He asked UC officials Wednesday about whether such responses would be legal.

“We know that the new president has certain views on immigration, DACA…. We’re going to be in a position in some ways to be opposite to him,” Kieffer said. “Do we have solid legal foundation for some of the actions we’ll be taking?”

“Everything that we do will be thoroughly researched and grounded in law,” replied Nelson Peacock, the university system’s senior vice president for state and federal government relations.

A working group formed by Napolitano the day after Trump’s election in November is developing possible responses to any repeal of the DACA program or other actions that would harm their students, said Julia Friedlander, UC deputy general counsel. She declined to elaborate on what such actions might be.

“There’s a great deal of concern, but we’ll have to see the fine print” of any move by Trump before responding, she said. “The university has a commitment to equal opportunity, and we will do everything in our power to fulfill that commitment.” Read more here from LATimes.

Just $370 million in Federal funding goes to UC Berkeley? (How many other universities are doing the same as UC Berkeley and getting Federal funding subsidies?)

Each year, the UC Berkeley campus receives well over half a billion dollars in research and other support from external sources. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, UC Berkeley attracted $673.9 million in new awards. Many of these awards fund multiyear research projects and support expenditures that will be reflected in subsequent years. The federal government provided 55 percent of these funds, and California state agencies and other government sources, industry, and the nonprofit sector supplied the rest. Of the research funding provided by the U.S. government, the largest contributors are the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

More here on UC Berkeley funding revenue.