Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

U.S. Healthcare, a Manufactured Crisis

Posted on by

Is Our Healthcare Crisis Man-Made?

by: Juliette Fildes

The media would have us believe that the healthcare crisis is us something that mysteriously arose out of a number of factors, including periods of economic crisis and an ever-growing deficit, yet what if the crisis was actually manufactured?

Americans are forced to buy insurance that doesn’t really protect them against their greatest health risks at all. There are many factors that reveal that insurance companies are favored, as are the pharmaceutical and medical industries. In the past, charity hospitals existed to attend to medical emergencies but over the past few decades, federal law has ensured that Americans can no longer receive unfunded care.

Healthcare should be about protecting the consumer, but as long as the medical industry is permitted to charge whatever price they deem fit for a procedure, there is little chance that Americans will pay the significantly lower prices paid by patients in other countries.

We must fight for the establishment of affordable alternatives to current hospitals and clinics; without a free market, it will be difficult for the situation to change for the better. Read about how the man-made health care crisis came about and discover how we can put an end to it.    

Understanding U.S. Healthcare Costs

Infographic provided by Calculators.org

Further Reading

 

Illegals Protected Class at California University System

Posted on by

READ WRITE THINK AND DREAM

‘Undocumented Student Services’ at UC San Diego hosts workshops mandated by the school’s Vice Chancellor to plan strategies to get government financial assistance for housing, tuition, legal counseling with particular assistance for Latinos and Koreans. Remember that former Department of Homeland Security,Janet Napolitano is now the president of the University of California system.  She set aside $5 million dollars for such programs.

Not to be out done, CalState Los Angeles, CalState Fullerton and Long Beach all have the same programs. Suggestion: stop all federal dollars to the university system.

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITIES ROLL OUT THE RED CARPET FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Dreamers’ need a space ‘where they can feel safe’

Illegal immigrants in California are already eligible for state financial aid for college. Some public schools are now spending taxpayer money to help these students get money from other sources, even as legal students fight for sparse resources.

 

California State University-Los Angeles received a $1.6 million endowment late last month to fund the Dreamers Resource Center, which the school bills as a space that provides “academic guidance, referral assistance and other support” for so-called dreamers, or students whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally.

It’s just the latest Cal State campus to christen a center dedicated to students without documentation: Fullerton was the first a year ago and Long Beach came two months ago.

The Northridge campus has one “in the works,” and legislation pending in the Legislature would help create more centers across the Cal State system and in community colleges, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The CSU-LA gift will help the school underwrite staff costs and maintain a dedicated space for the center, which was created in October. It helps undocumented students with things like scholarship deadlines and applying for federal work authorization, the school said.

Erika Glazer, the philanthropist whose $1.6 million donation followed her earlier pledges of $700,000 for illegal immigrants, said in CSU-LA’s release that she hopes the center “will be obsolete in a few years and the funds can go toward other programs” at the school.

CSU-LA “has a long history in facilitating the academic success of special student populations” such as low-income students, Nancy Wada-McKee, assistant vice president for student affairs, told The College Fix in an email. She said the school also serves more than 700 veterans through their own resource center.

Technically, the Dreamers center is open to all students, Wada-McKee said, although it focuses on helping undocumented students.

Favoring one group over everyone else?

Under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and California law, Dreamers who meet certain criteria are eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

The 2011 California Dream Act also granted access to financial aid to so-called AB 540 students who attend a college or university in California.

In fall 2014, about 850 CSU-LA students met the requirements for in-state tuition under AB 540, the Times said.

The Long Beach Press Telegram reported a year ago that around 6,400 undocumented students were enrolled at Cal State’s 23 campuses.

CSU-Long Beach’s own “Dream Success Center,” not quite three months old, has already run into opposition from some students who think it’s a waste of valuable resource for a school that’s stretched thin.

The Fix previously reported on lobbying against the center by CSU-LB College Republicans Chairman Nestor Moto, Jr., who said the money that went into creating it could have been used to shrink overcrowded classes or offer more counselors for all students.

“We have 10 advising centers and that is who the money should have been allocated to,” not one special student population, Moto told The Fix in March.

The Daily 49er reported that the renovation for Long Beach’s center cost $16 million, and ongoing costs – including a full-time coordinator for the 650 undocumented students – run to $80,000 a year.

Just ‘leveling the playing field’

Besides the CSU-LA pledge from philanthropist Glazer, University of California President Janet Napolitano has set aside $5 million in non-state funds for undocumented students and resource centers.

UC said last week that Napolitano’s efforts – paying “trained advisers” to help students get “mentoring and emotional support” as well as “find internship and work-study jobs” – are simply “leveling the playing field” for illegal immigrants.

Jose Guevara, a CSU-LA center adviser and political science major who previously received a Glazer scholarship, told the Times that it was “important that [Dreamers] have a space where they can feel safe.”

Glazer is not the only multimillionaire philanthropist putting undocumented students ahead of other college students.

Former Washington Post owner Donald Graham and hedge fund manager Bill Ackman each donated $15 million to Graham’s scholarship fund for illegal-immigrant children, TheDream.us, the organization said Wednesday.

The new money – up to $25,000 each for 1,200 students at TheDream.us partner colleges – comes on top of $10 million each the duo previously donated. They want to spur other philanthropists to donate $30 million for another 5,000 scholarships, the organization said.

TheDream.us teamed up with the City University of New York last year to give scholarships to undocumented students who have already filed for temporary legal status.

 

Disneyworld Discriminates Against Americans

Posted on by

October 2014 – Disney CEO Bob Iger is one of eight co-chairs of the Partnership for a New American Economy, a leading group advocating for an increase in the H-1B visa cap. Last Friday, this partnership was a sponsor of an H-1B briefing at the U.S. Capitol for congressional staffers. The briefing was closed to the press.

One of the briefing documents handed out at the congressional forum made this claim: “H-1B workers complement – instead of displace – U.S. Workers.” It explains that as employers use foreign workers to fill “more technical and low-level jobs, firms are able to expand” and allow U.S. workers “to assume managerial and leadership positions.”

The document was obtained by Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California at Davis and a longtime critic of the H-1B program. He posted it on his blog.
From the perspective of five laid-off Disney IT workers, all of whom agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, Disney cut well-paid and longtime staff members, some who had been previously singled out for excellence, as it shifted work to contractors. These contractors used foreign labor, mostly from India. The laid-off workers believe the primary motivation behind Disney’s action was cost-cutting.

“Some of these folks were literally flown in the day before to take over the exact same job I was doing,” said one of the IT workers who lost his job. He trained his replacement and is angry over the fact he had to train someone from India “on site, in our country.”

Disney officials promised new job opportunities as a result of the restructuring, and employees marked for termination were encouraged to apply for those positions. But  the workers interviewed said they knew of few co-workers who had landed one of the new jobs.

Employees said the original number of workers laid off back in October was more than several hundred. But the Disney source put that number lower, saying approximately 135 IT workers lost their jobs.

It gets worse.

Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacement
Disney executives said that the layoffs were part of a reorganization, and that the company opened more positions than it eliminated.

But the layoffs at Disney and at other companies, including the Southern California Edison power utility, are raising new questions about how businesses and outsourcing companies are using the temporary visas, known as H-1B, to place immigrants in technology jobs in the United States. These visas are at the center of a fierce debate in Congress over whether they complement American workers or displace them.

According to federal guidelines, the visas are intended for foreigners with advanced science or computer skills to fill discrete positions when American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use, the guidelines say, should not “adversely affect the wages and working conditions” of Americans. Because of legal loopholes, however, in practice, companies do not have to recruit American workers first or guarantee that Americans will not be displaced.

Too often, critics say, the visas are being used to bring in immigrants to do the work of Americans for less money, with laid-off American workers having to train their replacements.

Read much more here.

Insanity at the UN, Votes to Legitimize Hamas

Posted on by

Appears there are no more terrorists, while ISIS is a JV squad, Hamas is not a bench-warmer either. The United Nations, a twisted organization and our very own ambassador, Samantha Power appears to care less herself.

UN Committee on NGOs voted to grant the Palestinian Return Centre observer status

The London-based PRC is affiliated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and has played an important role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Overview

1.   On June 1, 2015, the 19-member UN Committee on NGOs voted to give the London-based Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) non-governmental observer status. The vote still needs authorization from the United Nations Economic and Social Council  (ECOSOC), to which the Committee is subordinate. If authorization is given the PRC will have UN observer status which includes certain privileges, including access to UN facilities, the ability to participate in deliberations and UN committee and the use of the UN logo.

2.   The PRC said in an announcement that 12 countries had voted in favor (ten of which were China, Iran, South Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, Cuba, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Mauritania and Kenya), three voted against (Israel, the United States and Uruguay), and three abstained (Russia, Nicaragua and Greece). According to the announcement, the vote was held after a process that lasted five years. The PRC rejects Israel’s accusations of terrorism, claiming it is an independent, non-political body (Palestine-info.info, June 2, 2015).

3.   The PRC is a center for Palestinian anti-Israeli propaganda, established in London in 1996. It is affiliated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and some of its senior figures have been Hamas activists who sought refuge in Britain. It was founded on the premise of its rejection of the Oslo Accords and its determined, strong denial of the State of Israel’s right to exist. Its main concept is the “right” of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to the homes they abandoned in 1948, as a tool to destroy Israel and sabotage any possible peace process. The PRC holds intensive anti-Israeli propaganda activities in Britain, Europe and other countries around the globe and plays an important role in networks participating in the international campaign to delegitimize Israel.

4.   Its clear affiliation with Hamas led to its being outlawed in Israel five years ago. On December 27, 2010, the Israel Security Agency said in a statement that on December 5, 2010 Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had signed an order outlawing the PRC as an unlawful association because it was affiliated with the Hamas movement. The statement also noted that the PRC served as a coordinating organizational arm of the Hamas movement in Europe, and that its activists, who were senior Hamas figures, were working to promote the Hamas’ objectives in Europe and were in direct contact with Hamas senior figures, including movement heads in Damascus.[1]

Selections from the Overview of the ITIC Study of the PRC Issued on March 30, 2011[2]

1.   The PRC was established in London in 1996, based on rejection of the Oslo Accords and everything they symbolized. Its founder and head ideologue was apparently Salman Abu Sitta, whose family was originally from Beersheba and fled to the Gaza Strip. He was an independent member of the Palestinian National Council between 1974 and 1993. The PRC’s activity centers around disseminating and inculcating the message that all Palestinian refugees have the “right to return” to Israel (estimated by the PRC at five million).[3] Their return to Israel is represented as a “sacred” personal and collective “right,” allegedly anchored in international law, which no one can bargain with or cede.

2.   The demand for the return to Israel of millions of refugees is regarded by the PRC not only as a tested method to sabotage every peace process, but as an important component in a long-range strategy which will eventually lead to a change in the demography of the State of Israel as the Jewish national state and serve its overall goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in all of “Palestine.” Focusing on the “right of return” is the common denominator of many organizations and individuals around the globe that reject a Zionist Israel, and it is used extensively in the propaganda serving the campaign to delegitimize Israel. Those who employ it ignore the fact that after the State of Israel was founded many Jews were either expelled or fled from the Arab countries.

3.   Since its inception the PRC has been affiliated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain (the center of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political, media and economic activities in Europe). The PRC is careful not to openly state its strong affiliation with Muslim Brotherhood-style extremist Islam, but ITIC information and large amounts of circumstantial evidence support its affiliation.

4.   For example, the PRC’s radical Islamic ideology and political agenda are identical with those of the Muslim Brotherhood; members of the PRC’s board of trustees and senior functionaries have had roles in various Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated institutions in Britain; the PRC participates in anti-Israeli activities also attended by prominent activists from the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups and organizations; Zaher al-Birawi, a senior PRC figure, is program director and chief presenter of London’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al-Hiwar TV channel; an Egyptian jurist named Subhi Saleh, a Muslim Brotherhood member of the Egyptian parliament till 2010, was at the same time an associate PRC member.

5.   Three members of the PRC’s board of trustees are Hamas activists who found refuge in Britain in the 1990s. They do not admit to affiliation with Hamas, in ITIC  assessment to avoid complications with British law. Prominent among them are Zaher al-Birawi, chairman of the PRC’s board of trustees; Majed al-Zeer, PRC general director; and Sheikh Majdi Akeel, a member of the PRC’s board of trustees.[4]

6.   These three Hamas activists are involved in extensive anti-Israeli activities aimed at providing Hamas with ideological, political and practical support. For example, Zaher al-Birawi was active in dispatching convoys to the Gaza Strip through George Galloway’s organization, Viva Palestina, with the political goal of strengthening the de facto Hamas administration. Majed al-Zeer participated in anti-Israeli events in Europe and in Damascus that included support of Hamas, its political agenda and its strategy of terrorism. Sheikh Majdi Akeel is an activist of Interpal, which sends money to Hamas, and accompanied one of the Viva Palestina aid convoys to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.[5] In addition to those three, according to ITIC information Arafat Madi Shukri, PRC executive director, is also a Hamas activist who lives in Britain and is the chairman of the ECESG (a European umbrella network which sends flotillas to the Gaza Strip).

7.   Additional conclusions about the PRC’s nature and modus operandi revealed in the study (March 2011):

1)  The PRC’s view of the so-called “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees is the following: The return of the Palestinians to Israel is a “right” and not a demand, according to PRC claims. Adherence to the “right of return” promotes the final goal of the restoration of all of the land of “Palestine,” from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state to replace the State of Israel. The return of all the Palestinian refugees to Israel and to the places and houses in which they lived in 1947-8 is, according to PRC claims, “a basic personal and collective right” and a “sacred right” anchored (according to PRC claims) in international treaties[6]   and the holy books of the three monotheistic religions. Thus, according to the PRC, no one has the right to waive the “right of return” or to reach a compromise regarding the partial return of the Palestinians. In consequence, the PRC rejects outright any peace process, ties the hands of the Palestinian Authority, which negotiates with Israel for the Palestinians, and advocates Hamas’ strategy focusing on the “liberation of Palestine” through jihad and “resistance” [i.e., terrorism and violence] rather than political negotiations.

2)  PRC support for terrorism and terrorist organizations: To avoid complications with the British authorities, the PRC is generally careful, especially when issuing statements in English, not to explicitly support terrorist activities and terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. In statements in Arabic however, aimed at Arab-Muslim target audiences, the PRC is less careful and often expresses solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist campaign (“the Al-Aqsa intifada”), Hamas’ path of jihad and the Hamas leadership. For example, at its annual European conferences, which the PRC has been organizing since 2003, Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas figure, has delivered speeches three times. The conferences support the path of “resistance” and jihad (i.e., terrorism), and praise the shaheeds, the wounded and the imprisoned of the terrorist organizations. The PRC’s publications support jihad and the “resistance,” and glorify the terrorist shaheeds who died during Palestinian terrorist campaign, especially Hamas founder and leader Ahmed Yassin. In addition, the PRC organized a campaign to express solidarity with the Al-Aqsa intifada;[7]  Majid al-Ziyad, a senior PRC figure, participated in the conference in Damascus in November 2008, which supported the “culture of resistance” [i.e., the culture of terrorism]. Interviewed by Al-Jazeera TV on May 29, 2010, he stressed the need for “military resistance” [i.e., terrorism] inside “Palestine.” Dr. Daud Abdullah, another senior PRC figure, participated in the conference in Istanbul in 2009 and signed a declaration in support of the path of jihad (“the Istanbul Declaration”).[8]

3)  Overview of PRC activities:

A.     Since its establishment, the PRC has been prominent among the anti-Israeli organizations engaged in intensive propaganda activities aimed at inculcating the idea of the “right of return” and defaming Israel by representing it as an “apartheid state.” The PRC also seeks to turn Israel into a pariah state by accusing it of the “ethnic cleansing” of the “Palestinian” population, both in the past and present (the PRC even issued a book entitled The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine). The PRC’s vicious anti-Israeli propaganda campaign is waged in Britain, continental Europe and other countries around the globe.

B.     The PRC has three main target audiences in Britain: British politicians, especially in Parliament, where it is primarily in contact with members of the Labour Party; university students, among whom PRC activists participate in events related to the conflict and deliver anti-Israeli speeches; and the British public in general, especially the social and cultural elite. PRC activists attend Jerusalem Day and Nakba Day events, react publicly to developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hold demonstrations and rallies in London and other cities in Britain. In addition, the PRC holds conferences, workshops and seminars. It produces movies, issues various publications and runs a Palestinian cultural center in London.

C.     Since 2003 [as of the 2011 study] the PRC has held an annual anti-Israeli European conference called “the Annual Palestinians in Europe Conference.” The conferences are attended by PRC activists, representatives of the Arab and Muslim communities in Europe, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood activists and representatives of the European funds and foundations which finance Hamas. Their agenda and themes focus on inculcating the idea that the so-called “right of return” is “sacred,” and that no Palestinian can waive it. The conferences negate the right of the State of Israel to exist, strongly oppose the peace process and support the path of jihad and “resistance” (i.e., terrorism). Ismail Haniya, [at the time] head of the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, delivered video-conferenced speeches at three of the conferences because he was banned from entering certain European countries (where Hamas is considered a terrorist organization).

D.     On the international scene the PRC participates in conferences dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the issue of the refugees, including conferences organized by the United Nations. The PRC exploits the venues as convenient forums for defaming Israel as an “apartheid country” and a “racist country,” and for spreading propaganda for the “right of return.” Senior PRC activists and their activities were prominent at the UN’s Durban Conference in 2001, which served as a platform for attacks on Israel’s legitimacy and a hate campaign directed against it.

4)  Formulating media strategy to attack Israel’s legitimacy: At the third annual conference, held in Vienna in 2005, the PRC formulated a media strategy to inculcate the concept of the “right of return” and to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel in various broad target audiences in Europe. The following tactics were agreed upon by the conference workshops: stressing the “value of justice” (a term easily accepted by the European ear) as a tool for creating a sense of European solidarity with the Palestinian demand to return the refugees to Israel; using short, easy-to-remember slogans; using publications of New Historians; increasing the number of demonstrations; stressing the distinction between Judaism and the “Zionist Project,” etc. The decisions made at the conference were important and relevant because they are implemented to this day by the PRC and other anti-Israeli organizations participating in the global campaign to delegitimize Israel.

5)  Funding the PRC and its extensive activities: As opposed to other organizations participating in the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PRC maintains a vast physical presence. Establishing it, maintaining it and funding its extensive network demand, in ITIC assessment, extremely large financial resources. The PRC claims it is funded by donations from people who believe in its goals. However, in ITIC assessment, even if it cannot be proved, the PRC has other sources of funding at its disposal.

8.   Senior PRC figures, among them Hamas activists, hold positions in other groups and organizations which spread anti-Israeli propaganda, transfer funds to Hamas and dispatch flotillas and land convoys to the Gaza Strip. Some of the organizations are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and one with the British far left. The PRC’s senior figures are deeply involved with both the ECESG and Viva Palestina, two organizations which make significant contributions to the flotilla and land convoy projects to the Gaza Strip. For example, Dr. Arafat Madi Shukri, the PRC’s executive director, is also chairman of the ECESG, a European umbrella network which sends flotillas to the Gaza Strip. Majed al-Zeer is also apparently involved in ECESG activity. Zaher al-Birawi, a Hamas activist, is chairman of the PRC board of trustees, the spokesman (and in ITIC assessment also a kind of liaison person with Hamas) of the convoys organized by Viva Palestina, (the organization of far left former British MP George Galloway.[9]) In addition, two senior PRC activists, Ghusan Faour and Hamas activist Sheikh Majdi Akeel, are key figures in Interpal, a British fund which is an important component in Hamas’ international fundraising efforts and was outlawed both in the United States and Israel.

Note: The above information and conclusions were relevant and updated in March 2011. Personnel or organizational changes may have been made in the, but in ITIC assessment the fundamental goals and character of the PRC have not basically changed.

Jeh Johnson Responsible for Illegal Criminal Release

Posted on by

The House is taking some positive steps this year as they did last by taking away Obama’s money defending the illegals.

House votes to block Obama legal defense on immigration actions yet Jeh Johnson is acting quietly on his own. Just consider what Jeh Johnson did in 2013 releasing thousands of prisoners.

The Department of Homeland Security has a National Terrorism Advisory System that states on the website they effectively communicate information about terrorists threats to the public. The website even asks for your help. Then they have the nerve to have a fact sheet on the ‘broken’ immigration system where suggestions are noted that through Executive Orders, the ‘brokenness’ can be fixed.

So, releasing almost 4000 level 1 foreign national criminals from prison to roam our streets is the answer? Would this include those that are domestic ISIS terrorists?

3,700 illegal immigrant ‘Threat Level 1’ criminals released into U.S. by DHS

Most of the illegal immigrant criminals Homeland Security officials released from custody last year were discretionary, meaning the department could have kept them in detention but chose instead to let them onto the streets as their deportation cases moved through the system, according to new numbers from Congress.

Some of those released were the worst of the worst — more than 3,700 “Threat Level 1” criminals, who are deemed the top priority for deportation, were still released out into the community even as they waited for their immigration cases to be heard.

Homeland Security officials have implied their hands are tied by court rulings in many cases, but the numbers, obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, showed 57 percent of the criminals released were by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s own choice, and they could have been kept instead.

“Put aside the spin, and the fact is that over 17,000 of the criminal aliens released last year were released due to ICE discretion, representing 57 percent of the releases,” said Mr. Goodlatte. “The Obama administration’s lax enforcement policies are reckless and needlessly endanger our communities.”

In a statement to The Washington Times, ICE said it takes release decisions seriously and makes a judgment in each case. That holds true even for Threat Level 1 criminals.

“Not all Level 1 criminal aliens are subject to mandatory detention and thus may be eligible for bond,” the agency said, pointing to mitigating circumstances that can convince agents to release the most serious criminals.

“ICE personnel making custody determinations also take into consideration humanitarian factors such as deteriorated health, advanced age, and caretaking responsibilities. All custody determinations are made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the totality of circumstances in each case,” the agency said.

ICE officials insist that those who are released are still monitored, often by electronic ankle bracelets but also through a system of phone checks or by paying a bond.

However, nearly all of those released under electronic monitoring broke the terms of their release, according to ICE numbers.

In fiscal year 2014, ICE put about 41,000 immigrants through electronic monitoring, and more than 30,000 of them broke the terms of their release — many of them racking up multiple violations. All told, they notched nearly 300,000 violations in one year alone, or an average of 10 instances per violator.

The rate has gone down slightly so far in fiscal year 2015. Of the 34,002 immigrants put into electronic monitoring, 27,317 have broken the rules a combined 162,322 times.

ICE said violations can include what they deem minor problems, such as someone lacking a strong enough cell signal for voice verification by phone or someone calling in too early or a few minutes late. Low batteries or jostling an electronic bracelet during sports can also cause a monitoring alarm to go off incorrectly, ICE said.

Of the more than 30,000 detainees who broke the conditional terms of their release and monitoring in 2014, only 2,420 were deemed to have been serious enough breaches to rearrest them.

Part of ICE’s problem is that it doesn’t have enough beds to go out and pick up violators, according to an inspector general’s report released earlier this year.

Agency officials said they would like to be able to hold those who willfully break the rules, but they haven’t requested more beds. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s 2016 budget request actually asked for fewer beds to hold detainees next year, arguing that he wants to put more emphasis on the very alternatives that are being violated.

ICE’s treatment of those awaiting their deportation proceedings has been controversial for several years.

In 2013, the agency released 36,007 convicted criminals who were awaiting the outcome of their deportation cases. Those released had amassed 116 homicide convictions, 15,635 drunken driving convictions and 9,187 convictions stemming from what ICE labeled involvement with “dangerous drugs.”

The total dropped to about 30,000 in 2014 — but the seriousness of the offenses increased, with 193 homicide convictions among the detainees and 16,070 drunken driving convictions. There were also 426 sexual assaults and 303 kidnapping convictions, ICE said.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and ICE Director Sarah Saldana said the numbers were unacceptable and imposed new rules requiring releases to be vetted by senior agency officials to make sure they were correct.

Both Mr. Johnson and Ms. Saldana also said many of the releases are required and give them little discretion — particularly those made under a 2001 Supreme Court decision known as the Zadvydas case, when the justices ruled that immigrants couldn’t generally be detained indefinitely.

That means that if a home country won’t take someone back, ICE must release them after about six months.

But the new numbers obtained by Mr. Goodlatte suggest Zadvydas-related releases were fewer than 2,500 in 2014, or only about 8 percent of the total — compared to the 57 percent that ICE admits were completely discretionary.

The rest of the releases were divided between cases where an immigration judge ordered bond or where ICE was unable to obtain travel documents but it wasn’t considered a mandatory release under the Zadvydas ruling.