20 Step Refugee Vetting Process, Nuts…

Posted on February 6, 2017February 6, 2017 by Denise Simon

So, that is the process, allegedly done with extreme scrutiny…ahem. But what about those that come into the United States by other nefarious methods such as sneaking across our borders? They get a pass?

It is the exact time in our country to have this debate and the arguments must include the safety and financial consequences, both of which never are part of the wider discussion.

California is working to become a sanctuary state, putting all other CONUS states at extreme risk as people can travel freely. (CONUS = Continental United States).

San Francisco is at the hub of the issue, how so? The mayor via the police force refuse any collaboration as noted below:

SFPD Cuts Ties With FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force

San Francisco Police Department officials announced Wednesday that they have suspended participation with the FBI’s controversial Joint Terrorism Task Force.

According to San Francisco Police Commission protocol, all contracts require approval by the Board of Supervisors after 10 years.

The JTTF Memoranda of Understanding was signed in 2007, so that time has come, according to department officials.

The department will update its guideline for First Amendment activities and will “seek clarification” from the Police Commission as to this guideline’s application to JTTF investigations.

Once that new guideline is adopted, the department may consider renegotiating the JTTF memoranda with the FBI with guidance from the police commission.

Last month, the Asian Law Caucus, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ San Francisco Bay Area office and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California sent a letter to San Francisco Police commissioners urging them to cease the department’s participation in the JTTF.

In the Jan. 5 letter, the groups speculate that, following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the JTTF would likely increase surveillance of Muslim communities like the New York City police did after Sept. 11, 2001.

According to the FBI, 71 JTTF field offices have been established since 2001. The first was established in New York City in 1980.

“The SFPD is committed to public safety and will continue to work diligently to keep San Francisco safe for everyone,” San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said in a statement.

(That last statement gets a BIG REALLY DUDE?)

*** Back in 2008:

Refugee Program Halted As DNA Tests Show Fraud

Thousands in Africa Lied about Families To Gain U.S. Entry

The State Department has suspended a humanitarian program to reunite thousands of African refugees with relatives in the U.S. after unprecedented DNA testing by the government revealed widespread fraud.

The freeze affects refugees in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea and Ghana, many of whom have been waiting years to emigrate. More here from the WSJ. Lying and making up ghost people to get other permits? Hah….

*** Back in 2004, as a result of the 9/11 Commission Report on the issue of immigration, many robust recommendations were made of which all members of Congress at the time signed off on. They need to be reminded of that, as does the California legislature at a minimum. But going deeper in factual history, others need to be reminded of the following: (In part from Migration Policy dot org.)

Kerry Outlines Ideas on Immigration Reform

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on June 30 announced his platform on immigration reform. In a speech to the National Council of La Raza’s national conference, Kerry said that within 100 days of taking office, he would propose a four-part plan that would give “good people who are undocumented but living here, working here, paying taxes, [and] staying out of trouble . . . a path to equal citizenship.” In addition, he said that immigrants would be required to take civics and English classes. Kerry also promised to sign two bills currently pending in Congress: the AgJobs agricultural worker program, and the DREAM Act, which would allow young, out-of-status immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates while attending college. Both bills create a path for immigrants to eventually receive legal resident status.

In an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo on June 29, Kerry took stances on other immigration-related issues. He stated that granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants violated the spirit of the law, and that immigration authorities had the right to perform raids to capture unauthorized immigrants who had broken other laws. Some analysts believe that Kerry’s comments regarding driver’s licenses could hurt his standing with Latino voters in the election. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reported on July 22 that Kerry currently has a 2 to 1 advantage over his opponent, President George W. Bush, among registered Latino voters.

Hmong Refugees Resettled to the United States

Around 15,000 Hmong refugees are expected to arrive in the United States this year. The first members of the group have already reached the U.S., and up to 3,000 more are expected by the end of August, with the remainder arriving by the end of 2004. The new arrivals fled their native country because of persecution they suffered due to their alliance with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. One third of the refugees will be resettled to Minnesota, a third will be sent to California, and the rest will be distributed among more than a dozen other states. Many of the refugees have been living illegally in a makeshift camp in Thailand, having passed up the opportunity for resettlement to the United States in the 1980s and 1990s as they clung to the hope of returning to Laos. Because the Thai military plans to close the camp by the end of 2004, most residents plan to accept the resettlement opportunity offered by the U.S. Department of State.

The refugees will receive initial assistance from U.S. resettlement agencies, which will help meet basic needs such as housing, school, language, employment, and health services. To fund these services, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on June 24 announced an additional $3.3 million allocation for Hmong resettlement costs. After one year of living in the U.S., refugees can apply to adjust their status to permanent residency and acquire a “green card.” They eventually become eligible for citizenship. In addition, unlike other immigrants, refugees are not barred from receiving welfare benefits in their first seven years of residence in the United States. The next group of Hmong refugees, approximately 2,000 individuals, is expected to arrive by the end of August.

U.S and Mexico Sign Pact on Social Security

The United States and Mexico on June 29 signed a pact enabling Mexican workers in the U.S. and American workers in Mexico to transfer social security benefits across national borders. The pact is similar to international Social Security agreements the U.S. has with Britain and Canada, and allows workers to contribute to only one benefits system at a time. According to estimates by U.S. Social Security officials, only 7,500 U.S. citizens working in Mexico will qualify for retirement benefits, as compared to 41,000 Mexican employees likely to qualify for Social Security in the United States. Even so, the plan will have an initially limited effect because it excludes, unless or until they are legalized, an estimated six to eight million undocumented Mexican workers currently employed in the United States. While the pact will not become law without legislative approval, the United States Congress and the Mexican Senate are expected to pass the measure; U.S. lawmakers have routinely approved similar agreements with 20 other nations. (For more information on International Agreements of the Social Security Administration, see this January 2004 Migration Policy Institute Immigration Fact Sheet)

State Department Halts Mail Renewal of Visas

The Department of State on July 16 stopped accepting applications for mail renewals of visas. Under the new policy, announced on June 23, foreigners who work in the United States must return to U.S. embassies abroad to be interviewed and fingerprinted for visa renewal. The policy, which does not apply to foreign diplomats or employees of international organizations, is part of the U.S. effort to improve border controls after the September 11, 2001 attacks. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated that the switch was made to overseas processing because of the better capacity of U.S. embassies abroad to interview and fingerprint visa applicants. More than 50,000 people from more than 60 countries were processed in 2003.

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.

Trump Signs New Sanctions on Iran

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

For more information on Iran sanctions, go here.

Image result for iran sanctions

U.S. Treasury Department Announces New Sanctions On Iran

NPR: The U.S. Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Iran on Friday, less than a week after a ballistic missile test prompted the Trump administration to accuse Iran of violating an international a weapons agreement.

The newly announced sanctions target people and businesses the U.S. government says support Iran’s ballistic missile program and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, according to a Treasury Department statement. They are in line with previous sanctions, implemented over what then-President Barack Obama called Iran’s “violations of human rights, for its support of terrorism and for its ballistic missile program.”

The acting director of the Treasury unit in charge of sanctions, John Smith, said the latest sanctions do not violate the international nuclear deal reached with Iran in 2015, which required Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some economic sanctions.

A top Treasury Department official tells NPR’s Michele Kelemen that the actions are part of the U.S. efforts to counter Iranian “malign activity abroad.”

The public text of the sanctions lists 12 companies and 13 individuals, blocking assets and prohibiting U.S. citizens from dealing with them. Among the individuals, four are listed as Iranian citizens, two are Lebanese, one is Chinese, and one holds a passport from the island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis. It also announced changes to previous, unrelated sanctions on a 14th individual.

The businesses are based both inside and outside Iran.

According to the Treasury Department, the sanctions target:

“several networks and supporters of Iran’s ballistic missile procurement, including a critical Iranian procurement agent and eight individuals and entities in his Iran- and China-based network, an Iranian procurement company and its Gulf-based network, and five individuals and entities that are part of an Iran-based procurement network.”

Hours before the sanctions were announced, President Trump addressed Iran in a tweet, writing, “Iran is playing with fire — they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!”

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted an hour later that “we will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense.”

***

We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.pic.twitter.com/xwGquvqLvb

Both U.S. and Iranian officials weighed in on whether Sunday’s missile test broke the terms of the nuclear deal.

Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner told The Associated Press on Monday that the U.S. was looking into whether the test violated a 2015 side agreement to the nuclear accord, and that the U.S. would “hold Iran accountable” if it did.

Zarif said Tuesday, that “the missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal.”

National Security Adviser Mike Flynn said a day later that former President Barack Obama had gone too easy on Iran, but that “as of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

Flynn also listed the administration’s grievances with Tehran, including its test of a ballistic missile and what he said were attacks by proxy forces in Yemen on U.S. and Middle Eastern ships, as we reported.

One of the incidents he appeared to be referring to occurred in October 2016, when U.S. Navy ships off Yemen’s southwestern coast came under missile attacks twice in four days.

According to the Pentagon, the missiles came from an area controlled by Houthi forces, who are fighting against the government of Yemen and who the U.S. government says are backed by the Iranian government, which is supplying weapons to the rebel group.

But it was unclear who ordered October’s missile launches, as NPR’s Philip Ewing reported. Houthi leaders denied the attacks, and Tehran has denied U.S. accusations that Iran is supporting Houthi forces. Nonetheless, the U.S. carried out airstrikes against what the Pentagon said were radar installations in Houthi-controlled areas.

In December, Congress extended U.S. sanctions against Iran originally imposed in 1996 until 2026.

Homeland Security Protection Measures on the Move

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

These legislative actions have long been sitting on desk tops waiting for the right moment to introduce and pass, now over to the Senate. When fully passed, it will be a great launch of additional security for the new DHS Secretary, John Kelly.

House Passes 17 Sweeping Bipartisan Bills to Enhance Homeland Security

Assuring that the “House Committee on Homeland Security continues its efforts to shield the homeland and protect Americans right out of the gate in the 115th Congress,” committee chairman Michael McCaul’s (R-TX) office said Tuesday “the House passed 17 Committee bills that touch on a wide array of homeland security issues—from the security of our border, transportation and cyber networks, to counterterrorism, first responder capabilities and ensuring the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] runs efficiently.

“The 17 bills that passed the House today are all unified in their purpose to better protect our homeland and our people,” McCaul said in a statement, noting, “These bills improve our border security, transportation security and cybersecurity defenses, enhance first responder capabilities and streamline the management efficiency of [DHS]. My committee is working to get common sense legislation signed into law as soon as possible and make our country safer by doing so.”

Six of the bills passed Tuesday were sponsored by Democrats, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, pointed out.

Thompson said his legislation, the “Department of Homeland Security Clearance Management and Administration Act … which previously passed the House in 2015, makes specific reforms in how DHS identifies positions that warrant clearances, how it investigates and homeland security manages its security clearance processes. Specifically, it addresses dates for clearances, and how it administers its adjudications, denials, suspensions, revocations and appeals processes.”

“This legislation … seeks to improve how DHS manages its clearance process at all stages—from decisions on whether to designate positions as requiring clearances to ensuring uniformity in how clearances are adjudicated, suspended, denied and revoked. My bill will make DHS a leader among federal agencies with respect to security clearance and position designations practices. It is critical we put DHS on a path to right-sizing the number of classified positions in its workforce. I thank my colleagues for supporting it and urge the Senate to recognize the necessity to pass this legislation.”

The 17 passed by the full House include:

The DHS Acquisition Documentation Integrity Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ). It would require the DHS Secretary to request component heads to maintain specific types of acquisition documentation.

The DHS Stop Asset and Vehicle Excess (SAVE) Act, introduced by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), would direct the Under Secretary for Management of the Department of Homeland Security to make certain improvements in managing DHS’s vehicle fleet.

The Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under existing grant guidance authorizing the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity and mass prophylaxis capabilities.

The Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would strengthen accountability for deployment of border security technology at DHS and for other purposes.

The Counterterrorism Advisory Board Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), would establish a board in the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and integrate departmental intelligence, activities, and policy related to counterterrorism.

The Transit Security Grant Program Flexibility Act, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), would clarify certain allowable uses of funds for public transportation security assistance grants and establish periods of performance for such grants, and for other purposes.

The Cyber Preparedness Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), would enhance preparedness and response capabilities for cyberattacks and bolsters the sharing of information related to cyber threats.

The United States-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), would establish a grant program at DHS to promote cooperative research and development between the United States and Israel on cybersecurity.

The Fusion Center Enhancement Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), would enhance the partnership between DHS and the National Network of Fusion Centers.

The Securing the Cities Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY) would establish the Securing the Cities program, which will enhance the ability of the United States to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and other high consequence events utilizing nuclear or other radiological materials that pose a high risk to homeland security in high-risk urban areas.

The Airport Perimeter and Access Control Security Act, introduced by Rep. William Keating (D-MA), would require the Transportation Security Administration to update risk assessments at airports—specifically along airport perimeters and points of access to secure areas—and report to Congress strategic plans to increase security measures.

The Department of Homeland Security Insider Threat and Mitigation Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), would require the DHS Secretary to establish an insider threat program within the department.

The CBRN Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear intelligence and information sharing functions of DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and to require dissemination of information analyzed by the department to entities with responsibilities relating to homeland security.

The Department of Homeland Security Support to Fusion Centers Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would require an assessment of fusion center personnel needs.

The First Responder Access to Innovative Technologies Act, introduced by Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-NJ), reported this week by Homeland Security Today, would direct FEMA to develop a uniform process for reviewing grant applications seeking to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed applicable national voluntary consensus standards using funds from the Urban Area Security Initiative or the State Homeland Security Grant Program.

The Gains in Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Act, introduced by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), would direct DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to develop and maintain documentation that provides information on how the Office’s research investments align with gaps in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture and the research challenges identified by the DNDO Director.

The Department of Homeland Security Clearance Management and Administration Act, introduced by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), would improve the management and administration of the security clearance processes throughout DHS.

The House also passed the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations Act sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).

*** When it comes to cyber and cyber protections, things are not so rosy.

The extent to which the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) has taken steps to perform each of its 11 statutorily required cybersecurity functions — such as being a federal civilian interface for sharing cybersecurity-related information with federal and nonfederal entities — the degree to which the center has adhered to the 9 principles required by the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 to perform its cybersecurity functions “is unclear because the center has not yet determined the applicability of the principles to all 11 functions, or established metrics and methods by which to evaluate its performance against the principles,” according to new Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit report.

NCCIC manages programs that provide data used in developing 43 products and services in support of its functions, including monitoring network traffic entering and exiting federal agency networks, and analyzing computer network vulnerabilities and threats. NCCIC products and services also are provided to its customers in the private sector; federal, state, local, tribal and territorial government entities; and other partner organizations. For example, NCCIC issues indicator bulletins, which can contain information related to cyber threat indicators, defensive measures and cybersecurity risks and incidents, and help to fulfill its function to coordinate the sharing of such information across the government.

GAO reported it “identified instances where NCCIC had implemented its functions in accordance with one or more of the principles. For example, consistent with the principle that it seek and receive appropriate consideration from industry sector-specific, academic, and national laboratory expertise, NCCIC coordinated with contacts from industry, academia and the national laboratories to develop and disseminate vulnerability alerts.”

But, “On the other hand,” GAO said it “also identified instances where the cybersecurity functions were not performed in accordance with the principles. For example, NCCIC is to provide timely technical assistance, risk management support and incident response capabilities to federal and nonfederal entities; however, it had not established measures or other procedures for ensuring the timeliness of these assessments. Until NCCIC determines the applicability of the principles to its functions and develops metrics and methods to evaluate its performance against the principles, the center cannot ensure that it is effectively meeting its statutory requirements.”

GAO said it further “identified factors that impede NCCIC’s ability to more efficiently perform several of its cybersecurity functions. For example, NCCIC officials were unable to completely track and consolidate cyber incidents reported to the center, thereby inhibiting its ability to coordinate the sharing of information across the government. Similarly, NCCIC may not have ready access to the current contact information for all owners and operators of the most critical cyber-dependent infrastructure assets. This lack could impede timely communication with them in the event of a cyber incident.”

GAO warned that, “Until NCCIC takes steps to overcome these impediments, it may not be able to efficiently perform its cybersecurity functions and assist federal and nonfederal entities in identifying cyber-based threats, mitigating vulnerabilities and managing cyber risks.”

In its written comments on a draft of GAO’s audit, DHS concurred with all nine recommendations.

DHS “also provided details about steps that it plans to take to address each of the recommendations, including estimated time frames for completion. If effectively implemented, these actions should enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of NCCIC in performing its statutory requirements,” GAO reported.

To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, GAO recommended that the DHS Secretary take the following nine actions:

Determine the extent to which the statutorily required implementing principles apply to NCCIC’s cybersecurity functions.

Develop metrics for assessing adherence to applicable principles in carrying out statutorily required functions.

Establish methods for monitoring the implementation of cybersecurity functions against the principles on an ongoing basis.

Integrate information related to security incidents to provide management with more complete information about NCCIC operations.

Determine the necessity of reducing, consolidating, or modifying the points of entry used to communicate with NCCIC to better ensure that all incident tickets are logged appropriately.

Develop and implement procedures to perform regular reviews of customer information to ensure that it is current and reliable.

Take steps to ensure the full representation of the owners and operators of the nation’s most critical cyber-dependent infrastructure assets.

Establish plans and time frames for consolidating or integrating the legacy networks used by NCCIC analysts to reduce the need for manual data entry.

Identify alternative methods to collaborate with international partners, while ensuring the security requirements of high-impact systems.

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.