Iranian Regime Using Water as a Weapon and APT 33

The Iranian people have been protesting against the regime for quite some time and in some cases it has turned deadly, where military forces are firing on the protestors. What are the protests about? Their economy. Remember when the Obama White House gave Iran billions that apparently we owed from back debts and the regime was to use the money to infuse growth in the economy? Yeah, not so much. In fact the starving and unemployed citizens of Iran are demanding the regime get out of Syria and pay attention at home.

Related reading: Iran Calls for Calm After Water Protests, Clashes

Yet, water availability in Iran has been at a crisis point for a few years and getting worse.

Dozens of riot police on motorcycles faced off against farmers in the same town, Varzaneh, another video showed. Smoke swirled around the protesters and the person filming said tear gas was being fired. A second person reported clashes. Police in the city of Isfahan were not immediately available to comment.

“What’s called drought is more often the mismanagement of water,” said a journalist in Varzaneh, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject.

“And this lack of water has disrupted people’s income.”

Farmers accuse local politicians of allowing water to be diverted from their areas in return for bribes.

While the nationwide protests in December and January stemmed from anger over high prices and alleged corruption, in rural areas, lack of access to water was also a major cause, analysts say.

At least 25 people were killed and, according to one parliamentarian, up to 3,700 people were arrested, the biggest challenge yet for the government of president Hassan Rouhani, who was reelected last year. More here from Reuters.

Meanwhile, in Paris there are several Americans attending the annual National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – an umbrella bloc of opposition groups in exile that seek an end to Shi’ite Muslim clerical rule in Iran. There apparently was a bomb plot on Monday that was foiled, where an Iranian diplomat was arrested along with several others.

Since President Trump formally exited the JCPOA, the nuclear deal, Iran has some nefarious activities again in play and that includes hacking beyond punishing the Iranian citizens and bomb plots.

Since the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has taken to hacking including by proxy.

The emergence of the Iranian Cyber Army (ICA) as an extension of the IRGC was an initial attempt by the Islamic Republic at conducting internationally focused operations. These operations were a departure from Gerdab’s focus on maintaining domestic moral values and defending government rhetoric. In 2011, the IRGC’s ICA formed the foundation of the Khaybar Center for Information Technology. According to a former IRGC cyber commander, the Khaybar Center was established in 2011 and has been linked to a number of attacks against the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Even today, the balance between ideology and cyber skills remains problematic. One example of the conflict between ideology and skill was Mohammad Hussein Tajik, a former cyber commander within the IRGC. According to Insikt Group’s source, Tajik’s father maintained a strong religious background and was a veteran of Iran’s ministry of intelligence. Yet Tajik was arrested and killed because the Iranian government feared that Tajik was not ideologically aligned and posed a betrayal and flight risk.

Today, based on ongoing contact between Insikt Group’s source and Iranian hackers, it is estimated that there are over 50 organizations vying for government-sponsored offensive cyber projects. Only the best teams succeed, are paid, and remain in business. The government does its best to compartmentalize — one job might be creating a remote code exploit (RCE) for a popular software application, while another job might be using the RCE and establishing persistent unauthorized access. Two different contractors (or more) are typically required to complete the government-defined objective.

Public knowledge has also established that Iranian academic institutions play a contractor-like role. Specific examples include Shahid Beheshti University (SBU) and the Imam Hossein University (IHU), which have comprehensive science and technology departments attracting some of the best academic talent in Iran. In fact, the SBU has a specific cyberspace research institute dedicated to such matters, and the IHU was founded by the IRGC.

For a full read on the report due to an interview with a previous Iranian hacker and significant research on state sponsored campaigns, go here.

Cyber security professionals in the United States have detected Iranian hackers breaking into defense contractors, aviation systems, energy companies, telecom operations and other tech companies in the United States. Iran is listed at APT 33, Advanced Persistent Threat and Saudi Arabia is just as vulnerable as the United States. In 2016, the Department of Justice indicted 7 Iranians on cyber attacks on dozens of U.S. banks, attempting to shut down the Bowman Avenue dam operation in New York and to disrupt other critical U.S. infrastructure sites. 45 major financial institutions were targeted including JP Morgan, Well Fargo and American Express. Read more detail here.

 

Ridiculous Deductibles Broke the Healthcare System

Hello democrats….what again did Obamacare solve?

Sky-High Deductibles Broke the U.S. Health Insurance System

Employers are questioning a system they say costs patients too much.

Bloomberg: When Carla Jordan and her husband were hit with a cascade of serious medical issues, she knew that at least her family had health insurance through her job. What she didn’t realize was that even with that coverage, a constant stream of medical bills would soon push the family to the edge of financial collapse.

The Jordans, both 40, were once solidly in the middle class, but ever since the 2008 financial crisis, money has been tight at best. Then calamity hit. In 2016, Carla needed a gallbladder operation. Her husband John suffered a seizure the same year, followed by an unrelated infection that sent him to the emergency room. Toward the end of the year, Carla was diagnosed with diabetes. Even after paying $501 a month for medical insurance, they ended the year owing $8,000 to 18 different providers, with creditors threatening to garnish John’s wages.

Health plans similar to the Jordans’ that put patients on the hook for many thousands of dollars are widespread and growing, but some employers are beginning to have second thoughts. “Why did we design a health plan that has the ability to deliver a $1,000 surprise to employees?” Shawn Leavitt, a senior human resources executive at Comcast Corp., said at a conference in May. “That’s kind of stupid.” A handful of companies, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and CVS Health Corp., have recently announced plans to reduce deductibles or cover more care before workers are exposed to the cost.

Yet it’s still the reality for a growing share of Americans. Today, 39 percent of large employers offer only high-deductible plans, up from 7 percent in 2009, according to a survey by the National Business Group on Health. Half of all workers now have health insurance with a deductible of at least $1,000 for an individual, up from 22 percent in 2009, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. About 41 percent say they can’t pay a $400 emergency expense without borrowing or selling something, according to the Federal Reserve. The bottom line: People like the Jordans simply can’t afford to get sick.

Deductibles Keep Rising

About 40 percent of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $400 expense, according to the Federal Reserve.

***

The family had an Anthem Inc. insurance policy through Carla’s job as a public school teacher in Stafford County, Virginia. But the monthly premium barely covered any of their bills before paying a $2,000 deductible. And by the end of 2016, the Jordans were deep in the hole to doctors, hospitals, an anesthesiologist, urgent care, and various labs and testing centers. Their doctors sent collections notices. Some dropped them as patients until they paid up.

“I actually dreaded going to the mailbox,” Carla recalled. “I feel like I’ve done everything I’m supposed to do.” And yet, she said, sickness pushed the family “right over the brink.”

Related reading: Five Questions About Amazon’s Play for the $300 Billion Pharmacy Market

Since the early 2000s, employers have mostly embraced high-deductible health plans. The thinking has been that requiring workers to shoulder more of the cost of care will also encourage them to cut back on unnecessary spending. But it didn’t work out that way. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many families were hard-pressed to meet their soaring health-insurance deductibles. At the same time, studies show that many put off routine care or skipped medication to save money. That can mean illnesses that might have been caught early can go undiagnosed, becoming potentially life-threatening and enormously costly for the medical system.

Patients Exposed

The share of Americans under 65 enrolled in high deductible plans is rising

The family had an Anthem Inc. insurance policy through Carla’s job as a public school teacher in Stafford County, Virginia. But the monthly premium barely covered any of their bills before paying a $2,000 deductible. And by the end of 2016, the Jordans were deep in the hole to doctors, hospitals, an anesthesiologist, urgent care, and various labs and testing centers. Their doctors sent collections notices. Some dropped them as patients until they paid up.

“I actually dreaded going to the mailbox,” Carla recalled. “I feel like I’ve done everything I’m supposed to do.” And yet, she said, sickness pushed the family “right over the brink.”

Since the early 2000s, employers have mostly embraced high-deductible health plans. The thinking has been that requiring workers to shoulder more of the cost of care will also encourage them to cut back on unnecessary spending. But it didn’t work out that way. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many families were hard-pressed to meet their soaring health-insurance deductibles. At the same time, studies show that many put off routine care or skipped medication to save money. That can mean illnesses that might have been caught early can go undiagnosed, becoming potentially life-threatening and enormously costly for the medical system.

Patients Exposed

The share of Americans under 65 enrolled in high deductible plans is rising.

*** Amazon Isn’t the Only Retail Giant Trying to Remake Health ...

How the U.S. insurance system came to stick its customers with increasingly onerous medical bills is a 15-year-long story of miscalculations and missed opportunities. It started in 2003 when President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans passed a change to the tax code that encouraged employers to experiment with high-deductible plans, which ask patients to pay out of pocket for care — sometimes thousands of dollars — before insurance coverage kicks in. The trend got a push when the financial crisis hit: As the economy stalled and employers shed nearly 9 million jobs over three years, companies desperate to slash costs turned to high-deductible plans to save money. The next wave came with the arrival of Obamacare in 2010. Millions who were previously uninsured could now get coverage, but many of them took on deductibles of $1,000 or higher.

The Jordan family never expected to become a casualty of the trend. Little more than a decade ago, they were making more than $100,000 a year. John Jordan had a carpentry business that did well during the housing boom. Carla’s job teaching computer science classes at a local high school gave them steady income and health benefits. When their children, now teenagers, were first born, she recalls paying $500 for her maternity stays in the hospital.

“That was the biggest bill we ever got,” she said.

Since then, Carla’s salary has barely increased and John’s business never recovered after the crash. With student loans, car notes and a house worth less than their mortgage, the Jordans filed for bankruptcy in 2013, allowing them to discharge some debts. But their income never fully bounced back.

They were ill-prepared to deal with sharply escalating health-care bills: Carla’s gallstone, her diabetes diagnoses, John’s seizures, followed by a serious campylobacter infection. The family couldn’t afford the $1,000 it would cost for Carla’s six-week diabetes class. Instead, she got a 40-minute crash course. They shelled out $125 for five pills to treat John’s infection. Still, the bills were piling up. Early in 2017, Carla took a day off from work to go through the stacks of paper, calling each office to negotiate. Few were willing to help.

“It did not really matter to them,” she said. “It was just, ‘When can you pay and how much can you pay?’”

By last year, the couple was making about $79,000, before taxes. They have no savings for retirement or for their children to go to college. “We both live paycheck-to-paycheck,” Carla said. They pay about $35 a month for medications for John’s blood pressure and acid reflux. Carla takes inexpensive metformin—just $3 a month—for diabetes, and doesn’t yet need insulin.

But her diabetes test strips and lancets cost $120 for a three-month supply. To stretch them as long as she can, she checks her blood sugar only when she feels dizzy or nauseous, rather than the standard three times a day. When she had the flu this past winter, she put off going to the doctor until her fever hit 105.

The Jordans’ response to spiraling family medical costs is repeated in families across the country, studies suggest. When one large employer switched all its employees to high-deductible plans, medical spending dropped by 12 percent to 14 percent, according to an analysis by economists at University of California, Berkeley and Harvard. But the workers weren’t learning to shop more effectively for health care. They simply reduced the amount of medical care they used, including preventative care. In high-deductible plans, women are more likely to delay follow-up tests after mammograms, including imaging, biopsies and early-stage diagnoses that could detect tumors when they’re easiest to treat, according to research in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“High-deductible plans do reduce health-care costs, but they don’t seem to be doing it in smart ways,” said Neeraj Sood, director of research at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California.

Some big companies are sitting up and taking notice. “We all thought high deductibles are going to drive people to get involved—‘skin in the game,’” Jamie Dimon, the chief executive officer of JPMorgan, said in early June. Instead, “they didn’t get the surgery they needed, when they needed it, because they can’t afford the high deductible in one shot.” JPMorgan is effectively eliminating deductibles for workers making less than $60,000 a year.

Dimon has teamed up with the top executives of Amazon.com Inc. and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to improve the health care they provide for their workers. The incoming CEO of that venture, surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande, has also noticed the plight of such families as the Jordans. “I had one friend who was bankrupted with a health plan,” Gawande said at the Spotlight Health event in Aspen, Colorado, on Saturday. “He had a $3,000 deductible and couldn’t meet it.”

About five years ago, CVS switched all of its 200,000 employees and their families to health-insurance plans with high deductibles. As the company pushed more costs onto employees, some stopped taking their medications.

“Nobody in their right mind would think that it’s a smart thing to basically be keeping people away from taking their medications,” said Troy Brennan, the chief medical officer at CVS. The company had initially offered a limited selection of generic drugs for free to its workers. But evidence that people were skipping medications prompted CVS to broaden the list, including some brand-name treatments and insulins on the free-drug list, an approach it now recommends to its corporate customers.

The company is also studying a plan to allow employers to offer free, branded drugs to workers in cases where CVS has already negotiated deep discounts. The plan could be in place as soon as 2019.

For the Jordans, such changes are late in coming. On New Year’s Day, 2017, Carla Jordan sat down with her laptop at her kitchen table to write a 20-page letter railing against insurance companies and high medical costs, replete with tables showing their expenses and eight pages of references. She pointed out that health insurance companies’ stock prices, not to mention industry executive salaries, were both soaring, while the thousands of dollars in premiums she paid protected neither her family’s health nor its finances.

“This is an urgent situation, with dire consequences,” she wrote. “Please take action immediately.” She sent the letter to then-President Barack Obama, President-Elect Donald Trump and 220 members of Congress. Only four responded. Seven months later—and for the second time in four years—the couple filed for bankruptcy.

 

Justice Alito and Plaintiff Janus Saved Free Speech

Excellent!

Related reading: Tom Perez, Chairman of the DNC is not happy

There are an estimated 5 million government employees in 24 States. Mark Janus is a Illinois State employee that has been forced to pay $600 per year to the public sector union known as AFSCME. In a 5-4 ruling with the opinion written by Justice Alito, no more forced dues are required even when not a member of a union. Of course, Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion stating that ‘its crusade by the majority is turning the First Amendment into a sword’.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders had argued that strong labor unions are needed because they give “the strength in numbers [workers] need to fight for the freedoms they deserve,” including retirement plans and health care.

The repercussions could affect unions nationwide. Union membership nationwide is less than 11 percent of the American workforce, but about a third of government employees are members. More here.

As a condition of employment, a person is forced to pay up to keep their job while they have no voice in lobby efforts, where money is spent or in collective bargaining.

Supreme Court hears major challenge to government unions ... photo

The Janus case started in the 7th circuit and the union fee case has been going on for an estimated 40 years. Janus was represented by Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The basis of the argument is being forced to pay union fees of any sort is coerced political speech. Part of the Alito decision includes:

Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they
find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional
command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be
universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the
State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document
expressing support for a particular set of positions on
controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the
major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously
argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the
Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved
restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compel­
ling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least
as threatening.

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage
is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into
betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent
individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is
always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our land­
mark free speech cases said that a law commanding “in­
voluntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require
“even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law
demanding silence.
The 82 page opinion is found here. It is compelling reading.
Open Secrets, a site for money in government published this in part:
2018 $13,352,634 80% 19%

That number above represents union money to legislators where 80% went to Democrats and 19% went to Republicans.

Since 1989, public sector unions have contributed $385 million to federal elections, and Democrats have received the vast majority of that money. In the 2016 election those groups pumped $63.8 million into races, 90 percent of which went to Democrats. So far in the 2018 cycle, $13.4 million has gone toward races, with 80 percent benefiting Democrats.

The top 20 politicians to receive money from public sectors since 1989 have been Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

In this election cycle, Democratic senators in hotly contested races have benefited from union support.

In the past 10 years, public sector unions also spent nearly $160 million on lobbying.

Overall, 28 states have passed so-called “right-to-work” laws, which ban requirements for union membership or fees. The states include Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana, former union strongholds where average hourly wages and union memberships have slipped since the laws passed.

A dip in union membership would likely bring a significant drop in funding for big union political spenders like AFSCME, which has spent $114 million on federal elections since 1989.

Other top spenders that would see their funds potentially slashed include the National Education Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Facts are Stubborn Things Regarding Immigrants

So, a friend sent an article to me written by Victor David Hansen and published by National Review. It is about Mexico and this presidential candidate and the threat he has made to the United States. He encouraging a mass exodus of his own people to the United States. Why? Money. There is a protected $70 billion trade surplus for Mexico under NAFTA. Another item is, illegal immigrants and Mexican nationals remit $30 billion back to Mexico.

Hansen’s article is here for the full read and context.

So, doing just a few minutes of research, it seems countless left-leaning media operations are all stating that illegals are not only not eligible for entitlement programs while in the United States, they don’t get any Federal dollars. What?

In a 2013 study, meaning 5+ years ago, there were at the time 3.7 million unlawful immigrant households in the U.S. The financial burden was determined to be $54.5 billion at the time. Now, we can’t seem to get to a real true number of illegals in the United States. It ranges from 11 million to 20 million. But hey, we take in an estimate 500,000 each year….so 20 million appears to be a more accurate number.

That 2013 report also revealed: Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

Direct benefits.

These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Public education.

At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion. Read that report here and then consider any updated statistics.

Further in 2017, illegals do receive benefits from the SNAP program. That summary is here.

With the Supreme Court decision today on the travel conditions regarding a handful of countries and presidential authority, it speaks to properly investigating and vetting those who come into our country. For those that flow across the border, we simply cant do that. Once here, our system is designed for those illegals to not be responsible or accountable for their illegal and fugitive actions or their status.

Just the mere fact they are in the United States is an entitlement in and of itself. They receive protections real citizens never receive. There is the matter of reduced or free college tuition, like that offered in Illinois.

The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).

Immigrants are eleven percent of our population, but they are 20 percent of the poor population. Unless our immigration policies are reevaluated and changed accordingly, welfare usage and subsequent costs will remain high.

Instead of addressing the problem, some in Congress have suggested measures that would make it even worse, such as proposals to increase immigrants’ eligibility for benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making legal immigrants eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would cost an estimated $2.24 billion over ten years. More here.

There has been no real factoring on the cost to DHS and the taxpayer for ICE ad CBP. Then there is detention, the judicial process, deportation, ATF, DEA, education, and, and and…

Have you considered how many we are housing in jails and prisons? Have you considered the job you have where you may not be promoted as you don’t speak Spanish or perhaps not getting hired at all?

So, while Victor David Hansen has the summary very right, there are many more piece parts to the debate. Lastly, imagine the foreign aid given to countries that are exporting their human capital, criminals and entitlement seekers so money can be sent back.

 

Military Bases are Destination for Migrant Insurgency

The United Sates is not dealing with this issue and frankly is not even managing it. When a Mexican presidential candidate calls for a mass exodus TO the United States, we know the mission to flood the United States is a well known doctrine in Mexico.

Oh and by the way, in case you missed former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, make sure you tell the pro-immigrant activists that Johnson admitted the Obama administration also detained children without parents or guardians, citing it was necessary at the time. He further admitted he expanded it even though it was controversial.

So, let’s dump on the military bases to deal with the volume shall we? Sigh Does that mean that all weapons and or live fire training and exercises will have to stop to keep from making the migrants fearful?

Camp Pendleton California Marine Base. | Places I've been ...

San Diego County could become a destination for tens of thousands of unauthorized immigrants to be housed indefinitely by the U.S. Government, under the zero-tolerance policy implemented by President Donald Trump.

According to a report published Friday afternoon by Time magazine, military leaders are drawing up plans to create a tent city at Camp Pendleton to detain as many as 47,000 illegal immigrants from Central America and other locations over the coming months.

The facility at Camp Pendleton would be one of multiple temporary detention centers designated to house immigrants making their way into the United States.

According to an internal memo obtained by Time magazine, the U.S. Navy has been directed to establish “temporary and austere” encampments on military installations in Alabama, Arizona, and California that each could host tens of thousands of detainees.

The document, prepared by an assistant secretary for approval by Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, suggests construction could begin at one site within 60 days. The structures would be designed to last for six months to one year, Time magazine reported.

The memo has not yet been approved by Spencer or Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the report said.

The plans detailed in the internal document match the executive order Trump signed earlier this week in response to growing political pressure to halt the separation of parents and children crossing the southern border illegally.

The order does not end the Trump administration zero-tolerance program that aims to prosecute all illegal border crossings. Rather, it calls for families to be housed together in detention facilities instead of separated while parents go through both the criminal court system for illegal entry and then immigration proceedings after that.

The order says immigration courts should prioritize detained-family cases, but it will still likely take longer than the 20 days the government is currently allowed to hold children in detention, even if they are held with their families.

Officials at Camp Pendleton said they know nothing about a temporary immigrant-housing project.

“Camp Pendleton is unaware of any plan to house detainees on our base at this time,” Capt Luke Weaver said in a statement. “Contact DoD Office of the Secretary of Defense public affairs for information on this subject.”

The Time magazine report quoted a U.S. Navy spokesman saying it would be inappropriate to discuss internal deliberative planning documents.

The detainment plan estimates the Navy would spend more than $230 million to build and run a single facility serving 25,000 people for a six-month term.

According to a Government Accountability Office report published in April, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office requested $3.6 billion in 2018 funding to pay for immigrant housing — $1 billion more than the amount of funds requested the prior year.

The GAO report recommended several recommendations aimed at improving ICE’s cost estimates and making sure the budget documents are accurate.

The ICE budget for 2019 proposes a nearly 33 percent increase in the average daily count for unauthorized immigrants, from about 38,000 in 2017 to more than 51,000 this year.

Advocates who work with San Diego immigrant communities were stunned by the Time magazine report.

Pedro Rios, director of the American Friends Service Committee San Diego office, said he had been hearing rumblings about new detention centers but never expected Camp Pendleton to be selected.

“I think it’s a mistake to suggest that housing families in austere temporary Navy bases is a solution to the humanitarian needs of people seeking asylum,” he said Friday. “The possibility that families will be held indefinitely is a clear violation of human rights standards.”

Elizabeth Lopez, an immigration attorney with the Southern California Immigration Project, worried about what this might mean for court hearings and what services the detention facilities would have.

“First off, I doubt the government is going to transport them to court, so they will have to build video conference rooms to be able to have hearings,” she said. “Secondly, it is going to be a nightmare to allow the attorneys on to Pendleton to visit our clients.”

Lopez also said she was concerned about the level of medical care migrants would receive while being detained.

Immigration attorney Ginger Jacobs said, “I am also concerned about the extremely high expense of these camps. It looks like it would take approximately $500 million to house people at Camp Pendleton for only a six month time period. That is an enormous waste of government resources. It would be far less expensive to allow the asylum-seekers to live in their own communities with GPS monitor ankle bracelets on, so ICE can keep track of their whereabouts.”

Peter K. Nunez, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California and board chair of a conservative think tank, said he favors erecting as many different detention spaces in as many different places as needed in order to enforce the law.

“There was a time back in the Clinton administration when they started using military facilities to detain people, so it’s not a new idea,” he said. “They have to be treated humanely, but that doesn’t mean they have to be put up in a five-star hotel.

“If they can create temporary detention facilities at Camp Pendleton or any other military base that are adequate to the housing needs, then certainly we can do that,” he said.

According to the Time report, a similar tent city would be established at the former Naval Weapons Station Concord, east of San Francisco. It too would be constructed to hold as many as 47,000 people.

Other facilities that are expected to house 25,000 immigrants would be established at abandoned airfields outside Mobile, Alabama. The memo also proposes studying the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona. as a possible site for an additional immigrant detention center.

The arrival and housing of tens of thousands of immigrants at Camp Pendleton would not be a first for the military base that buffers between San Diego and the Greater Los Angeles area.

In April 1975, after the fall of Saigon, the first of 50,000 or more refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos began arriving at Camp Pendleton for processing before they were resettled to other parts of Southern California and beyond.

The temporary quarters closed by November of the same year.