Pelosi/Schumer Against Wall, Why? Quanergy Systems

This could be the real ah hah!

A stealth wall and they are tapping Pelosi and Schumer:

And how cool is it that Quanergy completed Series C financing with a valuation surpassing $2 BILLION only happened last October. Really? Yuppers and an IPO process is on track. It is all about Silicon Valley and we know those pesky democrats are quite tied, obligation and dependent on Silicon Valley money.

A stealth wall? A digital wall? A virtual wall? Yuppers again.

You see Silicon Valley wants Nancy and all the other democrats to win over this wall debate and not Trump. Other companies include advances in artificial intelligence, digital cameras, lidar, advanced and surveillance technology.

Oh wait there is more. We have yet another company called Anduril. The founder of Anduril is Palmer Luckey who built a a virtual reality enterprise and sold it to who? Oh—–> FACEBOOK in 2014 for a mere $2BILLION.

Okay, how about Cogniac? Well they offer technology identifying people and objects in digital images and cameras.

Okay, I am all for VERY advanced technology and this could be a real prudent solution to several variations of miles along our southern border.

This all seems to go back as far as 2008 and lil Ms. Nancy was on board back then.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called upon Silicon Valley leaders on Monday to send Washington their ideas on how the United States can reverse global warming, improve education and health care and rebuild U.S. infrastructure.

‘We have to pass this planet on to the next generation better than we found it,’ she told a meeting of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which celebrated its 30th anniversary in Santa Clara Convention Center with coffee and cake for several hundred people. ‘I will compete with any initiative anyone wants to put forward for funding.’

The group was founded by David Packard in 1978 as the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group. Packard wanted to improve the region’s economy and quality of life, and the group started with 33 companies. It has evolved into a policymaking forum for 260 companies that tackle issues of global importance.

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, was one of a many speakers who talked Monday about how the country can stay competitive in the global economy. She got a standing ovation as she took the stage.

She called for ‘a massive infusion of resources’ into basic biomedical research, investment in electronic health records, preventive medical care and innovations in green technology to create American jobs.

She also called on Silicon Valley leaders to follow in the footsteps of Presidents Thomas Jefferson, who built roads and canals through the territories of the Louisiana Purchase, and Theodore Roosevelt, who established the national park system.

‘We have a responsibility to build infrastructure in America … and to do it in a green way and think in an entrepreneurial way,’ she said. ‘Our competitors are way ahead of us on this.’

The group also heard from U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; George Miller, D-Martinez; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who is working on a bill to help the United States retain talented immigrants who graduate from American universities. ‘Why send them home to compete with us when they could be part of our team?’ Lofgren asked.

Bill Watkins, chief executive officer of Seagate Technology in Scotts Valley Santa Cruz County, said the United States and California in particular has to improve its schools and provide health insurance for children. ‘We have the best military in the world because someone sticks up and demands it,’ he said. ‘People in this room need to start demanding the best education system.’

Other speakers included Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, and venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who called on companies to contribute to his Middle School Math Initiative, which trains teachers to teach math, by adopting at least one school in Silicon Valley for $5,000 a piece. ‘If these kids don’t have a math ‘Aha!’ moment, we’re going to lose them,’ he said.

Not to be left out is Senator Kamala Harris and her overwhelming admiration for social planning by the ‘Valley’.

President Trump is not against advanced technology along the border either, in fact he has said there should be various types of barriers and technology where feasible. Of note, Quanergy Systems is constructing a pilot program applying lidar border security along the India-Pakistan border. The founder of Quanergy, Mr. Eldada declares that concrete walls are an eyesore and they intrude on the environmental landscape impeding the free movement of wildlife.

The time is now to get on with the solution to the government shutdown and begin the pilot programs at our border with perhaps variations of technology and concrete…at least Pelosi and Schumer should go through those open doors and the White House and get on with it all.

Meanwhile, Some Interesting Items in the El Chapo Trial Revealed

First, the judge in the case had to essentially shut down one particular witness as he explained the bribes and payoffs to Mexican officials, top Mexican law enforcement officers and even the president elect of Mexico. Ruh roh….lots of money, lots of bribes and lots of denials. So…the judge had to hold and redact some testimony on sidebars to keep it from the jury.

US trial to tell epic tale of Mexican drug lord "El Chapo ...

“I’m not sure, but it was a few million dollars,” Zambada Garcia replied. “It was paid to him because it was said he was going to be the next secretary of security, and if so it would be for our protection.”

Within minutes, Gabriel Regino Garcia, a professor of criminology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, tweeted out a fierce denial.

“It’s false that during my exercise of public service, I received any bribe from on behalf of the witness Jesus Zambada,” he wrote.

Lopez Obrador is the president-elect of Mexico.

It’s not the first time Guzman’s lawyers have sought to paint Mexican politicians as corrupt, nor fought with the court over what role that alleged corruption can play in their case. Defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman was warned to steer clear of it in the second half of his opening statements last week, and Cogan ruled to curtail what Purpura could ask about corruption Tuesday in his cross-examination of Zambada Garcia.

“Individuals and entities who are not party to this case would face embarrassment and harassment if this information were made public,” Cogan told the court Tuesday morning. He ruled that the entire half-hour sidebar would be kept out of the public record, and that prosecutor’s motion to exclude such testimony would be redacted before it was entered. More here.

***

“I worked for the Sinaloa cartel,” Miguel Ángel Martínez told federal jurors in a Brooklyn courtroom. Then he identified the man he said gave him orders for moving billions of dollars in narcotics. “I worked for Mr. Joaquín Guzmán.”

Martínez outlined the cartel’s inner workings, testifying that Guzmán negotiated an ownership and profits split with Colombian drug leaders who contracted with him to fly cocaine from secret South America airstrips to similar landing spots in Mexico.

The drugs were then smuggled across the Mexico-U.S. border to Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, Martínez said.

The defense has claimed that Martínez and other cooperating government witnesses are liars who would say anything in exchange for legal leniency.

Martínez said the cartel sought to avoid investigators by using secret codes. Talk of having a party tonight, he said, “meant get the planes ready.”

Vino — wine — meant jet fuel. Read more here.

***

Martinez said he began working for Guzman as a pilot and as a guide to other pilots on drug flights in 1987. He said one of the pilots he assisted that year, on a flight carrying 170 kilograms (375 lbs) of cocaine, claimed he had flown in the U.S. Navy.

Martinez said he was soon relieved of his pilot duties after damaging a propeller in a botched landing with Guzman on board. Guzman, he recalled, told him he was a “really bad pilot” and sent him instead to Mexico City to open an office for the cartel.

Posing as attorneys, Martinez said, he and others at the office directed bribes to government officials so the cartel could operate undisturbed. The beneficiaries included a high-ranking police official, Guillermo Calderoni, who fed Guzman information about law enforcement activities “every day,” Martinez said.

In the 1990s, Martinez said, U.S. authorities became more capable of intercepting planes, and Guzman and his Colombian suppliers largely switched to using fishing and merchant ships.

***

A diamond-encrusted pistol that government witness Jesús Zambada said belonged to the accused Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman

Blinged-out weaponry

El Chapo’s reputed extravagance extended even to his extensive collection of weaponry, the trial has heard.

Among his prized possessions were a diamond-encrusted, monogrammed pistol and a gold-plated AK-47.

328 million lines of coke

Assistant US Attorney Adam Fels said in his opening argument that El Chapo had sent “more than a line of cocaine for every single person in the United States” – in just four of his shipments.

That amounts to over 328 million lines of cocaine, said the prosecutor.

Mr Zambada said that once, in 1994, Mr Guzmán gave the order to sink a boat carrying 20 tonnes of cocaine to evade authorities.

Bazooka target practice

The court also heard that Mr Guzmán once used a bazooka for target practice – to relax on a family holiday.

Mr Zambada said El Chapo took the anti-tank rocket launcher with him on a trip with relatives in 2005.

He decided to “test out” the weapon after the group had finished target practice with assault rifles, according to the witness.

A $50m bribe fund

Some of the biggest news from testimony was how the Sinaloa cartel allegedly paid off a host of top Mexican officials to ensure their drug business ran smoothly.

Mr Zambada said the traffickers had $50m (£39m) in protection money for former Mexican Secretary of Public Security García Luna, so that corrupt officers would be appointed to head police operations.

Mr Zambada said he gave the money to Mr Luna in briefcases full of cash. Mr Luna has denied the allegations.

When former Mexico City Mayor Gabriel Regino was in line to become the next secretary of security, Mr Zambada says the cartel bribed him, too.

Mr Regino, who is now a professor, has also denied the claims.

‘Narco-saint’ at court

A 6in (15cm) figurine of a folk hero dubbed the narco-saint has been spotted on a shelf in a conference room used by the defendant’s lawyers at the court, the New York Post reported .

The statue of Jesús Malverde , which has him seated on a purple throne with bags of cash, appeared on Wednesday, one of El Chapo’s lawyers told the newspaper.

Jesús Malverde has been celebrated as a Robin Hood-type hero who, legend says, stole from the rich and gave to the poor in the early 1900s.

*** Así es la pistola con incrustaciones en diamantes que ...

It could be said that two separate trials are taking place, side by side, these days in Room 8D of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

At the actual trial, the United States government is prosecuting Joaquín Guzmán Loera, who is accused of being one of the world’s biggest drug dealers. Widely known as El Chapo, Mr. Guzmán, prosecutors say, earned as much as $14 billion as head of the Sinaloa drug cartel — a fortune he is said to have protected with rampant payoffs and an army of professional assassins.

But at a second trial of sorts, Mr. Guzmán’s lawyers are, in essence, prosecuting the government of Mexico. By their account, the country’s police and politicians not only are corrupt, but also have conspired for years with Mr. Guzmán’s partner, Ismael Zambada García, to target El Chapo in exchange for a flood of bribes.

 

400 Left the Caravan and Arrive in Tijuana

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.

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.

Offensive Details in Response to the US Mexican Border

In April, the Trump White House and the Pentagon authorized and deployed 2100 National Guard personnel to the Southern border region to provide support to Border Patrol. Most states complied with this order.

Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security requested 800 military personnel from the Pentagon for additional support. That request was granted. Most will come from Ft. Stewart and include, engineers, communications, logistical personnel, aviation, medical and intelligence personnel.

Since it was reported in the last few days, some migrants from the caravan broke through the barriers between Mexico and Guatemala and there is at least two more emerging caravans being mobilized.

The United States is not taking any chances of migrant cells breaking off and scattering to other barrier locations that would allow them to advance to the United States border with Mexico.

Immigrant caravan sets up camp along the Mexican border | Daily Mail Online

There are several envoys, media and intelligence operations occurring in at least four countries, including Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The mission is to perform checks and balances on human rights violations, human trafficking, mules and drug cartels as well as gangs. Additionally, information is being gathered on the organizers of the caravans and the money flow as well as the operations for meeting places, brochures and planning.

The Trump White House along with the Department of Justice and the lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security are meeting to determine the legal moves that can be authorized to close the border, stop all asylees and refugees for a time period. An announcement is pending on this order.

Just breaking is the Pentagon has authorized with the President another 5000 US troops to be deployed to the Southern border. The deployment package is for support personnel and NOT combat troops. This translates to more medical personnel, aviation operations and engineers. Truck loads of vehicles, barriers, tents and other national security threat operations gear.

This is purely an offensive posture and not a military hostilities operation.

You can bet progressive organizations have teamed with lawyers and are ready to strike with lawsuits filed in the 9th Circuit. So far however the Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s previous similar actions.

“The administration is considering a wide range of administrative, legal and legislative options to address the Democrat-created crisis of mass illegal immigration,” a White House official said. “No decisions have been made at this time. Nor will we forecast to smugglers or caravans what precise strategies will or will not be deployed.”

But hold on….the UN wants to interfere too.

UNHCR spokesman Andrej Mahecic told VOA his agency has alerted countries along the caravan’s route that it is likely to include people in real danger.

“Our position globally is that the individuals who are fleeing persecution and violence need to be given access to territory and protection including refugee status and determination procedure. And, if the people who are fleeing persecution and violence enter Mexico, they need to be provided access to the Mexican asylum system and those entering the United States need to be provided access to the American asylum system,” he said.

Mahecic said the UNHCR is very concerned about the developing humanitarian situation along the migratory route. He said there are kidnapping and security risks in the areas where the caravan may be venturing.

Notice the UNHCR never did a blasted thing then or now in those countries where instability and peril is common, including Venezuela.

 

Well, the Report Declares 22 Million Not 11 Million Illegals

State by State: The Cost of Illegal Immigration ...

Foreign nationals are increasingly gaining the ability to influence American elections more directly. They’re being granted the right to vote.

From Boston, where the city council is debating the move, to San Francisco, where noncitizens gained the right earlier this month in school-board elections, jurisdictions are looking to expand the boundaries of the electorate beyond its citizens.

***

Primer: This was compiled by Yale and MIT. Have you considered how many U.S. House Representatives exist from districts where illegals and foreign nationals are the majority? 20? 10? 40?

Context: The Democrats on the Dreamer thing were and are willing to sacrifice the interests of 325 million Americans in order to gain unconditional amnesty for 3.4 million illegal aliens.

The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016

In part: Our analysis has two main outputs. First, we generate what we call our conservative estimate, using parameter values that intentionally underestimate population inflows and overestimate population outflows, leading to estimates that will tend to underestimate the number of undocumented immigrants. Our conservative estimate for 2016 is 16.7 million, well above the estimate that is most widely accepted at present, which is for 2015 but should be comparable. Our model as well as most work in the literature indicates that the population size has been relatively stable since 2008; thus 2015 and 2016 are quite comparable. For our second step, recognizing that there is significant uncertainty about population flows, we simulate our model over a wide range of values for key parameters. These parameter values range from very conservative estimates to standard values in the literature. We sample values for each key parameter from uniform distributions over the ranges we establish. In our simulations, we also include Poisson population uncertainty conditional on parameter values, thus addressing the inherent variability in population flows. Our simulation results produce probability distributions over the number of undocumented immigrants for each year from 1990 to 2016. The results demonstrate that our conservative estimate falls towards the bottom of the probability distribution, at approximately the 2.5th percentile. The mean of the 2016 distribution is 22.1 million, which we take as the best overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants based on our modeling approach and current data. We also show the variability in our model based on the simulations for each year from 1990 through 2016.

***

Population inflows

Population inflows are decomposed into two streams: (I) undocumented immigrants who initially entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas; and (II) immigrants who have illegally crossed the border without being apprehended. We describe our approach for each source, explain the basis for our assumptions and why they are conservative, and list parameter ranges for the simulation.

(I) Visa overstays are estimated using Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data for 2016, the first year for which visa overstays were comprehensively measured [5]. To apply this data in our context we also gather data for non-immigrant visas issued for all years from 1990 [6]. For our conservative estimate we assume that for each year the rate of overstays was equal to the 2016 rate. Calibration of our model shows that this assumption is in fact quite conservative. In particular, approximately 41% of undocumented immigrants based on the current survey data approach are visa overstayers [7], which translates to a visa overstay population of 4.6 million in 2015. Our model however predicts the number of overstayers to be less than this (even though our overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants is higher). That is, in our model most undocumented immigrants are not overstayers, and the model produces an estimate of the number of overstayers below the estimate produced in the conventional approach based on survey data. We compute that we would need to set the visa overstay rate above the DHS 2016 rate, specifically 1.1 times that rate, for our conservative estimate to generate as many overstayers as the 4.6 million in the 11.3 million estimate. Since many overstayers leave or adjust their status within a few months of their visa expiration date, we make a further conservative adjustment and count as overstayers only those individuals who have overstayed more than 1 year. For the simulation, we set the visa overstay rate equal to the 2016 rate multiplied by a uniform draw from the range [0.5,1.5]; consistent with the discussion above, this is a relatively conservative range.

(II) Illegal Border Crossers: We estimate illegal border crossers through application of the standard repeated trials (capture-recapture) model [810]. The model requires as inputs statistics on the total number of border apprehensions, the number of individuals apprehended more than once in a year (recidivist apprehensions), and estimates of the deterrence rate—the fraction of individuals who give up after being apprehended and do not attempt another crossing. Given these inputs, the repeated trials model generates estimates of: (i) the apprehension rate—the probability an individual is caught trying to cross the border; and (ii) the total number of individuals who are not apprehended (they may be caught one or more times but cross successfully on a later attempt) and enter the interior of the country illegally—the number of illegal border crossers in a year. We discuss data sources and potential weaknesses of this approach here; more information and mathematical details are provided in the Supporting Information.

DHS [10, 11] provide figures for the total number of border apprehensions for every year in our timespan. They also provide information on the number of recidivist apprehensions and estimates of the deterrence rate for every year from 2005. Based on these figures and estimates they provide an estimate of the apprehension rate for each year from 2005 to 2015. Their estimate is 35% for 2005 and increases steadily, to above 50% by the end of the sample period. From their estimates we are able to derive directly estimates of the number of illegal border crossers for each of these years. For earlier years (1990 to 2004) we must make further assumptions. Our assumptions are about the apprehension and deterrence rates, since these have been addressed in the literature; in turn we are able to generate estimates of the number of illegal border crossers in earlier years based on these assumptions (see the Supporting Information for analytic details).

Most experts agree that the apprehension rate was significantly lower in earlier years [12, 13]. A recent study [12] using data from the Mexican Migration Project estimates this rate for every year from 1990 to 2010; estimates in the 1990’s begin from the low twenties and range upwards to approximately 30%. A second study estimates the rate for 2003 at around 20% [13]. Given these estimates, and the general view that apprehension rates have risen, for our conservative estimate we assume that the apprehension rate in years 1990-2004 was equal to the average rate in years 2005-10 or 39%; this is well above the rates discussed in the literature for earlier years and thus tends to reduce our estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants since it implies a larger fraction are apprehended at the border. For our simulation we assume a uniform distribution over the range [0.25,0.40] for the earlier years, still above the average rates in the literature for these years.

Additional facts support the view that the apprehension rate has increased in recent years. The number of border agents has increased dramatically over the timespan of our analysis [14], and the number of hours spent by border agents patrolling the immediate border area has increased by more than 300% between 1992- 2004 [15]. Further, new infrastructure (e.g., fences) and technologies (e.g., night vision equipment, sensors, and video imaging systems) were also introduced during this period [15]. Thus the apprehension rate we use for earlier years almost certainly overstates the actual apprehension rate and therefore underestimates the number of successful crossings. However, we note that these additional border resources may have been concentrated in certain locations and it remains a possibility that apprehension rates were higher in earlier years. We note finally that in using data only on Southern Border crossings we again are conservative in our approach, not accounting for illegal crossings along other borders.

Notwithstanding our view that we make conservative choices in setting up our model and parameter values, we acknowledge that border apprehension rates for the 1990’s are not based on as well-developed data sources as estimates for more recent years. Thus it remains a possibility that these rates are higher than we believe. One aspect of this uncertainty concerns deterrence. When deterrence is higher border crossings will fall. Most researchers believe deterrence has increased in recent years [8, 12]. We note that reference [12] estimates that the probability of eventual entry after multiple attempts on a single trip in the 1990s is close to one, indicating almost no deterrence in the earlier period. One piece of evidence in support of this is data on the voluntary return rate, which refers to the percentage of individuals apprehended at the border who are released back to their home country without going through formal removal proceedings and not being subjected to further penalties. Voluntary returns are thus not “punished” and thus are less likely to be deterred from trying to cross the border in the future, compared with individuals who are subjected to stronger penalties. The voluntary return rate has fallen in recent years, from 98% between 2000 and 2004 to 84% between 2005 and 2010. Thus, at least based on this measure deterrence efforts have increased. However, this does not conclusively demonstrate that deterrence was lower in earlier years and it remains a possibility that it was higher, which would tend to reduce our estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants. In conclusion we note that although there is much uncertainty about the border apprehension rate, it would have to be very high, above 60% for earlier years, in order to generate estimates of the 2015 population of undocumented immigrants in the range of the current widely accepted estimate of just over 11 million (this is based on analyzing our model using the conservative estimate values for all other parameters). This seems implausible based on our reading of the literature.

Population outflows

Population outflows are broken into four categories: (I) voluntary emigration; (II) mortality; (III) deportation; and (IV) change of status from unauthorized to lawful.

(I) Voluntary emigration rates are the largest source of outflow and the most uncertain based on limited data availability. It is well accepted that voluntary emigration rates decline sharply with time spent in the country [16]; thus we employ separate emigration rates for those who have spent one year or less in the U.S., 2-10 years, or longer. We use the following values for our conservative estimate. First, for those who have spent one year or less we assume a voluntary emigration rate of 40%. This estimate is based on data for the first-year visa overstay exit rate (the fraction of overstayers who left the country within one year from the day their visa expired) for 2016 [17], which is in the lower thirty percent range (the rate for 2015 is similar). We note that the rate for visa overstayers is very likely a substantial overestimate for illegal border crossers, who are widely viewed as having a lower likelihood of exiting in the first year, especially in more recent years [12]. The 40% first-year emigration rate that we assume is well above the standard values in the literature [4, 12, 16, 18], which range from 1% to 25%. Hence this assumption contributes to making our estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country a conservative one. For years 2-10 we assume a rate of 4% per year. This is the upper bound among estimates in the literature, which lie between 0.01 to 0.04 [4, 16, 18]. Lastly, for years 10 and above, published estimates of the emigration rate typically fall around 1%; we set this rate to 1% per year in line with these estimates. Note that given the extremely high 40% emigration rate that we assume for those who have only been in the country for one year or less, overall annual emigration rates in our model simulation are significantly higher than those found in the literature or government sources. To further enhance the conservatism of our model, we assume that all undocumented immigrants present at the beginning of 1990 have been here for only one year. Read the whole report here.