2003, Sheila Jackson Lee’s Position on Immigration

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

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

***

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

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

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

WITNESSES

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

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

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

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

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

General Order, Houston Police Department

Immigration and Naturalization Service Memo

APPENDIX

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

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

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

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

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

[The New York Executive Order follows:]

EO124A.eps

EO124B.eps

EO124C.eps

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

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

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your service.

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

Read the full testimony from the hearing here.

Facts on CARA and Pueblo Sin Fronteras

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

In Spring 2018, hundreds of migrants from Central America approached the U.S.-Mexico border seeking asylum in the United States and threatening to enter illegally if their request was denied. Pueblo Sin Fronteras organized the caravan in conjunction with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project.^[24] ^[25] The CARA coalition consists of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, all groups advocating for legal status for illegal immigrants and expanded immigration overall.^[26] These organizations have been funded by a number of major left-of-center grantmaking foundations, including the Open Society Foundations, MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation of New York. ^[27] The caravan eventually halted in Mexico City on April 4 instead of reaching the United States border.^[28]

In a press release released by Pueblo Sin Fronteras on March 23, 2018, the group “demand[ed]” the governments of Mexico and the United States “open the[ir] borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the counties where we are and/or travel.” Other demands were “that deportations, which destroy families, come to an end” and “that the U.S. government not end TPS [Temporary Protected Status] for those who need it.” ^[29] Temporary Protected Status is a status designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security which grants eligible foreign nationals protected status during “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”^[30] The demands appear to violate U.S. law, which prohibits behavior by individuals that “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” illegally.^[31]

Alex Mensing is an organizer and program coordinator for Pueblo Sin Fronteras and its affiliates. ^[34] Mensing has spent a significant amount of time with economic migrants in Central America and organizing illegal immigrant caravans to the United States.^[35] According to a 2016 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Mensing was a staffer for the CARA Family Detention Project, a coalition of left-of-center organizations providing legal aid and representation to illegal immigrants in the United States.^[36]

Irineo Mujica, an Arizona-based activist holding dual United States and Mexican citizenship, is a caravan organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras.^[37] In October 2018, he was arrested by Mexican officials in Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico, for his involvement in a pro-illegal immigration protest.^[38]

Rodrigo Abeja is an activist and organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras. He has been involved in at least two caravans from Central America to the U.S. and Mexico.^[39] ^[40] Abeja was identified in a 2013 article by the news group Vice as a representative for the Popular Assembly of Migrant Families, an left-wing organization based in Mexico which organizes migrants to the United States.^[41]

Citations found here.

Know the other operatives….

In 2015 the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, collectively known as CARA, joined forces in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) significant expansion of its family detention capacity. The opening of the “South Texas Family Residential Center” in Dilley, Texas – with an initial capacity of 480 beds and the potential to hold 2,400 individuals – and the detention of families at the “Karnes Residential Center” in Karnes City – with a current capacity of 532 beds and plans to double the number – reflect the Obama Administration’s continuing commitment to the flawed deterrence policy it began in June 2014 with the opening of a temporary family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

In early 2016, the pro bono work at the South Texas Family Residential Center became known as the Dilley Pro Bono Project (DPBP). DPBP is a collaboration of the American Immigration Council and other partners. It operates a non-traditional pro bono model of legal services that directly represents detained mothers and children who are fleeing extreme violence in Central America and elsewhere and are seeking asylum in the United States. DPBP is an Immigration Justice Campaign local partner.

The detention of children and their mothers is not only inhumane, but incompatible with a fair legal process. The project builds on the volunteer’s collective experiences providing legal services, running a pro bono project for detained families, training lawyers and BIA accredited representatives, and leading advocacy and litigation efforts to challenge unlawful asylum, detention, and deportation policies.

The volunteers behind CARA are committed to ensuring that detained children and their mothers receive competent, pro bono representation, and developing aggressive, effective advocacy and litigation strategies to end the practice of family detention.

Background

In December 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) significantly expanded its detention capacity for families (i.e., women with minor children) with the opening of the “South Texas Family Residential Center” in Dilley, Texas. Dilley is a small town located approximately one hour and fifteen minutes southwest of San Antonio. That privately owned detention facility will be the largest family detention center in the United States, with a current capacity of 480 beds and the potential to hold 2,400 individuals.

A few months earlier, ICE converted a detention center in Karnes City—one hour southeast of San Antonio—from an all-male facility into a detention center for children and mothers. Its current capacity is 532 beds, but the private company that owns the facility has already broken ground on a project to double that number.

When the government opened a similar facility in 2014 in Artesia, New Mexico, over 250 individuals, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, traveled there to fight for the rights of these families during the five–month period it was open (July through December 2014). In this new model, volunteers worked in weekly shifts to represent detainees, handing off the client matter to a new attorney each week. Much to everyone’s surprise, however, not only did the model work and grow, but pro bono attorneys continued to be drawn to it. This concept of what some called “lawyer camp” captured the hearts and minds of willing volunteers. Rather than just taking over a paper file handed to them, they were taking over the legal care of a human being desperately needing their help.

The volunteers at CARA are building on the success and volunteer enthusiasm of the Artesia Project. The dedication and sacrifice of the pro bono attorneys demonstrates how open individual attorneys are to this type of service. Primarily, these volunteers hailed from small and solo firms where every billable hour is precious. They left their practices for up to 14 days to head to Artesia to fight for their clients against the unjust machine of family detention. They left their families and purchased plane tickets, paid for rental cars, hotels and meals all on their own, a cost that ran over $1,500 per week, for the opportunity to be part of this amazing pro bono effort representing women and children in the New Mexico desert.

Currently the American Immigration Council, CLINIC, AILA and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid are coordinating pro bono representation for women and children detained at Dilley. In 2017 alone, the Dilley Pro Bono Project represented more than 12,000 detained families, with a 98 percent success rate.

Since the opening of Karnes in August 2014, RAICES and a team of local and national pro bono attorneys, advocates, and faith-based community members have been representing the women and children at Karnes. In addition to providing significant legal representation and pro se assistance, the Karnes Pro Bono Project created a bond fund that has raised nearly $200,000 in donations to enable women and children to bond out of detention, has met released women and children at the local bus station to assist with transportation to final destinations throughout the United States, and has provided basic supplies (clothing, food, and hygiene products) to families for their journeys outside of Texas.

CLINIC is the supporting organization for the nation’s largest network of nonprofit immigration service providers. Among its activities, CLINIC’s attorneys conduct training and provide technical support on all of the immigration-related legal problems faced by low-income immigrants. The Training and Legal Support Section is staffed with eight attorneys who specialize in a range of subject areas, including asylum, the credible fear standard, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), release from detention, and other relief for those in removal proceedings. CLINIC has authored the seminal book in this area, Representing Clients in Immigration Court, published and sold by AILA. CLINIC staff played an important supportive role in responding to the need for representation of families detained in the Artesia facility. CLINIC staff collectively spent over two months at the facility last summer, immediately after it opened, interviewing clients, coordinating the work of volunteer attorneys, and reporting on conditions.

CLINIC has developed several immigration courses and integrated them into an online format. Last year, in response to the sudden need for representation for minors apprehended at the Mexican border, CLINIC developed and conducted a four-week course, “Representing Unaccompanied Children: What to Do and How to Do It,” and offered it free to over 400 attorneys and BIA-accredited staff. The course is now housed on CLINIC’s website and is available using recorded webinars as an “independent study” for those wanting to learn more about this subject area and improve their skills.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the national association of more than 14,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. AILA member attorneys represent U.S. families seeking permanent residence for close family members, as well as U.S. businesses seeking talent from the global marketplace. AILA members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis. Founded in 1946, AILA is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that provides continuing legal education, information, professional services, and expertise through its 39 chapters and over 50 national committees.

Ending family detention is a national priority of AILA. The CARA pro bono project is part of AILA’s work to end the inhumane treatment of children, women and men seeking asylum in the United States.

RAICES (Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services) was founded and incorporated in 1986 under the name of the Refugee Aid Project. During this time, Central Americans flooded into Texas after fleeing the civil wars and social upheavals of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Several churches and religious orders answered the needs of the new arrivals by providing food, clothing, language classes, housing, medical and legal referrals. The agency provided a forum for San Antonians to meet the new arrivals and learn first hand about the situation in Central America. In 2008, RAICES enlarged its office in order to keep pace with its growing staff and programs. Located five minutes from the San Antonio Immigration Court and in the heart of the city’s historic Five Points neighborhood, RAICES continues to provide counsel and representation in a full range of defenses against deportation before the Immigration Court, as well as representation before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in family-based immigration cases, visas and other affirmative applications.

In its third decade, RAICES has a dedicated team of attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal assistants, in addition to volunteers, student interns and partnering pro bono attorneys.

The American Immigration Council is a non-profit, non-partisan, organization based in Washington D.C. Our legal, education, policy and exchange programs work to strengthen America by honoring our immigrant history and shaping how Americans think and act towards immigration now and in the future.

The American Immigration Council exists to promote the prosperity and cultural richness of our diverse nation by educating citizens about the enduring contributions of America’s immigrants; standing up for sensible and humane immigration policies that reflect American values; insisting that our immigration laws be enacted and implemented in a way that honors fundamental constitutional and human rights; working tirelessly to achieve justice and fairness for immigrants under the law.

The Council’s motto is: Honoring our immigrant past; shaping our immigrant future.

The Innovation Law Lab is a Portland, Oregon-based non-profit that provides the technology and data management systems at CARA and offers a limited number of supplemental stipends for individuals traveling to Dilley through its Applied Scholars program. The Law Lab creates innovative strategies that advance the rights, protections, and modes of integration of immigrant communities in the United States by creating capacity within immigrant legal service providers, developing scholarship and research into emerging legal theories, and providing education about the law’s impact on immigrants in the United States.

Salafi Jihadists, More Today than Ever

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

Despite the Islamic State’s loss of territory in Iraq and Syria, an increasingly diffuse Salafi-jihadist movement is far from defeated.

This report constructs a data set of groups and fighters from 1980 to 2018, including from the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. It finds that the number of Salafi-jihadists in 2018 declined somewhat from a high in 2016, but is still at near-peak levels since 1980.

The regions with the largest number of fighters are Syria (between 43,650 and 70,550 fighters), Afghanistan (between 27,000 and 64,060), Pakistan (between 17,900 and 39,540), Iraq (between 10,000 and 15,000), Nigeria (between 3,450 and 6,900), and Somalia (between 3,095 and 7,240). Attack data indicates that there are still high levels of violence in Syria and Iraq from Salafi-jihadist groups, along with significant violence in such countries and regions as Yemen, the Sahel, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

These findings suggest that there is a large pool of Salafi-jihadist and allied fighters willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Every U.S. president since 9/11 has tried to move away from counterterrorism in some capacity, and it is no different today. Balancing national security priorities in today’s world needs to happen gradually.

For the United States, the challenge is not that U.S. officials are devoting attention and resources to dealing with state adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. These countries present legitimate threats to the United States at home and abroad. Rather, the mistake would be declaring victory over terrorism too quickly and, as a result, shifting too many resources and too much attention away from terrorist groups when the threat remains significant.

Click here to read report.

Developing national security is more an art than a science, especially when trying to prioritize among a range of important issues. A high school student experimenting with weights on a scale finds that taking off mass from one side too quickly—or adding too

much mass to the other side—will cause the scale to lose its balance. Indeed, balancing U.S. national security priorities in today’s world needs to happen gradu-

ally. The challenge is not that U.S. officials are devoting attention to deal with state adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. These countries present

legitimate threats to the United States at home and abroad. Rather, the mistake would be declaring victory too quickly against terrorism—and then shifting too many resources and too much attention away when the threat remains significant. A significant withdrawal of U.S. special operations forces, intelligence operatives, intelligence resources, and development and diplomatic experts for counterterrorism in key areas of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia would be unnecessarily risky.

400 Left the Caravan and Arrive in Tijuana

Posted on November 13, 2018November 13, 2018 by Denise Simon

Defense Secretary Mattis will spend Wednesday visiting the border. Customs and Border Patrol said it will close lanes at the San Ysidron and Otay Mesa crossing to allow the Department of Defense to install barbed wire and position barricades and fencing in the Tijuana region of Baja, California.

The lead or first caravan is expected to arrive in an estimated two weeks with at least three other caravans are making progress heading north in Mexico. More details here.

Meanwhile, Ami Horowitz who is an onsite investigative journalist is traveling with and reporting on the real facts of the caravan. Horowitz has a vast resume of these kinds of investigations on his resume that include corruption at the United Nations and he also travel by boat with Syrian refugees arriving in Greece.

During this adventure by Ami Horowitz he found the following facts:

90-95% are males in the caravan.

There is a substantial logistical transportation operation aiding the migrants with trucks and buses.

Food, water, shelter, medicine, mobile hospitals, doctors and nurses are at each base camp along the way.

Mexican police are often found escorting the caravan.

Mexico is actively working with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and with UNICEF per the UN contact named Maria Rudi.

It is admitted there are violent and gang member people within the caravan. It takes work to keep them separated from the other members of the caravan daily.

The largest support comes from Pueblo sin Fronteras. This organization has hundreds of volunteers traveling with the caravan as noted in the video. The volunteers hold countless learning sessions with the migrants to teach them about applying for asylum, what a refugees and what their rights are according to U.S. law. United Nations workers are also traveling with the caravan and they along with the Pueblo Sin Fronteras wear vests noting who they are and some also wear badges.

Pueblo sin Fronteras has been reaching out to immigrants and migrants for more than 15 years aiding them to the United States demanding their human rights.On their website they even have a graphic that reads Otay Mesa Detention Resistance for Los Angeles and San Diego.

As tensions build over a new caravan, Mexican officials seize the man who helped organize the last one https://t.co/ipwsyldi9R

— Adolfo Flores (@aflores) October 19, 2018

The leader of Pueblo sin Fronteras is Irineo Mujico. From Phoenix, Mujico was arrested in southern Mexico in October in Cuidad Hidalgo. He was there not as a leader but more as a coordinator of humanitarian assistance. He has been released but he did forfeit documents under the demand of the Mexican police. Mujico is a dual citizen of the United States and Mexico.

Birthright v. Jurisdiction

Posted on October 31, 2018October 31, 2018 by Denise Simon

Let’s begin with the 39th Congress shall we?

1865-1867, it was a time of reconstruction. For context, scan this summary of the activity of Congress.

On the matter of ratification of the 14th Amendment, a year long study was completed by a 15 member committee. Much of the debate was on citizenship for slaves. For reference, the Joint Resolution was H.R. 127.

Of particular note is the text in the middle column under ‘Reconstruction’. This document is found in the Library of Congress. This matter has been debated often over many decades and there is no law defining natural born v. foreign ownership, loyalty or jurisdiction. Hence the reason the debate continues and proposed legislation in addition to President Trump considering an Executive Order. Frankly, the common existing definition on birthright gives an additional argument to chain migration, somewhat in reverse.

Here is a cogent presentation on the case against birthright.

Need more?

Claremont Senior Fellow Matthew Spalding

Spalding raised the question in “Should the Children of Illegal Aliens Be U.S. Citizens?” and his U.S. News & World Report op-ed: “14th Amendment Doesn’t Make Illegal Aliens’ Children Citizens”

Others

Frequent Claremont Review of Books contributor and summer fellowship faculty member Richard Samuelson provides more historical and legal context in his essay for The Federalist: “Birthright for Whom?”

*** Is it okay that there are actually birthing hotels in California where Chinese woman take full advantage?Federal agents raided several maternity hotels in January of 2018 where these pregnant women paid between $40,000 to $80,000 to give birth in the United States. This has been the case for many years. There was/is a list of sites for birthing tourism for California.

How about pregnant Russian women making the long trip to Miami just to give birth? Birthing tourism is a thriving business for Russians in Miami. It is all for dual citizenship. If the mainstream media complains about President Trump authorizing an Executive Order, the text is most important. He cannot alter any Constitutional amendment but he can issue an order to stop birthing tourism. Even NBC News is quite aware of the issue.

“for a growing number of Russian women, the draw isn’t sunny beaches or pulsing nightclubs. It’s U.S. citizenship for their newborn children. In Moscow, it’s a status symbol to have a Miami-born baby, and social media is full of Russian women boasting of their little americantsy.”

*** If President Trump signs an Executive Order it will be legally challenged with a lawsuit before the end of the day. Perhaps this is a good thing to begin a final legal opinion on the matter.