2003, Sheila Jackson Lee’s Position on Immigration

Posted on January 9, 2019January 9, 2019 by Denise Simon

Actually, I was researching something else that is part of the same topic and came across this Congressional hearing from 2003. Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee offered her opening statement to the hearing. Read it here. Take note, I did.

***

OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas

WITNESSES

Mr. John Feinblatt, Criminal Justice Coordinator, City of New York
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement

Mr. Michael J. Cutler, former Senior Special Agent, New York District Office, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement

Mr. John Nickell, Officer, Houston Police Department
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Ms. Leslye E. Orloff, Immigrant Women Program, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Executive Order 124, City Policy Concerning Aliens, New York City

General Order, Houston Police Department

Immigration and Naturalization Service Memo

APPENDIX

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary

NEW YORK CITY’S ‘SANCTUARY’ POLICY AND THE EFFECT OF SUCH POLICIES ON PUBLIC SAFETY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND IMMIGRATION

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Hostettler [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will now come to order.

On December 19, 2002, a 42-year-old mother of two was abducted and forced by her assailants into a hideout near some railroad tracks in Queens, New York. She was brutally assaulted before being rescued by a New York Police Department canine unit.

The NYPD arrested five aliens in connection with that assault. According to records that the Judiciary Committee has received from the INS, four of those aliens entered the United States illegally. Three of those four had extensive arrest histories in New York City. The fifth alien, a lawful permanent resident, also had a criminal history prior to the December 19, 2002, attack.

Despite the criminal histories of the four aliens, however, it does not appear from the records that the Committee has received that the NYPD told the INS about these aliens until after the December 19 attack.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

These heinous crimes prompted extensive public discussion of whether New York City police were barred from disclosing immigration information to the INS, a policy that may have prevented the removal of these aliens prior to the December 19 attack.

Some suggested that the only reason that the three illegal aliens were in the United States, despite their extensive arrest histories, was because the NYPD officers who arrested these aliens previously were barred by a so-called ”sanctuary” policy from contacting the INS. That policy, critics claimed, prevented NYPD officers from contacting the INS when they arrested an illegal alien.

We will examine New York City’s policy on the NYPD’s disclosure of immigration information to the INS. New York’s Executive Order, or E.O. 124, barred line officers from communicating directly with the INS about criminal aliens. That executive order was issued by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989 and reissued by Mayors Dinkins and Giuliani.

Two Federal provisions, both of which were passed in 1996, preempted this executive order. In particular, section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act bars States and localities from prohibiting their officers from sending immigration information to the INS. New York City challenged that provision in Federal court and lost.

We will examine whether New York City continued E.O. 124, amended it, or scrapped it altogether. We will also examine what guidance the city has sent to its officers on the street about reporting criminal aliens to the INS.

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

At this hearing, the Subcommittee will also explore what effect any New York City sanctuary policy had on the fact that the three illegal aliens with arrest histories had not been deported. We will also examine the INS’s responsiveness to the information that it receives from New York City about arrested criminal aliens if, in fact, the INS does receive such information. In addition, we will examine similar policies that other localities have implemented.

In particular, Officer John Nickell of the Houston Police Department will discuss that department’s policy concerning officer contacts with the INS about criminal aliens. That policy bars Houston officers from contacting the INS about suspected illegal aliens, unless the suspected illegal alien is arrested on a separate criminal charge other than a class of misdemeanors ”and the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.”

Significantly, despite this knowledge, requirement for contacting the INS, Houston officers are barred from asking arrested criminal suspects their citizenship status.

The Subcommittee will assess the effect that such policies have had on law enforcement, immigration enforcement, and public safety as well as their consistency with Federal law.

Joining us today are four witnesses. First of all, John Feinblatt is the criminal justice coordinator for the City of New York. He received his law degree from Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, and his bachelor of arts degree from Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He has served as a criminal defense attorney in New York, executive director of victim services, and director of the Midtown Community Court and the Center for Court Innovation.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Michael Cutler is a retired senior special agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York District Office. He received his bachelor of arts degree from Brooklyn College and the City University of New York in 1971 before joining the INS that same year as an immigration inspector at JFK airport. He also served as a green card adjudicator before becoming an INS criminal investigator, working with the Israeli national police and the FBI.

He was the INS representative to the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA in New York. Finally, in 1991, Mr. Cutler was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Mr. Cutler last testified before this Subcommittee as a witness for the minority in March 2002.

John Nickell is an officer with the Houston Police Department. Officer Nickell has served with the Houston Police Department for 11 years, specializing in DWI detection and drug recognition enforcement. He served 6 years in the United States Marine Corps and is a Desert Storm veteran.

Ms. Leslye Orloff is the director of the Immigrant Women Program for the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. She received her law degree from UCLA, and her bachelor of arts degree is from Brandeis University. She has previously worked as the director of the Latino Project at the George Washington University National Law Center, the director of the Clinica Legal Latina, and director of Ayuda’s national policy program. She has also written and testified extensively.

Before I go to the witnesses, I would like to now turn to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for any opening remarks she may have.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As we begin the 108th Congress with the very first hearing for our Subcommittee, I want to express to you my belief that we’ll have an opportunity to work together and work together on issues and commonality for the good of this Nation. And as well, hopefully, to reflect the values that we both have, though they may be distinctive, that we do have the responsibility to govern and oversee the very effective policies of immigration laws here in the United States, many of which are reminding us that we are a Nation of immigrants as we are a Nation of laws.

And so I look forward to the challenges that we will have, and I hope that as we proceed, even in our different perspectives, we’ll have an opportunity to be able to serve this Country and present very effective resolutions to some problems that we will face.

This morning, obviously, we are pursuing an issue that needs addressing. And certainly, we are told of accounts, many accounts, that deal with immigrant issues and the criminal system.

In particular, we are aware of an incident that occurred in New York—Queens, New York, in particular—that an alleged group of young and homeless men surrounded a couple sitting on a bench in an isolated part of Queens, New York. And the allegations of a criminal incident that occurred where they beat and robbed the man and raped the woman.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Apparently, it was alleged that four of the men were undocumented aliens from Mexico who had been arrested previously.

One of the questions for this hearing, as was stated, is whether a New York City policy prevented the police involved in the previous arrest from reporting the men to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The policy in question is set forth in Executive Order No. 124, which was issued by New York Mayor Ed Koch on August 7, 1989. It is entitled, ”City Policy Concerning Aliens.”

[The New York Executive Order follows:]

EO124A.eps

EO124B.eps

EO124C.eps

This order prohibits the transmission of information about an alien to the Immigration Service. But the prohibition has three exceptions, one of which is for the situation in which the alien is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. And I repeat that again. There is an exception. The police did have discretion.

This order, therefore, did not prevent the police from reporting the homeless men to the Immigration Service when they were arrested previously. The pertinent issue regarding that case is whether New York Police Department should have been required by Federal law to report the homeless men to the Immigration Service.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

I believe it is imperative to assess the challenges that local police have. They have enormous challenges. And so the question is whether or not you add to them the responsibility of enforcing immigration law.

But when we ask that question, we have to look to the issue of whether or not, by definition, immigration equates to either terrorism or criminal activity.

I think the statistics would prove that that is not the case, so discretion is appropriate. That means that when there is suggestion of criminal activity, when there is any activity—whether it be misdemeanor level or otherwise—and they are engaged in a criminal activity, discretion does come about.

We have to realize that our immigrants do many things. They work for us. They live in our communities. They provide police officers with insight and information about criminal activity going on in their particular communities. They speak, sometimes, two languages. If they’ve learned the English language, which they will and eventually do, and therefore are able to provide information because they are bilingual or maybe even multilingual.

Immigration law is a complicated body of law that requires extensive training and expertise. It is also not a body of only criminal law or criminal law at all. It is a civilian body of law. It is a law that deals with immigrants accessing the process of citizenship.

Local law enforcement officials do not have the training and expertise that is necessary to determine who is presently lawfully in the country and who is not.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Community-based policing is one of the most powerful law enforcement tools available. I know for a fact that it is utilized in New York. I know for a fact it is utilized in Houston. It is effective.

Police get to understand and know the community, and people, by their very nature of wanting to be law-abiding—no matter who they are, immigrant or citizen—come to respect and admire the police and provide them with information to help them solve cases and problems.

By developing strong ties with local communities, police departments are able to obtain valuable information that helps them to fight a crime, even in a bilingual immigrant community or a single-language immigrant community. The development of community-based policing has been widely recognized as an effective tool for keeping kids off drugs, combating gang violence, and reducing crime rates in neighborhoods around the country.

In immigrant communities, it is particularly difficult for the police to establish the relationships that are the foundations for such successful police work. Many immigrants come from countries in which people are afraid of police who may be corrupt or even violent, and the prospect of being reported to the Immigration Service would be further reason for distrusting the police here in the United States of America.

In some cities, criminals have exploited the fear that immigrant communities have of all law enforcement officials, and certainly that should not be the case. For instance, in Durham, North Carolina, thieves told their victims in a community of migrant workers and new immigrants that if they called the police they would be deported, and they may be—may have been under legitimate agricultural visas and provisions to be in this Country.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Local police officers have found that people are being robbed multiple times and are not reporting the crimes because of such fear instilled by robbers. These immigrants are left vulnerable to crimes of all sorts, not just robbery.

In 1998, Elena Gonzalez, an immigrant in New Jersey, was found murdered in the basement of her apartment. Friends of the woman said that the suspected murderer, her former boyfriend, threatened to report her to the INS if she did not do what she was told.

We realize that there are sex slaves. There are young women who are brought into this country and held for months and years at a time, because I know that they are fearful of the police as well.

Many communities find it difficult financially to support a police force with the personnel and equipment necessary to perform regular police work. Requiring State and local police forces to report to the Immigration Service would be, I believe, an imbalanced, misdirected use of these limited resources.

Remember, it is important to note that the police have discretion, that as they encourage and become familiar and involved with the immigrant community, as the police forces are diversified with Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, individuals from the Muslim community, Arab community—those are individuals who are men and women who believe in upholding the law.

Let them become familiar with these neighborhoods, and I can assure you that crime will come down and problems will be solved.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

The Immigration Service has limited resources, yes. But as we look toward this new year—the Homeland Security Department, the Justice Department—we know that we’ll be refining these resources and adding training to these particular law enforcement agencies as we give more dollars to the first responders.

Let us be reminded of the terrible, horrific act of the snipers here in this region and the information that was important that was given to solve those problems by immigrants who were first allegedly targeted as the perpetrators, and it was not the case.

The immigrant service does not have the resources it needs to deport dangerous criminals, prevent persons from unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, and we must give them those resources. And we need to have the INS with the resources that it needs to enforce immigration laws in the interior of the country.

That is what we will be working on. That is an important responsibility, and that is a responsibility that I support.

Having to respond to every State and local police officer’s report of someone who appears to be an illegal alien would prevent the Immigration Service from properly prioritizing its efforts and working to ensure that its major work of getting those dangerously in our Country deported would be delayed.

Local police can and should report immigrants to the immigration service in many situations. I encourage them to do so. With that kind of process and policy, we can work collectively together, keeping our responsibilities as a Federal Government and keeping our responsibilities to our local constituents in the work that the local official should be doing. The decision to contact Immigration Service, however, should be a matter of police discretion and not a Federal law decision.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this will be an important hearing.

I welcome Mr. Nickell to this particular hearing, and he certainly is a very able representative of the Houston Police Department, of which I count many of them as my friends.

And I want to acknowledge publicly the greatest respect I have for the great work that you do.

And I know that as I listen to you, I will be attentive and certainly know that the police department in my community has been able to work within the laws of this land, with the Federal laws as they are, and your laws using your discretion, your expertise, and of course, your commitment to the community as the basis of serving us.

Thank you very much for your service.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.

Read the full testimony from the hearing here.

Legalizing Drugs Because Soros Wants It

Posted on January 7, 2019January 7, 2019 by Denise Simon

Meet Ethan Nadelmann. He partnered with George Soros in 2000 to form the Drug Policy Alliance. Soros has invested more than $200 million to legalized marijuana and this movement has been effective state by state. In fact, via Soros, the Drug Policy Alliance wants to legalized all narcotics. What?

How about the fact that 71,000 deaths were recorded in 2016 due to overdose? So, where is the outrage? Legalized opium? Legalize heroin? Fentanyl? As a note, each time police administer narcan, another estimated $300 per does is spent. Narcan, used for opioid overdose is cheaper however, for law enforcement however, each kit has two doses and narcan is a nasal spray. The cost is going up and for some outlets it is almost free mostly due to subsidies. In fact, counter-measures can cost up to $4500 and you can bet Soros has invested in that too.

AP PHOTOS: Poverty and addiction grip Los Angeles' Skid ...

Is this what we want first responders and police doing when other public safety calls and cases are happening?

The Drug Policy Alliance published a report recently to decriminalize all drugs. As part of their report below, note it has nothing to do with the scandal of overdose and death.

A policy of drug decriminalization:

*Drastically reduces the number of people arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise swept into the justice system, thereby allowing people, their families and communities to avoid the many harms that flow from drug arrests, incarceration, and the lifelong burden of a criminal record;
*Alleviates racial, ethnic and income-based disparities in the criminal justice system;
*Improves the cost-effectiveness of limited public health resources;
*Revises the current law enforcement incentive structure and redirects resources to prevent serious and violent crime;
*Creates a climate in which people who are using drugs problematically have an incentive to seek treatment;
*Improves treatment outcomes (when treatment is called for);
*Removes barriers to the implementation of practices that reduce the potential harms of drug use, such as drug checking (adulterant screening); and
*Improves relationships between law enforcement agencies and the communities they have sworn to protect and serve.

When the New York Times even weighs in on the deaths including those by synthetic drugs, a bigger policy debate should happen.

In part: The recent increases in drug overdose deaths have been so steep that they have contributed to reductions in the country’s life expectancy over the last three years, a pattern unprecedented since World War II. Life expectancy at birth has fallen by nearly four months, and drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for adults under 55.

America has an epidemic that is slowly killing off a generation and causing public safety chaos and a crisis for law enforcement.

Drug Overdose Stock Photos and Pictures | Getty Images

Meanwhile, as El Chapo Guzman is in a criminal trial in New York, his and other narcotic cartel trafficking operations continue.

Meanwhile, Some Interesting Items in the El Chapo Trial Revealed

Posted on November 26, 2018November 26, 2018 by Denise Simon

First, the judge in the case had to essentially shut down one particular witness as he explained the bribes and payoffs to Mexican officials, top Mexican law enforcement officers and even the president elect of Mexico. Ruh roh….lots of money, lots of bribes and lots of denials. So…the judge had to hold and redact some testimony on sidebars to keep it from the jury.

US trial to tell epic tale of Mexican drug lord "El Chapo ...

“I’m not sure, but it was a few million dollars,” Zambada Garcia replied. “It was paid to him because it was said he was going to be the next secretary of security, and if so it would be for our protection.”

Within minutes, Gabriel Regino Garcia, a professor of criminology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, tweeted out a fierce denial.

“It’s false that during my exercise of public service, I received any bribe from on behalf of the witness Jesus Zambada,” he wrote.

Lopez Obrador is the president-elect of Mexico.

It’s not the first time Guzman’s lawyers have sought to paint Mexican politicians as corrupt, nor fought with the court over what role that alleged corruption can play in their case. Defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman was warned to steer clear of it in the second half of his opening statements last week, and Cogan ruled to curtail what Purpura could ask about corruption Tuesday in his cross-examination of Zambada Garcia.

“Individuals and entities who are not party to this case would face embarrassment and harassment if this information were made public,” Cogan told the court Tuesday morning. He ruled that the entire half-hour sidebar would be kept out of the public record, and that prosecutor’s motion to exclude such testimony would be redacted before it was entered. More here.

***

“I worked for the Sinaloa cartel,” Miguel Ángel Martínez told federal jurors in a Brooklyn courtroom. Then he identified the man he said gave him orders for moving billions of dollars in narcotics. “I worked for Mr. Joaquín Guzmán.”

Martínez outlined the cartel’s inner workings, testifying that Guzmán negotiated an ownership and profits split with Colombian drug leaders who contracted with him to fly cocaine from secret South America airstrips to similar landing spots in Mexico.

The drugs were then smuggled across the Mexico-U.S. border to Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, Martínez said.

The defense has claimed that Martínez and other cooperating government witnesses are liars who would say anything in exchange for legal leniency.

Martínez said the cartel sought to avoid investigators by using secret codes. Talk of having a party tonight, he said, “meant get the planes ready.”

Vino — wine — meant jet fuel. Read more here.

***

Martinez said he began working for Guzman as a pilot and as a guide to other pilots on drug flights in 1987. He said one of the pilots he assisted that year, on a flight carrying 170 kilograms (375 lbs) of cocaine, claimed he had flown in the U.S. Navy.

Martinez said he was soon relieved of his pilot duties after damaging a propeller in a botched landing with Guzman on board. Guzman, he recalled, told him he was a “really bad pilot” and sent him instead to Mexico City to open an office for the cartel.

Posing as attorneys, Martinez said, he and others at the office directed bribes to government officials so the cartel could operate undisturbed. The beneficiaries included a high-ranking police official, Guillermo Calderoni, who fed Guzman information about law enforcement activities “every day,” Martinez said.

In the 1990s, Martinez said, U.S. authorities became more capable of intercepting planes, and Guzman and his Colombian suppliers largely switched to using fishing and merchant ships.

***

Blinged-out weaponry

El Chapo’s reputed extravagance extended even to his extensive collection of weaponry, the trial has heard.

Among his prized possessions were a diamond-encrusted, monogrammed pistol and a gold-plated AK-47.

328 million lines of coke

Assistant US Attorney Adam Fels said in his opening argument that El Chapo had sent “more than a line of cocaine for every single person in the United States” – in just four of his shipments.

That amounts to over 328 million lines of cocaine, said the prosecutor.

Mr Zambada said that once, in 1994, Mr Guzmán gave the order to sink a boat carrying 20 tonnes of cocaine to evade authorities.

Bazooka target practice

The court also heard that Mr Guzmán once used a bazooka for target practice – to relax on a family holiday.

Mr Zambada said El Chapo took the anti-tank rocket launcher with him on a trip with relatives in 2005.

He decided to “test out” the weapon after the group had finished target practice with assault rifles, according to the witness.

A $50m bribe fund

Some of the biggest news from testimony was how the Sinaloa cartel allegedly paid off a host of top Mexican officials to ensure their drug business ran smoothly.

Mr Zambada said the traffickers had $50m (£39m) in protection money for former Mexican Secretary of Public Security García Luna, so that corrupt officers would be appointed to head police operations.

Mr Zambada said he gave the money to Mr Luna in briefcases full of cash. Mr Luna has denied the allegations.

When former Mexico City Mayor Gabriel Regino was in line to become the next secretary of security, Mr Zambada says the cartel bribed him, too.

Mr Regino, who is now a professor, has also denied the claims.

‘Narco-saint’ at court

A 6in (15cm) figurine of a folk hero dubbed the narco-saint has been spotted on a shelf in a conference room used by the defendant’s lawyers at the court, the New York Post reported .

The statue of Jesús Malverde , which has him seated on a purple throne with bags of cash, appeared on Wednesday, one of El Chapo’s lawyers told the newspaper.

Jesús Malverde has been celebrated as a Robin Hood-type hero who, legend says, stole from the rich and gave to the poor in the early 1900s.

***

It could be said that two separate trials are taking place, side by side, these days in Room 8D of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

At the actual trial, the United States government is prosecuting Joaquín Guzmán Loera, who is accused of being one of the world’s biggest drug dealers. Widely known as El Chapo, Mr. Guzmán, prosecutors say, earned as much as $14 billion as head of the Sinaloa drug cartel — a fortune he is said to have protected with rampant payoffs and an army of professional assassins.

But at a second trial of sorts, Mr. Guzmán’s lawyers are, in essence, prosecuting the government of Mexico. By their account, the country’s police and politicians not only are corrupt, but also have conspired for years with Mr. Guzmán’s partner, Ismael Zambada García, to target El Chapo in exchange for a flood of bribes.

Offensive Details in Response to the US Mexican Border

Posted on October 29, 2018October 29, 2018 by Denise Simon

In April, the Trump White House and the Pentagon authorized and deployed 2100 National Guard personnel to the Southern border region to provide support to Border Patrol. Most states complied with this order.

Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security requested 800 military personnel from the Pentagon for additional support. That request was granted. Most will come from Ft. Stewart and include, engineers, communications, logistical personnel, aviation, medical and intelligence personnel.

Since it was reported in the last few days, some migrants from the caravan broke through the barriers between Mexico and Guatemala and there is at least two more emerging caravans being mobilized.

The United States is not taking any chances of migrant cells breaking off and scattering to other barrier locations that would allow them to advance to the United States border with Mexico.

Immigrant caravan sets up camp along the Mexican border | Daily Mail Online

There are several envoys, media and intelligence operations occurring in at least four countries, including Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The mission is to perform checks and balances on human rights violations, human trafficking, mules and drug cartels as well as gangs. Additionally, information is being gathered on the organizers of the caravans and the money flow as well as the operations for meeting places, brochures and planning.

The Trump White House along with the Department of Justice and the lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security are meeting to determine the legal moves that can be authorized to close the border, stop all asylees and refugees for a time period. An announcement is pending on this order.

Just breaking is the Pentagon has authorized with the President another 5000 US troops to be deployed to the Southern border. The deployment package is for support personnel and NOT combat troops. This translates to more medical personnel, aviation operations and engineers. Truck loads of vehicles, barriers, tents and other national security threat operations gear.

This is purely an offensive posture and not a military hostilities operation.

You can bet progressive organizations have teamed with lawyers and are ready to strike with lawsuits filed in the 9th Circuit. So far however the Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s previous similar actions.

“The administration is considering a wide range of administrative, legal and legislative options to address the Democrat-created crisis of mass illegal immigration,” a White House official said. “No decisions have been made at this time. Nor will we forecast to smugglers or caravans what precise strategies will or will not be deployed.”

But hold on….the UN wants to interfere too.

UNHCR spokesman Andrej Mahecic told VOA his agency has alerted countries along the caravan’s route that it is likely to include people in real danger.

“Our position globally is that the individuals who are fleeing persecution and violence need to be given access to territory and protection including refugee status and determination procedure. And, if the people who are fleeing persecution and violence enter Mexico, they need to be provided access to the Mexican asylum system and those entering the United States need to be provided access to the American asylum system,” he said.

Mahecic said the UNHCR is very concerned about the developing humanitarian situation along the migratory route. He said there are kidnapping and security risks in the areas where the caravan may be venturing.

Notice the UNHCR never did a blasted thing then or now in those countries where instability and peril is common, including Venezuela.

Hey, the Mayor of Atlanta has Joined the anti-ICE Movement

Posted on September 7, 2018September 7, 2018 by Denise Simon

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on Thursday signed an executive order for transferring all remaining U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees out of the city jail and declaring that Atlanta will no longer hold anyone for the federal agency.

The Democratic mayor’s move follows a separate executive order from June that blocked the jail from taking in any new ICE detainees amid enforcement of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy on the southwest border, which split up many immigrant families. Bottoms has vigorously objected to that federal policy.

“Atlanta will no longer be complicit in a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the horrific fallout,” Bottoms told reporters moments before signing her executive order. “As the birthplace of the civil rights movement we are called to be better than this.”

Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican nominee for governor, criticized the mayor’s move in a statement he released Thursday afternoon.

“The City of Atlanta should focus on cleaning up corruption and stopping crime — not creating more of it,” he said.

So….how about it Atlanta…what say you about her oath of office?

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING; OATH OF OFFICE; MANDATORY TRAINING

.

(As taken from the Atlanta City Code of Ordinances)

Section 2-301.-

Organizational meeting; oath of office; mandatory training

.

(a) Organizational meeting.

The council shall meet for organization in the council chamber, or any

other designated public place, on the first Monday in January following each regular election, or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, then on the next following day not a legal holiday.

(b) Oath of office.

At such organizational meeting, the mayor, president of the council, and

council members shall take and subscribe before a judge of the superior court, or any official authorized to administer oaths, the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the [mayor, president of the council, council member] City Council of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. I will not knowingly permit my vote to be influenced by fear, favor, affection, or reward, and in all things pertaining to my office. I will be governed by the public good

and the interests of the City. I will observe the provisions of the Charter, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Atlanta, and I will support and defend the Constitutions of the State of Georgia and the United States of America. I am not the holder of any office of trust under the government of the United States, any other state, or any foreign state which I am prohibited from holding by the laws of the State of Georgia; I am not the holder of any unaccounted-for public money due this state or any

political subdivision or authority thereof; I have been a resident of the City of Atlanta [and Council District] and am otherwise qualified to hold this office by the Constitution and laws of this State and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Atlanta, so help me God.” More here.

So….Atlanta, (an international city/hub) how about challenging this Mayor on this topic of which Atlanta was part of for starters?

WASHINGTON – Law enforcement officials from the United States and the United Kingdom wrapped up Friday a “week of action” during which they conducted outreach at major international airports with the goal of education about and prevention of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). This outreach, called “Operation Limelight”, was conducted at four international airports in the U.S.—John F. Kennedy International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport—and at Heathrow Airport and train stations throughout the UK.

On August 30, law enforcement from the two nations also gathered at the U.S. embassy in London to sign a proclamation affirming their commitment to end the practice of FGM/C in both countries and around the world. The proclamation reads, in part:

“Female genital mutilation/cutting is a global issue that transcends our borders. FGM/C is a culturally-based, gender-specific form of violence and when performed on girls under the age of 18, it is child abuse. The top priorities of the U.K. and U.S. are safeguarding girls through prevention, multi-agency partnership and education. These efforts require that we learn and share our experiences and cooperate through both our informal and formal engagements. Through existing police to police and mutual assistance agreements and arrangements, the U.S. and U.K. law enforcement intend to share intelligence to enhance our knowledge of, and response to female genital mutilation. This collaboration seeks to build our intelligence capacity to identify those involved in perpetrating or facilitating FGM/C offences whilst safeguarding potential victims.”

Signatories of the proclamation include representatives from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, London Metropolitan Police Service, UK National Police Chiefs Council, UK Border Force, UK Crown Prosecution Service, and British Transport Police.

“Our agency is committed to pursuing those who commit or allow female genital mutilation. Through outreach and investigations, we will work to eradicate this form of abuse,” said Louis A. Rodi, III, Deputy Assistant Director, National Security Investigation Division, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations. “We value our partnerships with UK law enforcement as well as with other U.S. federal agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This collaboration strengthens our resolve to carry out this important work to protect women and girls and investigate crimes against them.”

“FGM is a barbaric and violent crime enacted on girls who suffer the results for the rest of their lives. It is child abuse, and no religion, culture or tradition should be allowed to mitigate or make an excuse for such appalling crimes. It is even more traumatic because it is generally committed or facilitated by their families who they should look to for love and protection,” said United Kingdom’s National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead on Female Genital Mutilation Commander Ivan Balhatchet. “FGM is hugely complex to investigate and prosecute. Frequently, the survivor is unwilling to give evidence against those closest to them, and some cases of FGM occur prior to the arrival of the survivor in the UK.

Belhatchet continued, “the US shares the same goal but also the same challenges. This proclamation will mean both the UK and US learn more about FGM, the routes taken by perpetrators and when and where it is committed; this is particularly important because we know that perpetrators continue to adapt to evade detection. We also want this agreement and our joint operation to send a signal to those planning to commit FGM that we will do everything we can to protect girls and prosecute offenders.

“FGM is not something we can eradicate alone. We need everyone who works with children and young people to be alert to signs of FGM and tell [law enforcement] about them. We also need the public and other support groups to speak out and share information with us.”

For more information about the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting, view this video from the U.S. Department of State or visit the United Nations’ Zero Tolerance Day website.

Female genital mutilation/cutting is a federal crime in the United States, and any involvement in committing this crime is a serious human rights violation which may result in imprisonment and potential removal from the U.S. Individuals suspected of female genital mutilation/cutting, including sending girls overseas to be cut, may be investigated by the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center (HRVWCC) and prosecuted accordingly.

Established in 2009, the HRVWCC furthers ICE’s efforts to identify, locate and prosecute human rights abusers in the United States, including those who are known or suspected to have participated in persecution, war crimes, genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings, FGM/C, and the use or recruitment of child soldiers. The HRVWCC leverages the expertise of a select group of agents, lawyers, intelligence and research specialists, historians and analysts who direct the agency’s broader enforcement efforts against these offenders.

Since 2003, ICE has arrested more than 410 individuals for human rights-related violations of the law under various criminal and/or immigration statutes. During that same period, ICE obtained deportation orders against and physically removed 908 known or suspected human rights violators from the United States. Additionally, ICE has facilitated the departure of an additional 122 such individuals from the United States.

Currently, ICE has more than 135 active investigations into suspected human rights violators and is pursuing more than 1,750 leads and removals cases involving suspected human rights violators from 95 different countries. Since 2003, the HRVWCC has issued more than 75,000 lookouts for individuals from more than 110 countries and stopped over 260 human rights violators and war crimes suspects from entering the U.S.