Saturday, March 25, 2017

Treason Bar Sets Their Sights On Expedited Removal

Expedited Removal, the legal and due process used to remove certain classifications of illegal aliens has been targeted by the Treason Bar and the usual suspects. After the milquetoast Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security John Kelly announced new initiatives and rollbacks of certain Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty policies, it came to the attention of the Treason Bar that Secretary Kelly had the intention of fully implementing all the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)which created Expedited Removal.  It should be plainly stated that Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama failed to fulfil their duty to see that Expedited Removal was fully implemented.  All three Presidents administered their own Administrative Amnesty on the issue in violation of their Oath of Office to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully executed.

Because of this constitutional failure, President Trump and Secretary Kelly have decided to see that IIRIRA will be fully implemented, including Expedited Removal.  The Treason Bar has declared that to be unacceptable and the Treason Bar is now judge shopping to see that the expansion of Expedited Removal is stopped.

The Trump administration’s plan for putting hundreds of thousands of recent migrants in the country illegally onto a fast track for deportation is likely to trigger the next major legal battle over immigration enforcement...
But the administration’s efforts to step up immigration enforcement and streamline deportation — outlined in memos from Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly — could affect far more people, including potentially most of the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.
One part of that effort — the expanded use of what the law refers to as expedited removal — is almost certain to face a constitutional challenge in the courts.
[Trump's Fast-Track Deportations Face A Legal Hurdle: Do Unauthorized Immigrants Have A Right To A Hearing Before A Judge?, by David Savage, LAT, March 22, 2017]

Sounds like David Savage is an advocate, not a reporter.  Contact him here.

To speed up deportations, Kelly proposed to use expedited removal, with no hearings before a judge, for those immigrants who cannot prove they “have been continuously present in the United States for a two-year period” prior to their arrest. The new procedures would not be limited to border areas and could be used to deport immigrants living in the interior of the country.
Kelly said the law since 1996 has authorized the government to “remove aliens expeditiously,” and he said his agents “shall make full use of these authorities.”
Immigrants rights advocates voiced alarm. The American Immigration Council said this approach means a Homeland Security agent “operates as prosecutor and judge and often arrests an individual and orders him or her deported on the same day...” 
Civil liberties lawyers also call that proposal unconstitutional, and they expect to sue if the Trump administration puts the new policy into effect.
“We believe ‘expedited removal’ fails to afford a meaningful opportunity to defend oneself, and that, whatever its validity when employed at the border, it would be unconstitutional as applied to those living among us who are entitled to full due process protection,” said David D. Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.

And they will be hanging their hats on "due process of law." Which appears to mean a right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that immigrants, even those who are here illegally, are protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law...
But how much process is due for immigrants who entered illegally or overstayed their visas remains “a gray area,” said UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura.
“It’s possible that a court might find that a full immigration court hearing isn’t constitutionally required,” he said. But it is also possible “that a single field agent making the decision is constitutionally deficient.”

Embarrassingly, the "law professor" and the Treason Bar wailing that one immigration officer can deport someone is without basis in fact.

The process of Expedited Removal, or ER as it is commonly referred to by DHS employees, is not one person making a decision, but three, at least "single field agent" making the finding, then a review by two levels of supervisor.

And here it is in writing, the actual procedure followed by an immigration officer of any component of DHS:

(2) Determination of inadmissibility. (i) Record of proceeding. An alien who is arriving in the United States, or other alien as designated pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, who is determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act (except an alien for whom documentary requirements are waived under § 211.1(b)(3) or § 212.1 of this chapter), shall be ordered removed from the United States in accordance with section 235(b)(1) of the Act. In every case in which the expedited removal provisions will be applied and before removing an alien from the United States pursuant to this section, the examining immigration officer shall create a record of the facts of the case and statements made by the alien. This shall be accomplished by means of a sworn statement using Form I-867AB, Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act. The examining immigration officer shall read (or have read) to the alien all information contained on Form I-867A. Following questioning and recording of the alien's statement regarding identity, alienage, and inadmissibility, the examining immigration officer shall record the alien's response to the questions contained on Form I-867B, and have the alien read (or have read to him or her) the statement, and the alien shall sign and initial each page of the statement and each correction. The examining immigration officer shall advise the alien of the charges against him or her on Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and the alien shall be given an opportunity to respond to those charges in the sworn statement. After obtaining supervisory concurrence in accordance with paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the examining immigration shall serve the alien with Form I-860 and the alien shall sign the reverse of the form acknowledging receipt. Interpretative assistance shall be used if necessary to communicate with the alien...
(7) Review of expedited removal orders. Any removal order entered by an examining immigration officer pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the Act must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate supervisor before the order is considered final. Such supervisory review shall not be delegated below the level of the second line supervisor, or a person acting in that capacity. The supervisory review shall include a review of the sworn statement and any answers and statements made by the alien regarding a fear of removal or return. The supervisory review and approval of an expedited removal order for an alien described in section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act must include a review of any claim of lawful admission or parole and any evidence or information presented to support such a claim, prior to approval of the order. In such cases, the supervisor may request additional information from any source and may require further interview of the alien.
[8 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 235.3 Inadmissible Aliens and Expedited Removal, Service Law Books, DHS] 

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are the regulations created for each Federal law, the mirroring the appropriate United States Code section on which they are based.  In this case 8 CFR 235.3.  And while only one supervisor is mentioned in the regulations, in practice, all ERs are verbally approved by a second line supervisor as well before the removal is executed.

And this is the due process of law that illegal aliens are receiving now.  Note how the Treason Bar appeared to be conceding that illegal aliens caught at the border might be constitutionally subjected to ER, but other illegal aliens should not be.  Basically the Treason Bar is claiming that the further from the border you are and the longer you remain uncaptured, the more "due process of law" you deserve. That is quite ridiculous.  Due process of law should be the same for each class of aliens.  In this case, aliens with no legal status should have the same due process of law, mere administrative review by a first or second line supervisor. Further appeals have no purpose other than to gum up the works, as certain Mexican politicians are planning.

There is no need for any outside review of any claim by an alien unlawfully present.  Only those admitted in a classification giving the alien the right to remain in the United States on a permanent basis; e.g. legal permanent residents, asylees, and refugees, should have any appeal rights to either an administrative system, such as was the norm before 1983, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the immigration courts, created by administrative fiat in 1983, another reason to criticize Ronald Reagan.

What President Trump should seek is an expansion of Expedited Removal by legislation, then use his administrative authority to close down the EOIR, and recreate the position of Special Inquiry Officer (SIO) to review and adjudicate appeals of removal orders.  In doing so, he will clip the ambitions of EOIR immigration judges, placing them firmly under the control of the Attorney General, or better yet, the Secretary of DHS, with the authority to appoint and remove SIOs at the Secretary's pleasure. Aliens would still have the right to use an attorney to represent himself, but under stricter discipline, the SIOs would be prevented from generally sabotaging immigration hearings as immigration judges do now by repeatedly rescheduling hearings and be required to make decisions immediately after hearing the alien's appeal.  Instead of appeals taking years, they would take no more than a day, but most would be done in hours.  Giving then SIOs the title of "immigration judges" and the permission to wear judicial robes was a major blunder.  Such trappings of judgeship gave these officials delusions of grandeur, which has resulted in ambitions of power and prestige that was inappropriate for a person reviewing the minor facts about a deportation case and alienage.

Time for President Trump to put the minor kritarchs of the EOIR out of business and streamline the immigration appeals system.




Thursday, March 23, 2017

NR's Mona Charen Goes Cultural Marxist On Those Who Oppose Illegal Aliens

Well, National Review has decided to go full Cultural Marxist on amnesty and illegal immigration.  After Heather Wilhelm repeated the Kevin Williamson excuses for illegal immigration and laughable claims about the border fence, Mona Charen, the always dependable leftist at NR, has gone and repeated every left wing talking point and lie about illegal aliens and crime. She even defends by implication letting the illegal alien rapists of a 14 year old girl at the Montgomery County school in the United States as the cost of cheap labor.  Subtitled "We’re against emotionalism, except when we’re not," Charen plays the classic "I'm the moderate, reasonable conservative in this conversation" virtue signalling New York City leftists, apparently so she can continue to get those dinner invitations.

It’s a shame then, that so many conservatives are disregarding the virtues they laud in Gorsuch — prudence, careful weighing of facts, refusal to be swayed by emotional appeals — when it comes to a disturbing story of a rape in Maryland.
[Good, Bad, and Emotional Arguments about Immigration, by Mona Charen, NR, March 22, 2017]

You see, it is only those troglodytes at Breitbart or on Twitter that are emotional about the rape and sodomization of a 14 year old girl by two illegal aliens, one of them obviously too old to be a freshman in a high school.  But that is how Never Trumpers role.  Any issue, including child rape, is to be supported if Donald J. Trump opposes it.  Talk about an emotional rather than prudential response.  One gets the feeling that Charen just doesn't like Americans that much.

Charen has become increasingly unbalanced since the rise of Donald J. Trump and this screed is not surprising.  She becomes a cold hearted witch further in:

Emotional reactions to heinous crimes are completely understandable, but as Judge Gorsuch has properly reminded us, our feelings are not a good guide to justice. Neither are they a prescription for sensible policy. Quite the opposite.

Then she goes from the disgusting to the mere deluded, claiming illegal aliens are better than Americans, since their crime rate is much lower than your average American.  She does not note that American crime statistics are skewed high by predominately black crime. Now pointing that out would certainly end invitations to Manhattan cocktail parties.

There are good and bad arguments against immigration. I am sympathetic to some restrictionist points, but smearing immigrants as out-of-control criminals is shameful. High rates of immigration, legal and illegal, are not associated with spikes in crime. In our recent history, between 1990 and 2013, the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled to 11.2 million. Yet FBI data indicate that the violent-crime rate declined by 48 percent during those years. This included violent crimes like aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Rates of property crime fell by 41 percent, including declining rates of motor-vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary. As a survey by the Cato Institute shows, immigrants — both legal and illegal — are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. And when you exclude those illegal immigrants who are jailed for immigration offenses (i.e., just for being here illegally), the numbers really plunge. 

Of course, you have to ignore the inconvenient immigration related crimes by illegal aliens, which she appears to presume is merely the crime of illegal entry, but does not mention that explicitly.  She does not even think some of those illegal entry crimes are by re-entry by felon or re-entry after a deportation, crimes much more serious that a single illegal entry, so much so that the second crime is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.  In fact, every illegal alien is a criminal, except minors, in that illegal entry is a crime, either by entry without inspection (EWI) or by fraud during inspection and admission.

This myth of the law abiding illegal alien that Charen holds so dear is that, a myth, and something that the radical left loves to claim, like when they claim there are more white American terrorists than Muslim terrorists, usually with the caveat "since 9/11," as if 9/11 was something out of the normal for Muslims.  Similarly Charen says illegals are more law abiding, if you ignore that part that makes them illegal. Charen is part of the Blame America First crowd and the actual evidence of illegal alien crime is quite strong.  Ann Coulter, among others, has debunked Charen's claim not only in her book, Adios America but in this convenient video as well:




The Center For Immigration Studies also debunks the myth of the law abiding illegal alien:

All of these illegal alien apologists acknowledge in one way or another that up to 75 percent of illegal aliens routinely commit multiple felonies by using fraudulent documents in order to get jobs and that eight million of 11 million illegal aliens could be deported for crimes that they commit — forgery, Social Security fraud, perjury on I-9 forms, and even identity theft. All of these are felonies. Despite this, the Wall Street Journal, through fake-news story after fake-news story, continues to deny that illegal aliens commit crimes and continues to push the myth that illegal aliens are law-abiding.
Thus, in order to perpetuate the myth of the law-abiding illegal alien, the Wall Street Journal is forced to distinguish between "serious crimes" and "not serious crimes."
Exactly how the Journal does this is unclear, but it may be that if someone commits a violent act against a Wall Street Journal editorial writer that would be considered a "serious crime." However, if an illegal alien uses "illegal documents" with the personal identifying information of an American child, that would not be a serious crime, as long as it wasn't the editorialist's child, even though the American child's credit could be destroyed, her medical records could be corrupted with life-threatening consequences, arrest records and criminal convictions could be attached to her Social Security number, and she could be denied means-tested benefits.
[Illegal Alien Crime Deniers: Wall Street Journal, By Ronald W. Mortensen, CIS, March 18, 2017]

Charen doesn't get out of the Manhattan elite bubble and is not intellectually curious to know that the scholarly work on illegal alien crime is not as clear cut as she claims.

Illegal immigration and crime became a hot topic this election cycle as soon as Donald Trump burst into the Republican primary with his call to build a wall to keep criminal illegal aliens out of the country. Such policy discussions have fallen by the wayside as the election cycle morphed into a mudslinging fight of personal insults and accusations of sexual assaults, but the link between illegal immigration and crime is still worth discussing, especially since Trump's initial highlighting of the issue fueled his rise.
[9 Things You Need To Know About Illegal Immigration And Crime, by Aaron Bandler, The Daily Wire, October 22, 2016]

And the most trenchant reason is that the government is deliberately not telling us about illegal alien crime:

1. Federal, state and local governments keep data involving illegal immigration and crime out of the public purview. Fox News reported in 2015 that a source from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said "that comprehensive statistics on illegal immigrant crime are not available from the federal government, and suggested contacting county, state and federal jail and prison systems individually to compose a tally, a process that would encompass thousands of local departments."
Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams also told Fox News that some states do readily track illegal immigration and crime, but they withhold the specific numbers from the public out of fear of backlash from the federal government or for political purposes.

So while there may be some debate about illegal alien crime, Charen, for some reason, categorically states there is no problem.  Why? Most likely it is Trump Derangement Syndrome, that something many NR pointy headed intellectuals suffer from.  And they just don't really care about the real American victims of alien crime.  To elites like Charen, you have to break a few eggs to get cheap domestic labor, and maintain your viability and spot on invitation list among the Radical Chic set on the Upper West Side.  Those eggs are raped and murdered Americans.


Brown Run Border, Hispanic Corruption At DHS Continues

Hispanic corruption in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to accelerate.  And the corruption is spreading from the most impacted component, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's two main sub-components, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and the Office of Field Operations. Corruption among Hispanic Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers is rampant and a feature, not a bug of immigration and diversity as this writer has exposed as the Brown Run Border.  Now the corruption is spreading to the more "elite" components of DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

First:

INLAND EMPIRE, Calif. (KGTV)--A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agent from Murrieta was arrested yesterday on charges he helped a foreign national illegally enter the country. 
Felix Cisneros, 42, made his first court appearance Thursday afternoon but was not asked to enter a plea. He'll be released from custody on $300,000 bond tonight.
Cisneros is a 10-year veteran with Homeland Security Investigations in the Inland Empire is accused of allowing a Mexican national who had left the U.S. re-enter the country through Los Angeles International Airport on September 7, 2013 after being asked to do so by the leader of a criminal organization based in Southern California.
[ICE Agent Arrested For Helping Inadmissible Mexican National Into U.S. At LAX, by Sandy Coronilla, KGTV News 10, March 23, 2017]

Then:

A former Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was convicted on multiple counts of bribery, including accepting money and sex in exchange for work authorization papers.
The New Jersey man, Arnaldo Echevarria, worked as a deportation officer and committed the offenses between 2012 and 2014, NJ.com reported. He is charged with making false statements to a jury, harboring an undocumented immigrant, and seven counts of bribery. He was indicted last month.
Echevarria, 39, allegedly accepted up to $75,000 in exchange for getting work authorization for people in the country without proper documentation. He said the people had been granted temporary protected status, which is only available to people who are fleeing armed conflict and other emergency circumstances.
[New Jersey ICE Officer Accepted Sex In Exchange For Work Papers, by Teresa Welsh, McClatchy/Philly.com, March 11, 1017]

When a population from a corrupt and backward society are brought in wholesale to the nation, massive crime problems a consequence.  And when that corrupt population are brought into government, honesty and integrity in government suffers.  Compound that with affirmative action, and the result is an immigration law enforcement agency that is populated by the corrupt population that was brought in and their progeny.



Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Heather Wilhelm Goes All Kevin Williamson On The Border Wall On Behalf Of Illegal Aliens

Just when you thought that the #cuckservatives at NRO had accustomed themselves to winning with Donald J. Trump and joined in the fight against illegal aliens, they go all in with the Democrat talking points.


Heather Wilhelm, Enabler Of Illegal Immigration

Some readers may remember my run-in with NRO's chief #cuckservative and illegal alien cheerleader Kevin Williamson when he was triangulating with Obamaism.  When I exposed his support for Texas supporting illegal aliens being educated and employed in Texas, as well as ridiculing the border wall, he had an effeminate case of the vapors. And he snarks at the border wall, claiming no illegals there as that is where rattlesnakes go to die. [The Forms Of Kanly Shall Be Observed, by Federale, VDare, October 1, 2011 and NRO, RINOs, Illegals And Amnesty, by Federale, VDare, September 25, 2011]  You can also see the smack down's given to Williamson and the #cuckservatives that followed with other VDare writers.  [Kevin Williamson and NRO vs. Federale (And The American People), by James Fulford, VDare, September 28, 2011 and  NRO`s Jay Nordlinger: Patriotic Immigration Reformers “From The Fever Swamps.”, by Patrick Cleburne, VDare, March 14, 2011]


Kevin Williamson, Who Spends Too Much Time At Chipotle

Williamson also gives us the old Democrat laugh line, are you going to build it in the middle of the Rio Grand?  Well, Heather Wilhelm brings up that old line in opposition to a border fence.

Here things get goofy: Where will the river portion of the wall go? On the Texan side of the Rio Grande, effectively blocking off river access and views? Down the middle of the river, just to be fair? Right through a hidden gem of a national park, which borders two massive Mexican conservation tracts and boasts daunting natural boundaries on either side?
[Trump’s Wall Meets Texas’s Biggest National Park, by Heather Wilhelm, NR, March 22, 2017]

Wilhelm pathetic laugh line is part of a larger screed against the wall and by implication immigration law enforcement.  Her main theme is that a wall will ruin the Big Bend National Park.  Strange to single out the Big Bend portion of the wall for such criticism when most of the wall will be built along the other 1,500 miles of the border with Mexico, most of which is neither scenic nor difficult to build on.  The Big Bend Park is the most inaccessible and most difficult part of the border to cross, the Rio Grand had created a miniature Grand Canyon there, with the river deep in ravines dug over the eons into soft and dangerous to climb sheer walls.  Not many illegals will be trying to cross there. Which makes Wilhelm's concern so curious.

Curious because she then claims the wall can't be built because of concerns over eminent domain. Apparently that is another excuse for not building the wall.  Property owners will tie up the project in the courts.  Well, unlikely.  The private property on the Texas side of the Rio Grand is for the most part worthless.  Most is covered in dense cottonwood trees, other scrub trees, and bushes.  Houses built there are mostly abandoned and used now for drug and illegal alien drops.  I doubt that Wilhelm has ever been to Rio Grand border in the areas such as Laredo, El Paso, McAllen, and other small towns.  But she does not have to.  She can just view the many seasons of Border Wars broadcast on the National Geographic Channel. There she can see that the property on the border is essentially worthless.  Consequently, property values are low.  All the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lawyers have to do is review property tax records that will show the the minor cost of just compensation required by the Constitution.  Most property owners will be happy to sell to the Federal government as illegal alien and drug smuggling have made the Rio Grand area unlivable and property valueless.

Which brings us back to Wilhelm's motivation for this piece repeating Democrat talking points: a border wall is ugly, the border wall is bad for the environment, the border wall can't be built because of oppressed property owners of color.

Well, besides being loser #cucks who surrender to the Democrats even after winning.  Wilhelm probably is in the thrall of the Slave Power, just as Williamson is with his support for the Chipotle Business Model, hiring illegal aliens, or is an infiltrator; a leftist who really wants to elect a new people, which would explain her parroting factless Cultural Marxist talking points.

It is time for NR to shut down.  If they won't fight for America by building a fence, they serve no purpose.  Let those who love America like she was, as President Trump does, take over the fight. Wilhelm and Williamson can go to hell, for I will go to Texas, and build that wall.  Davy Crockett was a patriot, too bad Wilhelm and Williamson aren't.


Monday, March 20, 2017

President Trump About To Surrender On A Refugee Bad Deal?

It appears that someone has got to President Trump.  The deal concerning Muslim refugees on the independent island nation of Nauru that was foisted upon the United States by Barack Hussein Obama a deal that then President-Elect Trump denounced, appears to be going through.  Just over one month ago I reported that President Trump appeared to be successfully using a judo move on the kritarchs that were trying to impose Muslim terrorist refugees on the United States.  President Trump had removed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) personnel from Nauru and Australia, consequently check-mating moves by the kritarchs and the refugee lobby.  I also pointed out that was a strategy to use on a larger scale: remove all USCIS and Department of State personnel assigned overseas to process refugees.  No employees overseas to do the job, then no refugees would be able to come to the United States.  Another Trump victory.  [Trump’s Options In The Refugee War With The Kritarchs–The Executive Branch Can Refuse To Process The Refugees, by Federale, VDare, February 16, 2017]

However, that was not to be.

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- U.S. security officers have begun fingerprinting refugees held on Pacific islands in the final stage of assessing who will find new lives in the United States, asylum seekers said Monday.
Department of Homeland Security officers are taking biometric details from refugees on Nauru, including fingerprints, heights and weights, according to a document circulated among asylum seekers and provided to AP by Mehdi, a refugee on the island nation who for security reasons did not want his family name published.

U.S. officials began scheduling appointments with asylum seeker families on Nauru from Monday, Mehdi said.

[US Officials Begin Fingerprinting Refugee Families On Nauru, by Rod McGuirk, AP, March 20, 2017]

However, there is time to stop this bad deal:

If refugees pass the initial fingerprint security screening, they will have face-to-face interviews with Homeland Security officers in Nauru or Papua New Guinea, the document said.
Refugees had been given no indication of how long the security vetting process would take, Mehdi said.

Contact the White House and let President Trump know his first instincts were correct. (202) 456-1111  Or tweet him:




Apparently "extreme vetting" has been promised, but unlikely it includes the only real method of extreme vetting, a polygraph examination.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Another Illegal Alien Intimidates President Trump

Again, using the #LyingPress and Democrat politicians, an illegal alien has been able to intimidate the Trump Administration, or, more likely, the weak kneed John Kelly, who isn't a Jumping Joe Swing. Elvira Arellano, well known illegal alien, who was over one year ago, allowed to re-enter the United States despite two previous deportations.


Elvira Arellano, The Illegal Alien Who John Kelly Won't Deport

An immigration judge extended parole Wednesday for twice-deported Mexican activist Elvira Arellano, who famously took refuge in a Chicago church when she faced removal in 2006.
Arellano’s probation for violating immigration law was set to expire Wednesday, but the legal victory will allow her and her 3-year-old Mexican-born son Emiliano to remain in the country for another year alongside her U.S.-born son, 18-year-old Saul Arellano.
[Immigration Activist Granted Yearlong Reprieve From Deportation, NBC Chicago, March 15, 2017] 

And in typical fashion, the #LyingPress gets basic facts wrong.  Arellano's parole was not extended by an immigration judge, but by administrative fiat by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

Something that the reporter eventually mentions in the story for some reason.

All three arrived for her first meeting at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Chicago under President Donald Trump’s administration, hoping for either relief through political asylum, or an extension of her current status. 

Can't the media get even the basic facts correct?

While she was not granted asylum, she was given a one-year reprieve from being deported, yet again, as her case continues to be reviewed.
“ICE did not take action at this time because her immigration court proceedings are still pending,” the immigration agency said in a statement. 

The real question is why did ICE ERO renew her parole in the United States under the new administration of Donald J. Trump.  Arellano was only allowed in the United States because of the personal intervention of then President Barack Hussein Obama.  There was no legal basis to parole Arellano into the United States.  She could have submitted an application for refugee status from Mexico.  Her claim was, of course, ridiculous on the face of it.

In any event, ICE ERO should have immediately revoked the parole and reinstated her previous deportation order.  However, someone in the Trump Administration decided to continue Arellano's public flouting of the immigration laws of the United States.  Who is it?  John Kelly, our nation's eyes turn to you, and not in a good way.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Kritarchs Strike Again

The judicial dictatorship, kritarchy, is here and it's not just the usurpation by the courts regarding the second version of the President Trump order on excluding certain aliens, which is bad enough.  Another Federal judge, in fact not even a judge, but a lowly magistrate, has taken it upon himself to begin the process to judicially impose the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) on the nation.  And I did warn my readers and President Trump about both the kritarch and DACA menace to society.

SEATTLE – A federal magistrate recommended Tuesday that the case of a Mexican man who was picked up by immigration agents near Seattle despite participating in a federal program for those brought to the country illegally as children remain in federal court and not in immigration court. The judge also declined to immediately release 24-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina while the case proceeds.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue denied the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case brought by Ramirez, saying arguments that his constitutional rights were violated should be heard in U.S. District Court. Lawyers for Ramirez say his rights were violated with his February arrest and detention because Ramirez is a current Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program recipient.
Government attorneys had argued that under federal immigration law, Ramirez could challenge his detention in immigration court, a system within the Justice Department. But Donohue said Ramirez’s claims are “independent of his removal” from the country.
[Judge Denies DOJ Request To Dismiss Seattle ‘Dreamer’ Case, by Lisa Baumann, Spokesman Review, March 14, 2017]


Kritarch Junior James Donohue

This is in fact revolutionary, and presages an attempt by kritarchs on the Federal bench to seize control of the immigration process from Congress and the Executive Branch.  Much like the decisions in the two travel bans, Magistrate Donohue's decision has no basis in law.  In the case of immigration arrests, aliens cannot challenge the arrest, but only being held in custody, and that through the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), though in recent days other Federal courts have interfered with such decisions.  The judges of the EOIR are generally quite generous with bonds, which explains why so few illegal aliens appear for their deportation hearings.  However, the initial arrest is never challenged in Federal court.  The facts of the case are then argued before the EOIR in a hearing to determine alienage or removability, e.g. whether the person in question is an alien and if that alien can be deported.  The alien can claim he is not an alien, e.g. is a U.S. citizen, or more likely admit alienage, and claim lawful presence, or claim some sort of relief from deportation.

Basically, Magistrate Donohue is setting the groundwork for sending all immigration cases to Federal Article III courts rather than the administrative law process at the EOIR, something that the Treason Bar has long sought.

And other judges have not been shy at claiming authority over other aspects of immigration law assigned by Congress to the Executive Branch.

A Federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his new travel ban against a Syrian family looking to escape their war-torn homeland by fleeing to Wisconsin.

The ruling likely is the first by a judge since Trump issued a revised travel ban on Monday, according to a spokesman for the Washington state attorney general, who has led states challenging the ban.

[Judge: Revised Trump Ban Can't Be Enforced On Syrian Family Trying To Flee To Wisconsin, by Todd Richmond, AP/Chicago Tribune, March 10, 2017]

Worse yet, those family members are outside the United States and the judge's order includes instruction to begin processing the application.

After the Trump ban was blocked the first time, the approval process restarted for the Syrian family and they're now preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the U.S. embassy, the last step before U.S. customs officials decide whether to issue them visas. But the family doesn't have dates for the interviews yet and Trump's new travel ban goes into effect March 16, stirring fears that the process could halt again before visas are issued, according to the Syrian man's attorneys.

Note that though they are allegedly in such danger, they did not flee Aleppo to refugee camps in Jordan, but they remained, for about 3 years.  Why, because their claim is fraudulent.


Kritarch William Conley

But the real import is that decisions about what the reporter ignorantly calls visas, are in fact derivative asylum applications, not visas, are solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch, as recently reinforced by a Supreme Court decision.

The justices in the majority gave two separate reasons. Justice Antonin Scalia said the wife did not have a constitutional right to sue on behalf of her husband, who is not a U.S. citizen. She claims this "deprived her of her constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse. There is no such constitutional right," he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas agreed.
Taking a narrower approach, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the wife may have such a right, but officials had given her a sufficient reason for barring her husband. The government  "satisfied due process when it notified Din's husband his visa was denied under the immigration's statute's terrorism bar," he wrote. Justice Samuel Alito agreed, making a majority.
[Fremont Woman Loses Supreme Court Appeal To Get Visa For Afghan Husband, by David Savage, LAT, June 15, 2015]

The Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, spoken on the issue, but lower level kritarchs are ignoring those decisions, including the recent decision in the Arizona Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act decision:

The Federal Government's broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations.
[Arizona v. United States, FindLaw, June 25, 2012] 

In defiance of an abundently clear Supreme Court, kritarchs are creating a dictatorship and most likely doing so because of the death of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia.  President Trump will have a hard row to hoe now, especially because the Legislative Branch, led by Paul Ryan, will not impeach these kritarchs.  We are at a crossroads, dictatorship looms.  Who will do what to whom?