Friday, March 30, 2012

ICE Targets The DEA

U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not content to weasel their way into the FBI's jurisdiction, is also seeking to take over the work of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  From Sacramento, ICE recently made an arrest of an American citizen growing and distributing marijuana.  There were no violations of customs or immigration laws, but ICE claims universal authority to enforce any Federal law.  And it is acting on that authority, while simultaneously ignoring its primary responsibility, the enforcement of immigration laws.

The Sacramento Bee March 29, 2012 by Cathy Locke


A Placerville man has been indicted in a case involving the interstate distribution of marijuana.

A federal grand jury in Sacramento today returned a two-count indictment against Dylan Hudson, 26, charging him with conspiring to grow, distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute.

Court documents allege that Hudson was in charge of an interstate marijuana-trafficking conspiracy. More than 1,100 pounds of processed marijuana, more than $329,000 in cash, and eight firearms were seized during the course of the investigation, according to a federal Department of Justice news release.

The case resulted from an investigation by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Homeland Security Investigations in Sacramento, Chicago and Milwaukee; the California Department of Justice; the Mountain and Valley Marijuana Investigation Team; Chicago Police Department; El Dorado County Sheriff's Department; and the Dane County, Wisconsin, Sheriff's Department.
And from the DEA website:
 
The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets.

In carrying out its mission as the agency responsible for enforcing the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States, the DEA's primary responsibilities include:
Investigation and preparation for the prosecution of major violators of controlled substance laws operating at interstate and international levels.

Investigation and preparation for prosecution of criminals and drug gangs who perpetrate violence in our communities and terrorize citizens through fear and intimidation.
So why is ICE acting outside its primary mission, the arrest and removal of illegal aliens and the enforcement of customs laws, such as the importation of marijuana?  Is there not enough work regarding international drug smuggling that ICE has to make a case on a penny-ante grower?  Are there not 11 million illegal aliens in the United States, many of them violating laws that prohibit the misuse of immigrantion and Social Security documents?  Are not these illegal aliens engaged in massive identity theft schemes?  Why is ICE not investigating and arresting those illegal aliens?

But the question anwsers itself.  ICE does not want to arrest illegal aliens.  It does not want to arrest international drug smugglers.  It wants to replace the FBI and DEA.  It does not want to do its own job.  It wants to do the job of others.  All to promote the Obama Regime Admininstrative Amnesty.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

From The Not Quite Getting The Point Department

The Immigration Policy Center (read: Amnesty Adovate Center) is shocked and concerned that life will be made difficult for illegal aliens by those State laws making life in those States more difficult for illegal aliens.  No duh.

IPC February 2012 by Michele Waslin
The title says it all.  But that is the whole point.  A life of lawbreaking is not supposed to be easy.  And making lawbreaking less easy is the point of law enforcement.  Life is hard out there for a pimp, and certainly should be as hard for an illegal alien.

Almost half the report breathlessly details the work of FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA to increase immigration enforcement, which, sad to say, has not really been tried much.  They seem to forget since the last amnesty in 1986, during this period of "increased" enforcement, the illegal alien population has skyrocketed to over 11 million.  Hardly something that aliens have feared and that is not mentioning the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty.  One also gets the sense that IPC was itching to go all $PLC on FAIR, CIS, and Numbers USA, but they resisted the urge to prove that they were are on the losing side of an argument by flailing about screaming "racist."  Which might be commendable, but that would certainly be another example of the tyranny of low expectations.  So no kudos for not screaming racist in a political argument.

Also of interest, besides the minor inconvinience of legal aliens having to carry their green card or passport and I-94, and citizens having to show a birth certificate when registering a car, what is the cost to non-illegals?  They present nothing, but their intent is clear, enforcing the law and deporting illegals is bad for illegals.  But then we all know that.
 
Of interest, they actually admit that the Arizona and Alabama laws are working:


The goal of an attrition through enforcement strategy is the same as mass deportation: forcing all unlawfully present immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of time spent here, rootedness to the community, or family connections. The harsh state laws have only succeeded in pushing unauthorized immigrants further underground into the informal economy, or shifting the population elsewhere...
"...shifting population elsewhere..."  Hmmm, like States that welcome illegals or the country they came from.  Precisely the point of the laws.  California is the place you ought to be.  Or better yet, down Mexico way.  They then must admit that attrition through enforcement will work. 

But their real agenda is amnesty, which they also admit:

de facto strategy of attrition through enforcement, it is possible to create a wellfunctioning, national, legal immigration system for the 21st century. Congress and the President can engage in a serious legislative process to humanely deal with the millions of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. and to reform the familyand employmentbased visa systems so that there are reasonable channels through which future immigrants may enter the country legally.
The United States can do better. Rather than the
To the radical left, amnesty is the first and only solution to illegal immigration.  Pretty weak tea when they claim the impact on Americans is the occasional presentation of a birth certificate when making a very rare trip to a government office.  Even if it is for free gubmt cheese.

USCIS And Indian Government Conspiring To Increase American Unemployment

The Indian government is upset that the United States Department of State Consular Officers at American diplomatic posts in India have been discovering extensive fraud in H-1B and L-1 non-immigrant visa applications by Indian nationals.  That is unacceptable to the Indian government.  And that is of no surprise.  It is the purpose of the Indian government to represent its citizens and their interests.  It is not however proper behavior by the Indian government to aid, abet and assist in the violation of American laws, including immigration and visa laws.  Such behavior is irresponsible and beyond the legitimate interests and responsibilities of the Indian government.  Nor is it in the interests of the Indian government to export its best and brightest, or even its not so best and brightest.  Unless the Indian government is participating in the subversion of the American Constitution by exporting its citizens to cause damage to American citizens and by those Indians voting for the Demoncrat Party, e.g. participating in electing a new people, which by the way would make such Indian interferrence an act of war.

Information Week March 28, 2012 by Paul McDougall


India's commerce minister told his U.S. counterpart that he is concerned about what he said are rising rejection rates for applications by Indian tech pros to obtain work visas in the United States.

Commerce and Industry minister Anand Sharma said he had "a frank discussion" with U.S. Commerce secretary John Bryson during bilateral talks Monday in New Delhi. Sharma told reporters afterwards that his concerns were sparked by the fact that rejection rates for H-1B and L-1 applicants' visa applicants have increased 28%. Sharma did not cite a source for the number.

"There have been concerns over the high rate of rejections," said Sharma, according to the Times of India. "We had a very frank discussion, including some of the issues on which the U.S. has concerns."
However, it is not in any manner the responsibility of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to aid, abet, assist, and encourage the replacement of American workers with alien.

But opponents say any easing of immigration rules would make it more difficult for unemployed tech workers to find jobs in an economy that has yet to fully recover from the recession. In particular, some argue that a possible move by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to broaden the definition of "specialized knowledge" that L-1B applicants must possess would negatively impact U.S. workers.

"Such an interpretation would make it easier for someone to qualify as possessing L-1B specialized knowledge, even if they have ordinary skills and work in a position for which there may be unemployed U.S. workers available," said Daniel Costa, a policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, and Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, in a letter sent Monday to USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas.

A USCIS spokesman confirmed that the agency is hoping to issue new policy guidance on L-1B specialized knowledge by the end of the month. "USCIS has actively engaged with the public on the L-1B classification, including most recently at a forum at the end of January hosted by the Chamber of Commerce," the spokesman said.

"USCIS is currently reviewing its L-1B policy guidance, which is comprised of a series of memoranda dating back to 1994, to assess whether that guidance assists adjudicators in applying the law in new business settings that companies face today," the spokesman said.
But it is abundently clear that USCIS is on a jihad against the American worker.  USCIS has no authority to "reinterpret" the law so as to further assist employers to replace American workers with lower paid aliens.  Not only are immigration laws quite clear on the point, aliens can only recieve an employment visa such as an H-1B if there is no available American or other worker available, but the civil rights laws of the United States make such decisions to replace an American worker with an alien illegal as well.  It is called national origin discrimination.  Although it is clear that USCIS and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division don't care about Americans and refuse to enforce said laws.  But like its refusal to enforce DOMA, USCIS has no authority to ignore the law.  Like John Morton, Alejandro Mayorkas should be impleached.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Red Chinese Mayor And Immigrant Rent-A-Mob Welfare Cheats

Extort millions from a company wanting to build a hospital in San Francisco.  Comrade Ed Lee, Maoist mayor of San Francisco, successfully extorted $201 million in donations from  California Pacific Medical Center in exchange for the privilege of building and operating a new hospital in San Francisco.

SFGate March 28, 2012 by John Cote

Mayor Ed Lee has reached an agreement with California Pacific Medical Center officials over their plans to build five new medical facilities in San Francisco, including a massive new hospital on Van Ness Avenue, which will see the medical group contributing more than $115 million toward affordable housing, Muni improvements and other public benefits. That is on top of spending more than $86 million in charitable health care annually for a decade, city officials said.

But the predominately immigrant welfare class of San Francisco, also predominately Asian, is in high dander that a profit making medical care corporation will be building a hospital in San Francisco and only paying $201 million for the privilege.

SFGate March 28, 2012

Activists: CPMC Deal “Unacceptable” And “Glaringly Deficient”

Well, that didn’t take long.

The same day Mayor Ed Lee publicly announced he had struck a deal with California Pacific Medical Center to build a massive 555-bed hospital on Van Ness Avenue, rebuild St. Luke’s hospital in the Mission and overhaul their medical facilities around the city, more than 70 people took to the steps of City Hall to denounce the controversial deal as a giveaway that, among other things, fails to create enough local jobs.

Lee, whose campaign platform could be summarized as “jobs, jobs, jobs,” has touted the deal as a means to create 1,500 construction jobs, pump $2.5 billion into the economy and get two seismically safe hospitals built.

But skeptics of the agreement, including unionized nurses, affordable housing proponents, employment advocates and others, contend the provisions for permanent jobs only require CPMC to hire 40 residents per year for five years, or less than 5 percent of the total jobs created. The Sutter Health-affiliated CPMC is projecting over 4,170 new permanent jobs across its city facilities by 2030.

That Communist nurses' union, professional agitators, welfare cheats, and other community organizers consider the little disguised bribes to be insufficient is to be expected.  Also of no surprise is that their welfare rent-a-mob was the typical immigrant welfare cheat.  Just take a gander at the makeup of their mob.  Elderly immigrants who never worked a day in the U.S., a younger Chinese female immigrant living off San Francisco's generous free health care program for illegal aliens, and the assorted neo-Marxists who replaced the proletariat with people of color:

Ed Lee got his bones mau-mauing the flak catchers of San Francisco, and is quite an expert himself.  It is likely he stage managed the whole escapade, with CPMC none the wiser.  And I bet that all that money for free community health care will be going to those associated with his political supporters, much as occured with other city money during his recent campaign.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

CBP To Redefine Marriage

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), not content to let John Morton, head of U.S. Immigrationa and Customs Enforcement (ICE) repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is proposing that the non-related persons living in sin may complete one customs declaration per person.  Generally a customs declaration is completed for a household of persons related by blood or marriage.  Basically a nuclear family.  If your traveling with grandparents and they have a separate household, then they have to complete their own.  Not really a big deal.

Homeland Security Today  March 27, 2012 by Anthony Kimery

 US Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch is publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise its regulations for when members of a family residing in one household and traveling together on their return to the United States may make a joint declaration for all members of the family.
Under CBP’s proposed new regulation, it would expand the definition of the term “members of a family residing in one household” to include domestic relationships, which would allow more US returning residents to file a joint customs declaration for articles acquired abroad, CBP said in a statement. 
“Domestic relationship” would be defined under the new rule to include foster children, stepchildren, half-siblings, legal wards, other dependents and individuals with an in loco parentis or guardianship relationship.
In fact, CBP is disingenuous when claiming that step and adopted children are not included as persons related by blood or marriage when defining a household.  It has never been held that either were not part of a household when traveling together with parents, step-parents, or step-siblings.

CBP's real intent is part of the homosexual agenda, thwart at every level DOMA and traditional definitions of family.
CBP would also include within the definition two adults who are in a committed relationship including, but not limited to, long-term companions and couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships where the partners share financial assets and obligations, and are not married to, or a partner of, anyone else.
It appears that the acting head of CBP, David Aguilar, well known agent of Mexico, is also on the down low, enacting the homosexual agenda.  No surprises.  When he was head of the Border Patrol, every line agent thought he was a big dick.

Obama And Bush Refused To Deport Killer

More details have emerged on the immigrant mass murder case in San Francisco.  The killer Binh Thai Luc was released from State prison for a conviction involving armed robbery.  After he was released he was taken into custody by ICE and eventually ordered deported.  However he was soon released when Vietnam refused to provide travel documents, basically refusing to accept him for repatriation.

SFGate March 27, 2012  by Kevin Fagan, Henry K. Lee, and Justin Berton

The suspect in last week's slayings of five people in San Francisco was ordered deported in 2006 after he served a prison term for robbery and assault, but immigration authorities had to let him go free because his native Vietnam would not take him back, officials said Monday.

Binh Thai Luc, 35, of San Francisco was released under the terms of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said undocumented immigrants must be released after six months if their country of origin won't allow them to return, according to officials with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Monday, March 26, 2012

More Stupidity From NRO

NRO has published another attack on George Zimmerman complete with a stupid statement on the justified use of deadly force.  The shocking thing was that it was not from Rich Lowry or Kevin D. Williamson, NRO's resident illegal alien.  It was from Heather McDonald of all people.  The usually discerning McDonald, excellent on race crime and illegal immigration, came out with something just plain stupid, and wrong, on the use of force, including deadly force.

NRO March 26, 2012 by Heather McDonald


The fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last month by a neighborhood-watch volunteer was a sickening and — unless new facts come to light — unjustified loss of an innocent life. Unless Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, had reason to believe that Martin was armed, shooting him was a grossly disproportionate response to a fistfight, even leaving aside the fact that Zimmerman had initiated the encounter. If such a shooting is justified under Florida’s broad self-defense law, that law has licensed violence that goes far beyond legitimate self-defense.

In fact, there is no evidence that Zimmerman's use of force was not justified.  The latest reports state that Zimmerman was walking away from Oscar Grant...ehhrrr Trayvor Martin when Martin launched a vicious attack on Zimmerman.

The Orlando Sentinal  March 26, 2012 by Rene Stutzman


With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

And:

MyFox Tampa Bay March 23, 2012


It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn't have gone to jail.
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.

But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red
Despite the fact that NRO is on a jihad against George Zimmerman, all the facts of the case show that despite the fact that Zimmerman initially confronted Martin, Zimmerman ended the confrontation, whatever that was, and was leaving, retreating, with his back to Martin.  That shows that so far as violence is concerned, Martin was the aggressor.  Zimmerman is protected by Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

But what is more disturbing is McDonald's lack of understanding of the justification for using force, deadly force, in defense of oneself.

What we know know is that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and ended up on the ground.  That is a very bad situation for a victim.  On the ground, on your back, you are virtually defenseless, unless you are a highly trained MMA ground fighter, trained wrestler, or well versed in judo or jujitsu.  Martin was taller, fitter,  had the advantage of initiative and the superior fighting position.  Futhermore Zimmerman was certainly disoriented by blows to his head and face.  I doubt if McDonald could fight her way out of such a situation, much less Rich Lowry or Robert VerBruggen.  Given a similar situation, any law enforcement officer would not attempt to fight his or her way out of this situation, but immediately go to using deadly force.  And that is entirely justified.  The decision to use deadly force is not some set in stone rules.  People unfamilar with the use of deadly force commonly think that to use deadly force in self-defense, the attacker must have the same weapon type as yourself or somehow the fight be equal.  Not true.  Justified use of deadly force depends on the immediate situation as experienced by a reasonable person.

In this case, being in a position of disadvantage, having suffered a brutal attack, being disoriented by blows to the head and in fear for his life.  Those are the facts that matter.  That Zimmerman confronted Martin first is irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether a reasonable person suffering such an attack could use deadly force to protect himself.

Once you are in reasonable fear for your life, you may use deadly force and shooting a 6'3" man raining blows down on your head while on your back is completely justified.  McDonald should have given the situation a minute of thought.  In a similar situation she would have used deadly force to save herself.  Zimmerman had the same right.  Of course, if she did, no more Manhattan dinner party invitiations for her.  A small price to pay to live.

Murder Suspect Won The Clintong Regime Immigration Amnesty

More information on the case of Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome out of San Francisco.  Suspect Binh Thai Luc has a previous conviction for robbery from the 90s, the reign of Billyjeff, who accepted millions in primarily Asian dirty money for his campaigns. 

SFGate March 26, 2012 by Intrepid Crime Reporter Henry K. Lee

(03-26) 12:41 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The suspect in last week's slayings of five people near City College of San Francisco was sentenced in the mid-1990s to 11 years in prison for robbing a Chinese restaurant in Santa Clara County, according to court records.

Binh Thai Luc, 35, of San Francisco, was arrested Sunday in the unusually violent killings of five people at a home in the southern part of the city. He is being held on suspicion of five counts of homicide and one count of use of a deadly weapon.

Luc is also being investigated for possible immigration violations, according to Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

She said her office has placed a hold on Luc, meaning if he is released he must be handed over to ICE authorities.

"We believe the subject is potentially deportable," Kice said. She did not elaborate.

Court records show that Luc and another man terrorized employees at gunpoint and stole cash in the Chinese restaurant robbery in the 1990s. Luc's co-defendant was convicted under the state's "three strikes and you're out" law and is still in prison.

ICE Extends The Administrative Amnesty to Criminal Aliens

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as predicted by this blog, has extended the administrative amnesty to illegal alien criminals.  Of course all illegal aliens are criminals, but by criminal this time I mean illegal aliens who have committed crimes unassociated with their illegal status.  This time ICE has released an accused child molester.  And get this, because he had a child he needed to provide for, and perhaps molest as well.

Of course the accused illegal alien cut off his ankle tracking bracelet and has fled to parts unknown.

The Daily Caller  March 24, 2012 by Michael Volpe

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released an illegal immigrant and alleged child rapist — who is accused of incest — because he has a child who is a U.S. citizen and has no prior criminal convictions or immigration violations.
After being released, the suspect, Amado Espinoza-Ramirez, escaped his ankle bracelet. He skipped out on his next immigration court hearing and is now a fugitive from justice, free in the United States.
ICE’s explanation for Espinoza-Ramirez’s release is part of a press release by Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. The Judiciary Committee has oversight over immigration policy.

Smith was moved to act following a report from The Daily Caller on Espinoza-Ramirez, who was picked up in Chicago and ultimately charged with 42 counts of predatory sexual acts. On Sept. 2, ICE took custody of Espinoza-Ramirez, releasing him with an ankle bracelet monitor later that same day.

The suspect failed to show up for his scheduled hearing on Nov. 18. ICE would provide no information on how he might have maneuvered out of the bracelet.

ICE issued a statement to Smith that was identical to one quoted in TheDC report, except for one additional sentence: “The decision to release Mr. Espinoza-Ramirez from ICE custody was made based on the fact that he had no prior criminal convictions, no prior immigration violations, and is the parent of a U.S. citizen child.”
It was not only inevitable that ICE began extending the amnesty to illegal alien criminals, but obvious from the start as illegal alien criminals were benefiting from the begining from the amnesty.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Visa Express Redux

Barak Hussein Obama's campaign to provide his fellow Muslims another opportunity to attack the United States has been implemented at the American Embassy, New Delhi.  Visa Express for Indian terrorists.

ILW  March 23, 2012
Embassy of the United States New Delhi, India
Interview Waiver Program
Interview Waiver Pilot Program
Under a new initiative, in select circumstances, qualified foreign visitors who were interviewed and thoroughly screened in conjunction with a prior visa application may be eligible to renew their visas without undergoing another interview.
This pilot program permits consular officers to waive interviews for qualified nonimmigrant applicants worldwide who are renewing their B1/B2 visa within 48 months of the expiration of their previously held visa, and within the same classification as the previous visa.
Our embassies and consulates have been instructed to begin implementing this pilot program immediately.
This pilot does not entitle any applicant to a waiver of personal appearance.  Consular officers will retain the authority to interview any applicant who they determine requires a personal appearance.


Despite the requirement in legislation that all visa applicants be interviewed, the Obama Regime has issued instructions to American diplomatic personnel to violate the law.  There is no need to end the interview program.  The only complaint is that visa interviews are an inconvenience to applicants.  As if their convenience is of any concern to the United States, especially given that none of the 9/11 terrorists were interviewed before their visas were issued. Obama is implementing Visa Express again.  And the beneficiary will be Al Queda.  There are 177,286,000 Muslims in India.  Neo-cons tell us only a small percentage of Muslims worldwide are radical and support Al Queda, but support for suicide bombing among even American Muslims is strong

What is it in India?  Wikileaks tells us:  Of those 177,000,000 a minority, but then that is a large population to start with.

The Extremists
--------------
7. (C) Separatism and religious extremism have little appeal to Indian Muslims, and the overwhelming majority espouse moderate doctrines. While the conservative Sunni political organization the Jamaat Islami (JI) and the Deobandi sect espouse Islamic chauvinism, and some of their members express admiration for Osama bin Ladin, their leaders usually do not express such views in public, and there is little to indicate that they have provided anything more than rhetorical support to terrorists. Attacks by Hindu extremists on innocent Muslims and periodic bouts of bloody communal rioting, have led a small number of Muslims to cross the line from sympathizing with violence to engaging in terrorism. Some Kashmiri terrorist groups argue that only attacks outside of Kashmir will shake the Indian state and convince the GOI to withdraw. Members of these two small slivers of the Muslim community provide recruits for groups prone to acts of violence and terrorism, many of which are supported from outside India. The numbers are small, especially outside of Kashmir, but they remain capable of periodic bombings and other acts of violence.
8. (C) Indian Islamic groups that are extreme in their views and activities include
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen Marqazi-Jamiyat-e-Ahal-e-Hadith (MJAH) Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULFA) Muslim Security Council of Assam (MSCA) Muslim Volunteer Force (MVF) Muslim Liberation Army (MLA) Muslim Security Force (MSF) Islamic Sevak Sangh (ISS) United Muslim Liberation Front of Assam (UMLFA)

And India has its own home-grown Muslim terrorist problem, let us not forget the 2011 bombings in Bombay.

There is also a complaint that appearing at interviews is too expensive for aliens.  Is that any concern of Americans given what happened on 9/11?  Is the minor costs and inconvenience a small price to pay for an alien so that we can make an informed decision on that alien's potential threat to America?  

In any event, this is just another impeachable offense from a lawless regime.

Treason Bar Admits Clients Are Liars

The Treason Bar has admitted that fraud and deceit by its clients is an integral part of the immigration process.

The Asylumist March 1, 2012 by Jason Dzobow
U.S. Consulate Attempts to Block Asylum Seekers
The job of United States consular officers is to prevent undesirable aliens from obtaining visas to the United States.   But sometimes the consular officers are a bit too enthusiastic about weeding out potential asylum seekers.
In an Ethiopian asylum case I litigated earlier this week, the DHS attorney submitted as impeachment evidence a consular officer’s assessment of my client, who was interviewed at the consulate for a non-immigrant visa.  After describing why my client needed a visa (for a heart operation in the U.S.), the officer wrote:
Applicant swears she does not intend to seek asylum or stay in the US longer than needed, and has no problems that would prevent her from returning to Ethiopia.  If she files an asylum claim, it is fraudulent.
The conclusory last sentence is what really bothers me–”If she files an asylum claim, it is fraudulent.”  The consular officer does not know whether my client’s situation will change, or whether the situation in her country will change.  His statement seems to be simply an effort to prevent her from gaining asylum under any circumstances.  Not only is this unfair, but it contradicts established case law.  The BIA has held that an asylum seeker who lies to obtain a visa in order to escape her country is not ineligible for asylum once she gets to the United States, though the misrepresentation may be considered an adverse factor depending on the circumstances. See Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 1987).

On the surface the argument appears rational.  Situations do change in a nation.  Traumatic events do occur in nations.  Suppose an Egyptian Copt applied for a visa a year ago and was asked if he was planning to apply for asylum in the U.S.?  There is a good chance that the answer would have been no.  There is also a good chance the answer would have been yes, but for the sake of argument we will not debate how the Copts were treated or mistreated under the Mubarak dictatorship, but only with subsequent events.  In our hypothetical case the subsequent event was very real.  The so-called Arab Spring or more rightly the Muslim Brotherhood Coup d'Etat.  The results for Christians in Egypt has been disastrous.  However it illustrates the point, events do occur that may affect the necessity of an asylum application after lawful entry.

It also illustrates the issue our anonymous Consular Officer was concerned about.  The use of non-immigrant visas and asylum to obtain legal permanent residence in the United States.  And in our hypothetical case of the Coptic Christian from Egypt we also have the same problem.  A truly discerning Consular Officer would have the same issue.  Copts suffered even under the ancien regime from many disabilities and outright oppression that would qualify them for refugee or asylum status in the United States.

First a short primer:

(42) The term "refugee" means:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or 

And for political convenience:

(B) in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 207(e) of this Act) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise partcipated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control progr am, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall bedeemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

An asylee is:

Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-

(1) In general. - Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b). 

But back to the Treason Bar.  They recognize there is a problem, perverse incentives they call it, but gloss over it:

Matter of Pula recognizes that people fleeing persecution often say or do unsavory things in order to escape danger. Granted, such case law creates a perverse incentive–if you are able to lie your way past the consular officer, you can claim asylum in the United States–but what is the alternative?  If a person honestly admits a fear of persecution in his country, the officer will deny the visa. 

What the Treason Bar does not mention is that those who truly have a problem with a well-founded fear of persecution who are outside the United States can apply for refugee status.

And take the case of our unidentified Ethiopian.  There were 668 admissions as refugees in 2010 of Ethiopians.  There were 1,093 Ethiopians who entered the United States with non-immigrant visas who then later applied for and were granted asylum.  Certainly a perverse incentive for fraud.  But more importantly a perverse success with fraud.  If there is any accurate review of the conditions for an individual regarding actual persecution, a Consular Officer in Ethiopia will make a more accurate decision than either an Asylum Officer or Hearing Officer with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).  A Consular Officer is closer to the facts on the ground and more able to accurately judge credibility than a reviewer in the United States.  A Consular Officer can and will send out investigators to observe actual behavior of government officials, interview witness and dis-interested third parties.  None of that occurs during a review of an asylum application.  Embassies and Consulates also have confidential sources of information in host governments, non-governmental organizations, political parties, and civic organizations in-country.  Such information is limited in quality and validity in the United States as there is little or no ability to verify any information submitted by individual applicants, the Treason Bar, or their support organizations in the United States for validity and to remove bias or uncover an agenda.

In fact, the asylum process in the United States is highly politicized with EOIR officials having their own agenda, as opposed to Consular Officers who are more fact based.  They see the reality while EOIR sees what they want to see.

The Treason Bar claims that DHS has validated the fraud:

And by the way, at least in my case, the consular officer’s effort to stop my client from obtaining asylum did not work.  The Immigration Judge granted asylum and the DHS attorney agreed not to appeal.

But given the ongoing Administrative Amnesty and instructions to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys to drop cases, such a claim is worthless.

But we do have a kernel of truth from the Treason Bar.  There is a perverse incentive in asylum cases to fraud.  However their solution is to accept fraud.  The real solution is present in the law.  If you are outside the U.S. and suffer from demonstrable persecution, then apply for refugee status.  Asylum status should be limited to those aliens inside the United States where there is a significant event that impacts possible persecution, such as a Muslim Brotherhood coup d'etat.  Otherwise there is generally no reason to allow asylum claims.

A solution to the validity of claims could also be a polygraph exam.  But I am certain no member of the Treason Bar wants their client subject to an objective determination of a measurement of physiological response to deception.

But it is important to realize that the Treason Bar's fraudulent asylum claims are just part of electing a new people.  The goal is not the truth of a matter, but the election of a new people, by hook or by crook.  The first thing one should demand from a prospective immigrant is truthfulness.  If they would lie to a Consular Officer to obtain a non-immigrant visa so as to enter the United States to apply for asylum, one is led inextricably to the obvious conclusion, they will lie about anything to remain in the United States.  That means that any claim made afterwards is most likely another lie.  Dishonesty is the last thing that should be tolerated.

Of an interesting note on the Treason Bar's representative Ethiopian, I am certain that the Ethiopian in question did not make their asylum claim at a Port-of-Entry.  If this Ethiopian was truly fleeing persecution, claiming asylum would be the first thing he or she would do.  But most likely they did it well after entry, most likely after they started working illegally or their period of admission expired.  That is the pattern.  A honest person would have told the inspecting Customs and Border Protection Officer at the airport that their purpose was asylum.  For there has been no significant political event in Ethiopia like a Muslim Brotherhood coup d'etat.  Fraud dear reader is endemic is asylum and the Treason Bar are abettors.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Why Does National Review Want George Zimmerman Arrested?

Rich Lowry and Robert VerBruggen of NRO wants George Zimmerman arrested.  Not arrested for a crime, but because Lowry finds shooting of black teenage thugs to be distasteful.  And he wants to continue to get those dinner party invitations that only go to certain tame conservatives, like David Brooks.

NRO March 22, 2012 by Rich Lowry
Al Sharpton Is Right
The Sanford police appear to have made the wrong call in letting Zimmerman off. 

It seems that Lowry is unaware of the function of the police in American society.  The police make arrests based on evidence of culpability for a crime, not to punish someone for doing something that Lowry thinks is bad.  By bad he means taking an active interest in the safety and security of the neighborhood where Zimmerman lived and daring to piss off Al Sharpton.  Lowry's colleague Robert VerBruggen even called Zimmerman a vigilante and a cop-wannabe.

NRO March 21, 2012 by Robert VerBruggen 
Standing Your Ground And Vigilantism
The 28-year-old Zimmerman is a classic cop wannabe: Loving the thought of himself as a police officer, and witnessing a spate of break-ins in his neighborhood, he decided to patrol the streets in his SUV — carrying a gun (as he was licensed to do) and calling the cops 46 times over the course of a decade to report “suspicious” activity. On the night of February 26, a black teenager happened to catch Zimmerman’s eagle eye.

Well, taking an active interest in one's own and one's neighborhood's safety and security is more accurately public spiritedness not vigilantism.  It is clear that Lowry and VerBruggen would prefer that only gubmt men patrol our streets, but calling the police 46 times is a sign of a concerned American, concerned obviously about disproportionate black crime indeed, something Lowry and VerBruggen apparently don't share.

Of more import is that the police just don't go around arresting people.  The police must have something called probable cause that a crime has occurred before they can make an arrest.  There ain't no probable cause that a crime was committed in the shooting of Sanford's own teen-aged Oscar Grant.  Cops can go to jail for making an illegal arrest.  So both need a strong cup of STFU and quit playing wannabe race Stasi, because that is all it is.  Lowry and VerBruggen don't want to be called racists and George Zimmerman is going to be how those two prove they ain't racists.

Neither Lowry or VerBruggen were there and speculation that Zimmerman is a racist vigilante is irrelevant.  The only facts that matter are those concerning what happened during the confrontation itself.  And there is only one witness.  But given the general racist attitudes among blacks like Al Sharpton and those who name their children "Trayvon," there is a good chance that Martin just did not like whites or Hispanics and gleefully decided to teach "whitey" a lesson for daring to look at him or dare speak to him.  Lowry and VerBruggen can babble on about vigilantes and "cop wannabes," but someone has to do the work that the Sanford Police Department is not doing.  And why are both so concerned about this one dead black kid?  Many more blacks are killed every month by other blacks in Chicago or Detroit.  No concerns from either about those deaths.  Apparently discussing that important fact is for people not invited to Manhattan soirees.

And to be blunt, George Zimmerman has more balls than either Lowry or VerBruggen.  I don't think either would jump out of a car and confront someone who looks like this:


This country needs more people like George Zimmerman.  Willing to go in harms way.  Much like poor Tommy Atkins, George Zimmerman would not be allowed at a Lowry attended Manhattan dinner party.

Scaring Illegals Away

Illegal immigration is not an intractable problem.  It is not a difficult crime to either investigate or prosecute.  It is not a problem that is demanding of the Federal government.  Its solutions are fairly simple, do not require extensive resources, and can be quickly brought to a successful conclusion.

The radical left portrays the problem as filled with deadly import.  Any illegal deport to them is nothing more than a death sentence or crime against humanity.  In fact, immigration to them is a right to be exercised by the alien, and not a process to be regulated, controlled and supervised by the state.  Of course, like most rights, they only exist for the left to be used against the United States and its people.  The ultimate purpose of immigration to the left is to bring down whitey.  And if Black Run America suffers for it as well, then that is just too bad, so sad.  But black people, like immigrants, are just a Neo-Communist tool, being that the working class has been a complete disappointment to Communists.  Therefore any reasoning, any tactic, any issue du jour, is acceptable for the Left to use to its goal.

That is the big picture, but what of the small picture of the in and out of a successful immigration enforcement strategy that the Communists would see as a dagger aimed at the heart of its program?

The esteemed James Fulford writing at VDare.com wrote asking a question.  Why doesn’t the Broken Windows Theory of crime fighting not apply to immigration enforcement?  Silly boy.  It does.  It just isn’t implemented.  And for a variety of reasons.  But that is not enough.  But it is a good start.

But why would this not also apply to immigration enforcement? The (federal) authorities are refusing to arrest illegals who are plainly visible, claiming that they're focusing protecting the country from major criminals.  So they can't find time to arrest people who are publicly protesting ,saying "we're illegal" or "you can't deport us all".
The federal government is in effect saying that, after all these years of non-enforcement [26], they've let the problem grow so big that they can't do anything.
Of course, we now know, thanks to Federale [27]'s reporting on the Obama Administrative Amnesty, that the government doesn't want to do anything.

Both its insufficiency and its imperative are found in immigration enforcement’s history.  Scattershot attempts at immigration control began basically with the Immigration Act of 1882 and Chinese Exclusion Act of the same year, a misnomer, since only Chinese workers were excluded, but not members of the Chinese merchant class or Chinese students, intellectuals or missionaries.  Chinese merchants, their families, and servants were routinely allowed entry into the United States.  In fact the Chinese merchant class, as corrupt as any, routinely sold their names to aspiring Chinese immigrants.  As an employee of the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service I dealt with an interesting case of a Chinese merchant’s wife, paroled into the United States in the late 1920s, but who never adjusted to that of legal permanent resident who came to the Service’s attention in the mid-90s.  Of interest is that San Francisco’s Mayor, Ed Lee, is a “paper son” brought here ostensibly legally during the so-called Chinese Exclusion Act.  Both her story and that of Ed Lee show the disconnect between immigration enforcement legislation and actual immigration law enforcement.  The pernicious influence of wealthy Chinese merchants also set the pattern of the failure of immigration enforcement over the years.

The United States did not get serious, or more accurately, just merely interested in immigration enforcement until 1924 when the U.S. Border Patrol was created.  Previously immigration enforcement was practically non-existent.  There was no systematic enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion act aside from the then U.S. Immigration Service’s haphazard enforcement on the Mexican border.  Note prior to 1924 and many years afterward, Mexican immigration was unrestricted.  The restrictions in the Immigration Act of 1924 was the major impetus of consolidating and professionalizing immigration law enforcement.  Slow administrative and legal consolidation eventually resulted in the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which led and directed immigration law enforcement until 2003.

The INS was a symbol of the managerial state.  It acted tirelessly to professionalize its enforcement, bringing ever better quality employees on board, creating a cadre of Border Patrol Agents, Special Agents, Deportation Officers and Adjudicators that were mostly university educated and had long field experience, usually starting with service in the Border Patrol, then progressing to various higher paid positions in the interior of the United States.

However, it never had a J. Edgar Hoover, who was able to create and sustain a professional organization resistant to the pernicious influence of the political class, not create an esprit de corps that help immunize it from corruption.  Political influence was to be the bane of the INS, manifesting itself more in the norm than the exception.

Dwight Eisenhower saw that problem, and chose to go to the well he knew best, a fellow general, Joseph Swing, to head the INS and, more importantly, to solve the problem of Mexican illegal immigration, not only at the border, but in the interior.

The problem was the same as that created by the Chinese Exclusion Act.  Wealthy merchants purchased entry to the United States with false documents, creating “paper sons” who were exempt the “exclusion” of Chinese.  Similarly, wealthy ranchers and farmers purchased “exemptions” from hiring Mexican illegal immigrants from corrupt Border Patrol Sector Chief Patrol Agents and INS District Directors.

Christian Science Monitor July 6, 2006

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint…"

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

The advent of  the Eisenhower Administration, adherents of the managerial state but with a sense of honor received from the top down from the Code at the U.S. Military Academy, as opposed to the habits of corruption endemic in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, think Pendergast Machine, changed things briefly at the INS.

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower – if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him – and the Border Patrol – from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

The result was Operation Wetback, a humane but vigorous immigration enforcement program that resulted in the removal of 3 million illegal aliens to Mexico, not just by arrests, but by frightening illegals, encouraging them to flee, or as well call it today, self-deport.

But the problem that confronted Eisenhower however still exists:

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

Think here the reappearing of the Chinese influence under Billy Jeff Bentpecker and his Chinese connections in place of the LBJ’s ranchers, farmers, and other consumers of low wage workers, what we now know as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the force majeure of the Jorge Bush and Obama Regimes, because it is still all about the Benjamins.

They say personnel is policy, and nothing is more true.  Jumpin’ Joe Swing and J. Edgar proved that.  This brings us to the current state of immigration law enforcement.  We must answer Fulford’s question:  So why doesn’t the Broken Windows Theory apply to immigration enforcement?  Well, because of the people.  Truman, LBJ, Clinton, Bushes, Obama.  Some more corrupt than others.  Some, like Reagan, were hoodwinked.. one hopes.  But with the last three, Clinton, Jorge Bush, and Obama, it is both filthy lucre and ideology.  Whether it is selling out to the Chinese or the Chamber, the white self-hatred of Clinton or Bush, tempering the Constitution with “compassion,” or just hating whitey from Obama.  That is why the Broken Windows Theory does not apply.

Not because it would not work.  It would be a great start, but more would be necessary. 

What is to be done?  What would be a systematic immigration enforcement strategy.  Obviously one must first look to personnel.  And at the top is fount.  Personnel is policy.  And like a fish, an immigration law enforcement strategy will stink from the head down.  If the President stinks, there is no hope.  There is a reason that the Broken Windows Theory was not applied during the Jorge Bush Regime.  He did not want it.  The same with Obama.  Both were ideologically opposed to enforcement.  Plus it did not attract Chamber support and money.  Nor did an effective enforcement strategy attract donations from George Soros, Google, the Hilton or Marriott families.

So, elections do matter, more than one would think.  The beltway immigration groups will not touch impeachment with the proverbial 10-ft pole.  They are fine on criticizing Perry or Gingrich, but have made no effort on the proactive side, supporting Bachmann or even the doppelgänger Romney now in his enforcement manifestation.

But what would a coherent and effective immigration law enforcement strategy look like with the proper personnel, under a new Jumpin’ Joe Swing?

Obviously some of the tactics of Operation Wetback, and its public manifestation, would be out.  But the underlying enforcement strategy was and is still sound.  And it can work severed from the public aggressiveness that would be so difficult today.

In fact, under the radar immigration enforcement similar to Operation Wetback existed under Nixon, Ford and Carter.  It was the heyday of the U.S. Border Patrol and INS.  Not as powerful or exempt from political influence as under Eisenhower, but it built on Wetback and struck fear into the hearts of illegal aliens.
Today, the immigration enforcement arms may be large, but they are not feared as the INS and Border Patrol of late were.  They operated mostly independently, with a sense of mission and hardheadedness unknown today.  Enforcement today under the mislabeled U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), besides being torn by a dual and conflicting mission of both immigration and customs missions, a problem that could be overcome but won’t under the current Regime, is non-existent.  Just ask the illegals at Pacific Steel.  They are out of a job, but not out of the United States.  That would have been unheard of under Ford, Nixon, Carter, or Reagan.  From the top down, Janet Reno Napolitano and John Morton, are contemptuous of the Constitution, immigration law, and the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.  Now as Fulford and I have pointed out, violation of immigration law is flagrant and public.  There is no fear of the feckless ICE.  Whether it is Chipotle, Jessica Colotl, or Muslim terrorists, there is no concern about being arrested or removed.

What can work is simple, yet aggressive enforcement of current laws. The National Rifle Association is known for its strategy on gun control of saying just enforce the laws we have.  Not a great idea on the 2nd Amendment, but a really good start regarding immigration enforcement, providing you have the right personnel.  Under current law, aggressive enforcement throughout the country, it does require a return to interior enforcement, would be both cost effective and have an impact. 

Changes to the law would help.  Three are mandatory E-Verify, expansion of expedited removal, and consolidation of the legacy INS agencies, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection, and ICE, to one border and enforcement agency. 

I propose absorbing all into an expanded U.S. Border Patrol.  That name still strikes fear into the heart of illegal aliens.  They instinctively fear it.  The name itself conveys a sense of mission and demands respect from aliens, both legal and illegal.  The Fear Factor in this expanded USBP would be devastating on its face to the morale of illegal aliens.  The yet uncrushed esprit de corps of the Patrol is still strong.  It also still holds the institutional memory of skill set needed for immigration enforcement, something atrophying in ICE and parts of CBP, which is losing knowledge of immigration law and policy, not only with the corruption of legacy U.S. Customs Service employees who just do not care about immigration enforcement, but also a horrid lack of training in immigration law.  ICE is so unconcerned about immigration enforcement, it no longer trains its Special Agents in any meaningful way in immigration law.  And those in ICE who enforce immigration law, Deportation Officers, are the red-headed step-children of ICE.  Just ask Chris Crane, ICE union representative who has repeatedly called out the Regime and John Morton by name on the issue of the Administrative Amnesty.

There, of course, is the answer to Fulford’s question.  Personnel is policy.  Change the personnel, starting at the top, replace Obama and the Trumanesque hacks at DHS with some Jumpin’ Joe Swings, and the question is answered.  It doesn’t apply because the people in charge don’t want to apply it.  They want to elect a new people.  Or get cheap labor.  Or both.  But if you did apply it, a Swingesque figure could successfully apply it and get Giuliani like results.