A Chilling Fact About Uncontrolled Immigration

Posted on April 22, 2016April 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

The government at the Federal and local level knows the consequences and the threat. Sadly, objectives by the Democrats and the Obama White House dismiss factual conditions that threaten lives and safety. There was a paramount reason Ellis Island operated the way it did, even with flaws.

CDC Official Warned Staff of Health, Safety Risks During Influx of Illegal Alien Minors: “Plan on Many of the Kids Having TB,” “Be Wary of Personal Safety.”

JW: A government official warned employees deploying for the influx of illegal immigrant minors about health and safety risks because the new arrivals would have tuberculosis and some were young adults—not children—like the Obama administration proclaimed, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. “We might as well plan on many of the kids having TB,” states a June 26, 2014 guidance e-mail from a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) environmental health scientist, Alaric C. Denton, as the agency prepared to handle the crisis. “Most of these kids are not immunized, so we need to make sure all our staff are immunized.” Denton, who is stationed at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, predicts in the directive that the agency will be overwhelmed pretty quickly and that screening requirements will be hard to keep up with.

Judicial Watch had to sue the CDC’s umbrella agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, (HHS) for the records. Though chunks have been redacted, the documents contradict the Obama administration’s public statements dismissing possible health and safety risks created by the tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) fleeing violence in Central America. The CDC official reveals in the documents obtained by JW as a result of the lawsuit that “some of these kids are not really kids they are young adults, and we should be wary of personal safety.” JW reported this early on, when the first group of UACs arrived through the Mexican border in the summer of 2014. Homeland Security sources directly involved with the mess told JW that holding centers were jam-packed, rampant with diseases and sexually active teenagers. A veteran Border Patrol officer who heads the agency’s Tucson sector quickly established that many of the UACs were not little kids but rather 17-year-olds with possible ties to gang members in the U.S.

Weeks later JW reported that the nation’s most violent street gangs—including Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13—were actively recruiting new members at U.S. shelters housing illegal immigrant minors. A high-level Homeland Security source told JW the gangs used Red Cross phones at the shelters to communicate with the new recruits. Last fall the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that the MS-13 has been fortified and able to remain a top tier gang thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that recently crossed into the state. The MS-13 is a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs.

This new batch of government records, part of an ongoing JW investigation into the UAC disaster, indicate the administration was well aware of the danger in allowing hordes of illegal immigrant youths to enter and stay in the U.S. At the very least it flies in the face of the administration’s false narrative involving the key issues of health and safety surrounding the new arrivals which have been relocated throughout the nation. Denton, the CDC environmental health scientist who warned colleagues prior to deployment, works at the agency’s Environmental, Safety and Health Compliance Office (ESHCO). Officials from other federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were also involved in the exchanges. JW will continue receiving records from the government involving this issue as part of an agreement, supervised by a federal judge, stemming from our lawsuit.

*****

Wait there is more.

AP Exclusive: Color index for US border security is rejected

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security dropped its color-coded terror threat index developed after the 9/11 attacks amid widespread confusion and ridicule. So what did it do when tasked by Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2014 with measuring security along the country’s borders?

Agency staff proposed another system of reds, yellows and greens.

The Institute for Defense Analyses, a consulting firm, was hired by DHS to review the idea and found the index simplistic and misleading, noting that colors were a “disaster” for communicating terror threats.

“DHS should learn from its own history and avoid repeating this error,” the consultants said in its 53-page report.

The DHS proposal was never made public, nor was the consulting firm’s $90,000 review. A copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press and when AP this week asked the agency whether it would move ahead with the index, spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said: “Currently, there are no color-coded border security indexes or metrics being considered by the Department of Homeland Security.”

It was one of the latest attempts by the government to come up with a way to measure border security and help the public understand whether the billions of dollars devoted to it each year are being spent wisely.

In 2010, Homeland Security ended a five-year experiment measuring miles under “operational control,” where the Border Patrol was likely to capture illegal crossers. It reported only about 40 percent controlled in 2010, providing ammunition to those who argue the border is porous.

Then in 2013, Johnson’s predecessor, Janet Napolitano, abandoned plans for what was called the Border Conditions Index, which would have relied on various economic, crime and enforcement data.

John Sandweg, who was senior counselor to Napolitano, said there was internal consensus about what made up the index but not about how much weight to give each factor.

Sandweg, who advised the secretary when the color terror alert system was dropped, said he doesn’t see the value of a similar color-coded approach to the border.

“It seems to me like an oversimplification of a very complex problem,” he said.

The consultants hired by Johnson agreed.

“The red/yellow/green formulation, while intuitively attractive and easy to understand, will open the Department to charges that it is manipulating a complex problem in an effort to be seen as responding to public concerns,” the report said.

When the report was completed in June, California and New Mexico/West Texas were green (low risk) during the previous quarter, Arizona was yellow (medium risk), and South Texas was red (high risk). The consultants said that reality was more nuanced.

“A new set of metrics should work against this simplistic perception rather than reinforcing it. Instead, the new index does the opposite, by reporting the level of border security in just three large baskets, two of which (red and yellow) are likely to be seen by the public as evidence of a border ‘not controlled,'” the report said.

The consultants identified other problems. A color index might lead reporters with an appetite for eye-catching headlines to produce misleading stories of an out-of-control border. And DHS relations with Congress could be further strained, with administration officials constantly having to defend their color choices.

For example, a West Texas congressman would demand to know why his district is rated low risk when voters tell him the opposite. A South Texas congressman would want lots more money if the administration acknowledges his district is high risk, the report said.

Now, the most closely-watched public indicator is Border Patrol apprehensions, released annually. The number fell to a 44-year low last year, a figure cited by those who argue the border is relatively secure. But there is broad agreement that the apprehension tally gives an incomplete picture, just as a police department’s arrest count doesn’t fully reflect how safe a city is.

The color-coded index would have relied on 12 indicators for land borders and seven for maritime borders, each one weighted under a formula that produces reds, yellows and greens. Those indicators ranged from the number of border crossers with known or suspected terrorist ties to marijuana seizures.

The consultants’ report speaks favorably about developing a “dashboard” of key numbers, as many police departments do. Homeland Security recently began publishing the percent of illegal border crossers it says are caught or turned back — 80 percent in the 2015 fiscal year — and has developed other measures, including the percent caught who are repeat offenders.

FILE – In this Jan. 4, 2016 file photo, a U.S. Border Patrol agent drives near the U.S.-Mexico border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has rejected a new proposal of color-coded alerts to measure border security after a consultant called the system simplistic and misleading. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)

FILE – In this Jan. 4, 2016 file photo, a U.S. Border Patrol agent drives near the U.S.-Mexico border fence in Sunland Park, N.M. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has rejected a new proposal of color-coded alerts to measure border security after a consultant called the system simplistic and misleading. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)

What About Those Firms Hosting Hillary Speeches

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests

MSN/AP: WASHINGTON — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Clinton’s 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

Rival presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican critics have mocked Clinton over her closed-door talks to banks and investment firms, saying she is too closely aligned to Wall Street to curb its abuses. Sanders said in a speech in New York that Clinton earned an average of about $225,000 for each speech and goaded her for declining to release transcripts.

“If somebody gets paid $225,000 for a speech, it must be an unbelievably extraordinary speech,” Sanders said at an outdoor rally at Washington Square Park last week in advance of the New York primary. “I kind of think if that $225,000 speech was so extraordinary, she should release the transcripts and share it with all of us.”

Clinton said again Thursday she will release transcripts of her paid speeches to private groups or companies when other political candidates do the same. She compared such disclosures to the long-standing practice of politicians being expected to release their income tax returns, which she did far earlier and more thoroughly than Sanders in the campaign.

“Now there’s a new request to release transcripts of speeches that have been given,” Clinton said during a town hall. “When everybody agrees to do that, I will as well because I think it’s important we all abide by the same standards. So, let’s do the tax return standard first because that’s been around for a really long time.”

Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues, noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street despite his prolific fundraising there. But her earnings of more than $21.6 million from such a wide range of interest groups could affect public confidence in her proclaimed independence.

“The problem is whether all these interests who paid her to appear before them will expect to have special access when they have an issue before the government,” said Lawrence M. Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based election watchdog group.

The AP review identified at least 60 firms and organizations that sponsored Clinton’s speeches and lobbied the U.S. government at some point since the start of the Obama administration. Over the same period, at least 30 also profited from government contracts. Twenty-two groups lobbied the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. They include familiar Wall Street financial houses such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., corporate giants like General Electric Co. and Verizon Communications Inc., and lesser-known entities such as the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Global Business Travel Association.

Clinton’s two-year speaking tour, which took place after she resigned as secretary of state, “puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence on money,” said Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. “It ends up creating the appearance of influence.”

Clinton dismissed those concerns in a town hall in Columbia, South Carolina, saying that “the argument seems to be that if you ever took money from any business of any kind, then you can’t fulfill your public responsibilities. Well, that’s just not the case.”

Clinton’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in a statement, “Hillary Clinton’s record shows she has consistently taken on these very same industries, and to suggest she would deviate from that at all as president is completely baseless.”

Despite months of controversy over her speeches to Wall Street patrons, Clinton’s biggest rewards came from Washington’s trade associations, the lobbying groups that push aggressively for industry interests. Trade groups paid Clinton more than $7.1 million, the review showed.

The National Association of Realtors spent $38.5 million on government contacts in 2013, the same year it paid Clinton $225,000 to appear at the group’s gathering in San Francisco. A group spokesman said Clinton was among former U.S. officials invited to share their experiences but said she was not paid as part of its lobbying activities.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biotech and pharmaceutical firms, spent between $7 million and $8.5 million annually on lobbying since 2008, including contacts with the State Department — during Clinton’s tenure — on the agency’s biotech discussions with foreign governments. The trade group, which hosted Clinton for $335,000 at its event in San Diego in June 2014, has won more than $425,000 in federal payments since 2008 in work for the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The group did not respond to phone calls or emails for comment from AP.

The financial services and investment industry accounted for about $4.1 million of Clinton’s earnings. Its ranks included not only Wall Street powerhouses like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp., but also private equity and hedge funds like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP and Apollo Global Management LLC and foreign-owned banks such as Deutsche Bank AG and the Canada Imperial Bank of Commerce. Goldman Sachs, which gave Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in 2013, and Morgan Stanley, which paid her $225,000 for one speech the same year, both spent millions lobbying the U.S. during Clinton’s term at the State Department.

Nearly three dozen of Clinton’s benefactors spent more than $1 million annually on contacts with officials and Congress during the same year they paid her to appear at their corporate or association events, according to federal lobbying records. Many earned millions more in government contracts — indications of the regulatory and policy stances the groups might advocate during a Clinton presidency.

General Electric, which paid her $225,000 for a speech in Boca Raton, Florida, in January 2014, has the most extensive government portfolio. GE has spent between $15.1 million and $39.2 million annually on lobbying. The company has won nearly $50 million in government work since 2008, including $1.7 million from the State Department for lab equipment and data processing during Clinton’s tenure. The firm also lobbied the State Department all four years under Clinton on issues including trade and Iran sanctions.

As secretary of state, Clinton visited a GE aviation facility in Singapore and touted the State Department’s role aiding GE industrial and military deals abroad. Clinton met with GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt once about the agency’s efforts to salvage a planned business exposition in Shanghai and also talked with him by phone, according to her calendars.

A GE spokeswoman said, “GE works closely with the U.S. government and State Department, which often advocates for U.S. exporters.”

Clinton sought to defuse the issue of her Wall Street speeches during a February debate with Sanders by explaining that she “spoke to heart doctors, I spoke to the American Camping Association, I spoke to auto dealers, and, yes, I spoke to firms on Wall Street.”

Even the sponsors Clinton cited in her defense engaged in public advocacy — an indication of how many might seek favors if Clinton were elected.

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, a fundraising group for cutting-edge heart medicine, paid Clinton $275,000 for a speech in Washington in September 2014. That same year, the organization joined other medical and health care groups in urging the Federal Drug Administration to reconsider its generic labeling rules. Foundation spokeswoman Irma Damhuis said Clinton was invited as a “recognized thought leader,” adding that “decisions on keynote speakers are made without a political agenda.”

The National Automobile Dealers Association paid Clinton $325,000 for a convention speech in New Orleans in January 2014. That same year, the trade group spent $3.2 million lobbying federal officials on taxes, automotive and trucking issues, labor and finance. A spokesman said the group’s lobbying and convention activities were separate.

The camping group also paid for lobbying in recent years, including $40,000 in 2015 on Transportation Department administrative actions, according to federal records. The group’s New York and New Jersey affiliate paid Clinton $260,000 for a March 2015 speech in Atlantic City.

Deirdre Petting, an executive with the national group, said its lobbying was separate from the affiliate’s decision to invite Clinton for the event.

After Subpoena: State Removed Benghazi Docs

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obstruction of a government process and investigation. That is a violation of the law. Hillary, what say you and your team? Ever notice that the Democrats never ask questions or complain about lack of compliance or cooperation?

Exactly how many had access to Hillary’s office or permission to remove files? Ahem….

State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena

Release of records delayed over a year due to removal

FreeBeacon: State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The new source of documents includes electronic folders used by senior officials under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were originally kept in the executive secretary’s office, which handles communication and coordination between the secretary of state’s office and other department bureaus.

The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena filed in March 2015. Congressional investigators met with the head of the executive secretary’s office staff to discuss its records maintenance system and the scope of the subpoena last April. That same month, State Department officials sent the electronic folders to another bureau for archiving, and they were not searched in response to the request.

The blunder could raise new questions about the State Department’s records process, which has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and government watchdogs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act process as “broken” in January, citing “systematic failures at the agency.”

The inspector general for the State Department also released a report criticizing the agency’s public records process in January. The report highlighted failures in the executive secretary’s office, which responds to records requests for the Office of the Secretary.

Since last fall, the State Department has taken additional steps to increase transparency, recently hiring a transparency coordinator.

But the late discovery of the electronic folders has set back the release of information in a number of public records lawsuits filed against the State Department by watchdog groups.

The State Department first disclosed that staffers had discovered the unsearched folders in a January court filing. Attorneys for the department asked the court for additional time to process and release the documents in response to a 2014 lawsuit filed by the government ethics group Judicial Watch.

Around the same time, the State Department alerted the House Select Committee on Benghazi to the discovery. On April 8, the department turned over 1,100 pages of documents from the electronic folders to the House Benghazi Committee, over a year after the committee’s subpoena. The committee had received other documents from the production in February.

The delay has had consequences. The Benghazi Committee had already completed the majority of its interviews with diplomats and government officials regarding the Benghazi attack before it received the latest tranche of documents.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chairman of the Benghazi Committee, said in an April 8 statement it was “deplorable that it took over a year for these records to be produced to our committee.”

“This investigation is about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, and it could have been completed a lot sooner if the administration had not delayed and delayed and delayed at every turn,” Gowdy said.

The decision by State Department officials to transfer the electronic folders to another bureau after receiving the subpoena could also raise questions.

The subpoena requested Benghazi-related documents and communications from 10 of Hillary Clinton’s top aides for the years 2011 and 2012.

The requests included standard language that “Subpoenaed records, documents, data or information should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.”

The State Department’s attorneys said the executive secretary’s office transferred the folders to the Office of Information Programs and Services for “retiring” in April 2015. Public records officials did not realize for almost eight months that the folders had been moved, and so they were not searched in response to FOIA requests or subpoenas.

“In April 2015—prior to its search in this [Judicial Watch] case—the Secretariat Staff within the Office of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-S”) retired the shared office folders and transferred them to the custody of the Bureau of Administration, Office of Information Programs and Services,” the State Department said in a Feb. 5 court filing.

“The IPS employees working on this FOIA request did not initially identify S/ES retired records as a location to search for potentially responsive records because they were operating with the understanding that, to the extent responsive records from the Office of the Secretary existed, they resided within [the executive secretary’s office].”

According to congressional sources, officials on the House Benghazi Committee had a meeting with the executive secretary’s office to discuss the subpoena and the locations of potentially relevant records on April 10, 2015. Electronic folders of senior staff members were discussed during the briefing.

State Department officials at the meeting included the director of the executive secretary’s office staff, who was responsible for handling the office’s records maintenance, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, and Catherine Duval, the attorney who oversaw the public release of Hillary Clinton’s official emails. The officials gave no indication that electronic folders had recently been transferred out of the office.

The State Department declined to comment on whether the folders were transferred after the meeting took place.

A State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon that personnel did not mislead congressional investigators, and added that no officials at the meeting were involved in transferring the folders.

“The Department personnel who briefed the Select Committee in April 2015 did not play a role in the transfer of these files to State’s Bureau of Administration,” the State Department official said.

The official added that department files are often moved as a routine matter.

“Files that are generated in an office are regularly moved to the Bureau of Administration for storage according to published records retirement schedules,” the official said. “This is a routine action that would not involve a senior supervisor. It also continues to make them available to respond to either Congressional or FOIA requests.”

Duval left the State Department last September. She had previously overseen document production for the IRS during the targeting controversy. Republicans had criticized that process after agency emails were reportedly destroyed and a key IRS official’s hard drive was shredded months after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

In recent months, the State Department has been working to increase transparency.

“The Department has worked closely with the Select Committee in a spirit of cooperation and responsiveness,” a State Department official said. “Since the Committee was formed, we have provided 48 witnesses for interviews and more than 95,000 pages of documents.”

The efforts drew some praise from the House Benghazi Committee last fall.

“It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production,” committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a Sept. 25, 2015 press release.

Still, it could be months before the public is able to see many of the Benghazi-related documents belatedly discovered by the State Department. The House Benghazi Committee is still completing its investigation and has not released them.

The department’s attorneys have also been granted extensions to produce the documents in response to several public records lawsuits. In one FOIA case, first filed by the watchdog group Citizens United in 2014, a judge has given the State Department until next August to turn over the new materials.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had submitted two subpoenas to the State Department. The Committee only submitted one subpoena, on March 4, 2015. The November 2014 request was an official letter from the Committee to Secretary John Kerry.

Terrifying Truth on Who Obama is NOT Deporting

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Goodlatte Urges DHS to Deport Thousands of Criminal Aliens with Federal Drug Convictions Set to Be Released Next Month

HouseJudiciaryCommittee: On April 30, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission approved Amendment 782, which modified the United States Sentencing Guidelines to lower the base offense level for federal controlled substances offenses. Amendment 782 was made retroactive by the Commission. As a consequence, approximately 2,000 convicted criminal aliens whose sentences were reduced are now eligible for release from the Federal Bureau of Prisons on or about November 1, 2015.

In the letter to Secretary Johnson, Chairman Goodlatte urges Secretary Johnson to remove these criminal aliens from the United States, noting that they are the highest enforcement priority based on the Obama Administration’s own written policy for priority enforcement.

Below is the text of Chairman Goodlatte’s letter to Secretary Johnson.

October 20, 2015

The Honorable Jeh Johnson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Johnson:

On April 30, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission approved Amendment 782, which modified the United States Sentencing Guidelines to lower the base offense level for federal controlled substances offenses. Amendment 782 was made retroactive by the Commission. As a consequence, approximately 6,000 convicted criminals whose sentences were reduced by the sentencing court pursuant to Amendment 782 are now eligible for release from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on or about November 1, 2015, and approximately 8,500 additional prisoners will be eligible for early release by November 1, 2016. Of the initial 6,000 inmates who will be released early, a significant number – approximately 2,000 – are criminal aliens. These aliens are removable from the United States, either because they are unlawfully present or because of their criminal convictions. In fact, based on their convictions for drug trafficking offenses, such aliens are the highest enforcement priority (Priority 1) for the Department of Homeland Security, based on your own written policy for priority enforcement, issued on November 20, 2014.

During your testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on July 14, 2015, Committee Members questioned you about the early release of aliens under Amendment 782. In response, you stated, “I’m aware of this issue. I’m aware of the adjustment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I’m aware that a number of individuals will be released as a result. I’m aware that a number of them are probably undocumented, and we’ve been working with DOJ to do the most effective thing for public safety in that regard.”Given your response, I fully expect that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will issue a detainer with the BOP for each alien expected to be released pursuant to Amendment 782, and that each alien will be taken into custody by ICE, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, for purposes of initiating removal proceedings or to execute the removal order of each alien who is already subject to a final order of removal from the United States.

Please confirm whether my expectation will be met and that the Department of Homeland Security is committed to ridding our streets of aliens peddling dangerous and illicit drugs to our children. Additionally, please provide the following requested information:

The specific number of aliens who will be released early by BOP pursuant to Amendment 782.

Of those alien prisoners, how many have ICE detainers or requests for notification?

Does ICE expect to issue detainers or requests for notification for every alien identified in (1) above prior to the prisoner’s release from BOP custody?

Does ICE expect to take custody of every alien identified in (1) above for the purpose of initiating removal proceedings or to execute a final order of removal? If not, why not?

Please provide the number of aliens identified in (1) above who will not be taken into ICE custody upon release from BOP and provide an explanation for each alien as to why ICE will not take the alien into custody.

Please provide this information to me by October 30, 2015. If your office has any questions, please contact Tracy Short, Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, at (202) 225-3926.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte
Chairman

**** Summary from Breitbart:

An overwhelming percentage of criminal aliens the Obama administration knows are in the U.S. are not detained but are instead living in neighborhoods and communities across the country, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

“The American public has been misled by the ‘enforcement priorities,’ ‘deferred action,’ and ‘executive action’ policies of this Administration, which categorize only certain quote, unquote ‘serious’ criminal aliens as worthy of immigration enforcement,” Goodlatte said at a House subcommittee hearing examining the victims of illegal immigrant crime. “However, this Administration’s actions demonstrate that it finds it acceptable to permit even serious criminal aliens to prey on our communities.”

According to the House Judiciary Committee, the Obama administration’s enforcement policies have allowed tens of thousands of criminal aliens to remain in the U.S.

“At least 95 percent of convicted criminal aliens known to [the Department of Homeland Security] are not detained,” Goodlatte said at Tuesday’s hearing.

The Virginia Republican argued against immigration activists’ contention that illegal immigration is a “victimless crime,” stressing that the opposite it true — “illegal immigration has consequences that can be devastating,” he said.

“Americans deserve to know why this Administration would release thousands upon thousands of criminal aliens from DHS custody – despite convictions that included a total of 473 homicide-related offenses, 375 kidnappings, 890 sexual assaults, and 10,731 assaults before their release,” he continued.

Goodlatte took additional aim at advocates and Democrats’ argument that the unaccompanied minors from Central America — who have been flooding across the border illegally by the tens of thousands and largely allowed to remain — are all helpless children.

“It is no coincidence that the spike in gang crime occurred during the same time that thousands of Central American minors were illegally entering at the southwest border. Sixty-four percent of validated gang members arrested in Frederick County in 2015 entered illegally through the southwest border as unaccompanied minors,” Goodlatte said, at the time foreshadowing the testimony of Sheriff Charles Jenkins of Frederick County, Maryland.

Goodlatte’s strong words preceded emotional testimony offered by two hearing witnesses whose children were killed by illegal immigrants.

“By releasing known criminal aliens and refusing to secure our border, the Administration has sent a clear message to the American people that their safety and security are far less important than ensuring that illegally present and criminal aliens will remain here,” Goodlatte added.

Family of Benghazi Victim Finally Receives Benefits

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Glen Doherty was part of the quick reaction force consisting of eight U.S. military or former military that left Tripoli in the rush to help rescue the Stevens and his colleagues at the consulate. His task was the same as the task of the 21 CIA personnel at the CIA annex one mile from where Ambassador Chris Stevens’ and the others came under attack. More detail here.

Family of Benghazi victim to receive $400G after CIA expands benefit program

FNC: The family of a CIA contractor killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya will receive $400,000 after the agency expanded survivor benefits for employees and contractors killed in the line of duty overseas in acts of terrorism.

Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who was working for the CIA’s Global Response staff in Libya at the time of Benghazi, held a standard federal insurance policy that pays a survivor benefit only to spouses and dependents. Doherty, 42, was divorced and had no children, rendering his family ineligible for compensation under the 1941 Defense Base Act, which still requires all overseas contractors including CIA employees to carry disability and life insurance.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the CIA informed lawyers for Doherty’s mother, Barbara, Wednesday that the agency’s policy change had been finalized.

Barbara Doherty told WFXT that she was relieved that the expanded benefit had approved. She also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Base Act.

“It gives me solace that the CIA has done the right thing,” Doherty said. “Now it’s up to Congress to see if they can step up to the plate.”

Legislation introduced last year by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. and Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., would expand the death benefit to include families of all defense employees killed in terror attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, even if they don’t have spouses or dependents.

“It is entirely disrespectful to make [the families] fight through a long bureaucratic process to get the benefits that that heroism has earned,” Lynch told WFXT.

The CIA policy change is retroactive to April 18, 1983, the date a suicide attacker crashed a truck into the front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans, some of whom were CIA officers.

“It wasn’t about the money, at all,” Doherty told WFXT. “It was a fight for [all families], because they didn’t have a voice and we did …that’s what kept us going on, knowing that they would eventually be recognize.”

“I am glad the [CIA] made this decision so the Doherty family and others who have lost loved ones in service to and sacrifice for our country will finally receive the recognition and honor they deserve,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

Doherty’s family filed a $1 million damages claim against the CIA and the State Department in September 2014. The Union-Tribune reported that the family will drop all claims against the federal government in the wake of the expanded death benefit.

**** Glen was part of a Global Response Team in Libya while prior assignments included participation in Special Activities Division of the CIA.

Part of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, the Special Activities Division is thought to include around 150 paramilitaries, pilots and other specialists. When deployed to the field, they typically operate in 6 man or fewer teams, with many a mission carried out by a solo SAD operative. CIA Special Operations Group Paramilitaries often work on joint operations alongside Delta, DevGru, Special Forces etc.