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

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

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

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

Image result for criminal aliene detention

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

Three groups of criminal aliens can be distinguished.

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

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

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

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

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

SCAAP Overview

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

SCAAP Legislative Authority

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

***

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

****

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

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

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

UC Berkeley, Protests over Milo and $370 Million

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

How did it all happen? It continues to happen…

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

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

***

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

NBC

The Star

So, where did all this come from?

UC President Janet Napolitano reiterates vow to protect immigrant students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More here on UC Berkeley funding revenue.

Foreign Service Personnel Dissent Letter to Pres. Trump

Posted on January 30, 2017January 30, 2017 by Denise Simon

We heard last week that several top policy people at the State Department left their positions. The State Department has a culture of very lenient diplomacy where few governments are ever disciplined or rebuked for decisions and actions that counter agreements, treaties, human rights and more. Iran is the topic example.

Now we have the next level of State Department personnel that are pushing back hard on President Trump’s Executive Order on suspension of travel visas and travel bans from listed countries. Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson when confirmed will have a rank and file challenge on his hands.

Perhaps those behind the signatures on this dissent letter could answer some questions on the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission Report where the entire chapter was dedicated to immigration of which every member of Congress, both sides of the aisle signed in approval to accept the recommendations and work to implement. (Pre 9/11 status quo has infected diplomacy again)

Countless foreign service officers have drafted a memo to the White House.

LawFareBlog: Numerous Foreign Service officers and other diplomats have drafted a dissent memo expressing opposition to President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. ABC reported this morning on the draft, which is likely to be submitted today.

Here’s a copy of the actual draft. We are hearing that literally hundreds of foreign service officers are planning to be party to the dissent memo; it’s still unclear exactly how many. We have redacted all names and personally identifiable information from this document.

**

(First page on the left) The State Department’s Dissent Channel is a mechanism for employees to confidentially express policy disagreement, created in 1971 as a response to concerns within the Department over the government’s handling of the Vietnam War. Authors of a memo submitted through the Channel, which is open to all regular employees of the State Department and USAID, may not be subject to any penalty or disciplinary action in response. Once a memo is submitted, the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff must acknowledge its receipt within two working days and will usually distribute it to the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Chairperson of the Open Forum, and, if the memo’s author is employed by USAID, by the head of that agency as well. Taking into account the wishes of the author, the memo may also be distributed more broadly within the State Department and may be done so anonymously.

The ultimate significance of the channel is that memos must receive a substantive response within 30-60 working days

For Trump: Inter arma enim silent leges

Posted on January 29, 2017January 29, 2017 by Denise Simon

Translation: For among times of arms, the laws fall mute. But is this true?

Much opposition was forced on President GW Bush for his actions by executive order and presidential findings directly after the 9/11 attack. Bush ordered countless legal authorities inside and outside government for legal decisions on every step he took including that of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’.

We have a major debate that will not be solved any time soon on the legality of the President Trump executive order on the refugee question which has caused major protests and legal action already as we see detentions of foreign nationals at airports. All executive orders are subject to judicial review. Presidents have been given the option of using extraordinary power and in many cases that is a good condition, yet in the matter of law, there have been without question many abuses.

This post is not meant to form any conclusion on the legal veracity of this executive order, rather it is designed to add it more facts and additional questions moving forward. President Trump has a mess to clean up left by Barack Obama, of this, there is no dispute. The White House did take action at the stroke of the pen to begin to make America safer, however was this action taken too soon and without legal opinions including that of the Office of Legal Council? That has not been answered.

So, here are some items that must be included in this debate that extends the whole view and argument.

These are not in any specific order so the reader can individually prioritize.

Should President Trump have set an effective date of this Executive Order?
How was TSA, DHS and all other associated agencies briefed on those already in transit and with validated travel documents in hand?
Did the White House consider exemptions or waivers for those that have been vetted previously that worked or work for the USG in some capacity?
Why were some countries on this list while others were not? The San Bernardino shooters were from Pakistan, but do we need Pakistan for the war in Afghanistan?
The majority of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and yet Saudi was omitted from the list, why? Could it be that Trump had/has business interests there or because some that were formally in the Kingdom did aide often the United States when it came to terror like in the case of kidnapped CIA operative William Buckley in Beirut of which the Saudis helped finance his recovery? It is without question the Saudis dislike Iran as much as the United States.
We have seen millions of refugees enter all parts of Europe in recent years and yet they can enter the United States under the ‘visa waiver’ program. Did the Trump White House take this under full consideration? The answer is a ‘kinda, yes’ they did but that review has been ordered and not yet deployed.
We have countless refugees and asylees entering the United States from our southern border, but was Mexico on the list? No, yet we don’t know either if the phone discussion President Trump had with President Nieto, this topic was addressed.
There are in fact limitations to who can be accepted into the United States under 8 U.S. Code S 1182 and applying those restrictions remain in the authority of the President while waivers can be issued and it is germane to ask if this law has been considered.
Refugees too have rights and legal protections which was in fact determined after WW II and we have witnessed millions in the Middle East that are forced to live outside their homeland in camps that are simply inhumane. So when it comes to the ‘huddle masses’, the United States does have a responsibility however, the genesis of the current refugee/asylee issue remains with Susan Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The solution in the long term is almost impossible for President Trump and his team to solve unless the hostilities and conflicts in the Middle East are solved.
The protests of those standing against the Trump executive order was not spontaneous, nor were those immediate lawsuits against this temporary refugee ban. Following the money and the continued chaos will not soon go away. What is the proper counter-measure going forward? A question that remains without an answer.
In 2011, Obama did ban Iraqis wanting to enter the United States and this was in fact the exact year the United States pulled out in total from Iraqi. Obama did however issue some selective waivers. The concern for Obama at the time was the matter of two people in Kentucky plotting a terror attack. This alone is a single great argument for Trump’s action and Senator Schumer should be reminded as should Nancy Pelosi. But it is not the full argument as noted by the items above.
It should be noted the actions of President Carter who ordered all Iranians to leave the United States and cut all interactions with Iran with few exceptions.

There are historical events that do offer President Trump great legal standing that is unless courts will rule otherwise in upcoming cases.

ABC: Over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson, Congress passed the 1917 Immigration Act amid social outcry over national security during World War I. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, the legislation extended to barring most Asian nation immigration overall, with the exception of Japan, which was protected by a prior bilateral diplomatic agreement, and the Philippines, then a U.S. colony.

The act was officially repealed by the Magnuson Act in 1943, in the context of the U.S. alliance with China against Japan during World War II. Still, actual Chinese immigration to the U.S. remained capped at 105 persons a year until 1965.

National Origins Formula

For the first time in the 1920s — through the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, or the Johnson-Reed Act — the U.S. further restricted immigration by establishing a wide-scale quota system based on national origins. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, in addition to putting a blanket ban on immigration from Asian countries, now including Japan in the case of the Johnson-Reed Act, the national origins immigration policies also had the effect of reducing immigration from southern and eastern Europe.

According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center about 20th century U.S. immigration, the impact of the system was intended to “try to restore earlier immigration patterns by capping total annual immigration and imposing numerical quotas based on immigrant nationality that favored northern and western European countries.”

The U.S. immigration system remained based on the national origin of would-be immigrants until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson.

“It was designed for racist reasons,” said Steve Legomsky, professor of law at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, referring to the national origins system as well as the prior exclusion of Asian immigrants. “Today, I don’t think that’s what’s driving the immigration ban [proposed by Trump]. I think it’s more a fear of terrorism and a concern for national security.”

Legomsky, who was also formerly the chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, added that “the impulses are different [now], but the effect is the same.”

In summary, this article is hardly complete with all the facts and laws, rather it is meant for the reader to consider a wider range of moving parts while inviting the reader to individually research more before an ‘all in’ as full support of Trump’s executive action be assumed.

Your comments are invited and encouraged.

In closing, it was in 2014 that now deceased Justice Scalia said, in times of war, laws fall silent.

DHS 2016 Report on Immigration Numbers, Staggering

Posted on January 26, 2017January 26, 2017 by Denise Simon

This report is the year end 2016 of immigration statistics. While anything the Department of Homeland Security under Napolitano or Johnson ever published is suspect, using the numbers they provided is bad enough. It certainly spells out how ugly the world is country by country and the report tell us how bad it is, while one must consider other Western nations have similar reports. This report is over 100 pages and the pages are number by category by year. The reality is staggering.

Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_2015

Statistical data on immigration have been published annually by the U S government since the 1860s Over the years, the federal agencies responsible for reporting on immigration have changed, as have the content, format, and title of the annual publication Currently, immigration data are published in the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics by the Office of Immigration Statistics in the Policy Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.

The globe has lost all equilibrium and the professionals estimate for this condition to remain for the next ten years. We have yet to have a top down discussion on actually stabilizing countries one by one. And then there is the question of affordability. Can nations continue to finance war, nation building, and chasing terror indefinitely?

Meanwhile, President Trump has called for a ‘safe zone’ in Syria for Syrians seeking protection. He has called for this area to be protected by U.S. Marines. Hummm

*** President Trump envisions using the U.S. military, in conjunction with the State Department, to establish and protect refugee camps in Syria and neighboring countries, according to a draft executive order outlining several steps the new administration intends to take with hopes of preventing future terrorist attacks on American soil.

First obtained and published Wednesday by The Huffington Post, the document alludes to Trump’s controversial calls to prevent people fleeing the war-torn country from entering the United States, and it indicates he wants to see a plan by late April. The objective is to establish “safe zones” — both inside Syria and in neighboring countries — that will be used to “protect vulnerable Syrian populations” while they “await firm settlement” either elsewhere in Syria or in other countries.

Trump wants Defense Secretary James Mattis to coordinate the effort with his counterpart at the State Department, expected to be Rex Tillerson, who is pending Senate confirmation.

A draft executive order circulating on social media Wednesday indicates the U.S. military could be used to establish and secure refugee camps in Syria. (Via Twitter)
A Defense Department official was unable to verify the document’s authenticity. “And even if I were, they appear to be drafts,” said Eric Pahon, a spokesman at the Pentagon. “DoD does not comment on pre-decisional draft documents.” A State Department spokesman referred questions to the White House.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer did not directly address the document but said Trump would discuss the issue at length in the near future.

“The president has talked extensively about extreme vetting,” he said. “And you’ll see more action this week on keeping America safe. This has been something he talked about in the inaugural address. He talked about it in the campaign.

“Allowing people who are from a country that has a propensity to do us harm, [we need] to make sure that we take the necessary steps, to ensure that the people who come to this country, especially areas that have a higher degree of concern, that we take the appropriate steps to make sure that they’re coming to this country for all the right reasons.” More here.

*** Where did this concept come from?

BEIRUT (AP) — The Latest on the Syrian conflict (all times local):

12:20 p.m.

A Turkish official says his country has always supported the idea of safe zones in Syria but would need to review any U.S. plans before commenting.

U.S. President Donald Trump is directing the Pentagon and State Department to produce a plan for safe zones in Syria within 90 days, according to a draft executive order he is expected to sign this week.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Huseyin Muftuoglu told reporters that Turkey has “seen the reports on a request for a study on the safe zone,” adding that “what is important is to see the result of these studies.”

He pointed to the Syrian city of Jarablus, where thousands of Syrians have returned after Turkish-backed opposition forces drove out the Islamic State group, as a good example of what can be achieved.

___

11:15 a.m.

The Kremlin says a U.S. plan for safe zones in Syria should be thoroughly considered.

Asked to comment on a draft executive order that President Donald Trump is expected to sign this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, underlined the importance to “thoroughly calculate all possible consequences” of the measure. He noted Thursday that “it’s important not to exacerbate the situation with refugees.”

While suspending visas for Syrians and others, the order directs the Pentagon and the State Department to produce a plan for safe zones in Syria and the surrounding area within 90 days.

Safe zones, proposed by both Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton during the campaign, were considered by the Obama administration years ago and ruled out, in part because of Russia’s air campaign in Syria.