DACA

Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-Tolerance Policy

Release Date:
June 18, 2018

In recent days, we have seen reporters, Members of Congress, and other groups mislead the public on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) zero-tolerance policy.

Federal law enforcement officers have sworn duties to enforce the laws that Congress passes. Repeating intentionally untrue and unsubstantiated statements about DHS agents, officers, and procedures is irresponsible and deeply disrespectful to the men and women who risk their lives every day to secure our border and enforce our laws.

 


Myth

DHS has a policy to separate families at the border.


Fact

DHS does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border. However, DHS does have a responsibility to protect all minors in our custody. This means DHS will separate adults and minors under certain circumstances. These circumstances include: 1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.

  • Familial Relationship – If there is reason to question the claimed familial relationship between an adult and child, it is not appropriate to detain adults and children together.
  • Human Trafficking and Smuggling – If there is reason to suspect the purported parent or legal guardian of human trafficking or smuggling, DHS detains the adult in an appropriate, secure detection facility, separate from the minor. DHS continues to see instances and intelligence reports indicating minors are trafficked by unrelated adults, posing as a “family” in an effort to avoid detention.
  • Safety Risk – If there is reason to suspect the purported parent or legal guardian poses a safety risk to the child (e.g. suspected child abuse), it is not appropriate to maintain the adult and child together.
  • Criminal Prosecution – If an adult is referred for criminal prosecution, the adult will be transferred to U.S. Marshals Service custody and any children will be classified as an unaccompanied alien child and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services custody.

In recent months, DHS has seen a staggering increase in the number of illegal aliens using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the United States. From October 2017 to February 2018, there was a 315 percent increase in the number of cases of adults with minors fraudulently posing as “family units” to gain entry.

 


Myth

Prior to April 2017, DHS never separated families arriving at the border.


Fact

DHS has separated families under the circumstances described above. Because of court decisions, DHS can generally no longer hold families in detention beyond 20 days.

 


Myth

DHS can indefinitely detain families who cross the border illegally.


Fact

DHS generally releases families within 20 days. This creates a “get out of jail free” card for illegal alien families and encourages groups of illegal aliens to pose as families hoping to take advantage of that loophole.

In 2014, DHS increased detention facilities for arriving alien families and held families pending the outcome of immigration proceedings. However, a federal judge ruled in 2016 that under the Flores Settlement Agreement, minors detained as part of a family unit cannot be detained in unlicensed facilities for longer than a presumptively reasonable period of 20 days, at which point, such minors must be released or transferred to a licensed facility. Because most jurisdictions do not offer licensure for family residential centers, DHS rarely holds family units for longer than 20 days. The judge’s ruling made it much more difficult for the Federal government to use the detention authorities Congress gave it.

 


Myth

DHS is referring for prosecution all families coming to the border.


Fact

DHS only refers to the Department of Justice those adults who violate the law by crossing the border illegally (or who have violated some other criminal law) and are amenable for prosecution. When adults, with or without children, unlawfully enter this country, there must be a consequence for breaking our laws.

DHS is not referring for prosecutions families or individuals arriving at ports of entry or attempting to enter the country through legal means. These families and individuals have not broken the law and will be processed accordingly.

 


Myth

DHS is turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry.


Fact

DHS complies with Federal law with regard to processing individuals claiming asylum at ports of entry.

CBP processes all aliens arriving at all ports of entry without documents as expeditiously as possible without negatively affecting the agency's primary mission to protect the American public from dangerous people and materials while enhancing the nation’s economic competitiveness through facilitating legitimate trade and travel.

As the number of arriving aliens determined to be inadmissible at ports of entry continues to rise, CBP must prioritize its limited resources to ensure its primary mission is being executed. Depending on port circumstances at the time of arrival, CBP officials will allocate the necessary resources to its primary mission and operate appropriate access controls and queue management procedures for those arriving aliens without proper travel documents.

 


Myth

DHS separates families who entered at the ports of entry and who are seeking asylum – even though they have not broken the law.


Fact

If an adult enters at a port of entry and claims asylum, they will not face prosecution for illegal entry. DHS does have a responsibility to protect minors we apprehend and will separate in three circumstances:1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.

 


Myth

Once separated, arriving alien adults cannot contact minors and are not told where the minors are being held by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).


Fact

DHS is committed to and has procedures in place to connect family members after separation so adults know the location of minors and have regular communication with them.

HHS and DHS work to facilitate communication between detained adults and minors (in HHS custody) in a number of ways to include telephone and/or video conferencing. Additionally, ICE has posted information in all over 72-hour facilities advising detained adults who are trying to locate, and/or communicate with a child in the custody of HHS to call the Detention Reporting and Information Line (DRIL) for assistance. This posted information includes:

  • HHS Adult Hotline (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in both English and Spanish):
    • If calling from outside an ICE detention facility, call 1-800-203-7001.
    • If calling from an ICE detention facility, dial 699# on the free call platform.
    • Please note that you will need to provide the child’s full name, date of birth, and country of origin. It is also helpful to provide the child’s alien registration number, if you know it.
  • HHS Email: information@ORRNCC.com

Individuals may also obtain information about a particular immigration case (including their child’s), or information about reunifying with minors, through the following methods:

  • ICE Call Center (Monday-Friday, 8 am-8 pm EST):
    • If calling from outside an ICE detention facility, call 1-888-351-4024.
    • If calling from an ICE detention facility, dial 9116# on the free call platform.
  • ICE Email: Parental.Interests@ice.dhs.gov

Additionally, CBP has developed and distributed bilingual documents outlining the separation and reunification process.

 


Myth

Language barriers prevent aliens apprehended at the border, and subject to prosecution, from receiving adequate information.


Fact

All US Border Patrol trainees are required to take Spanish language training while at the Border Patrol Academy, and achieve proficiency in Spanish. All Border Patrol personnel on the Southwest Border are bilingual.

CBP apprehends illegal aliens from numerous countries that speak many languages other than Spanish. Should an agent ever have a language or communication issue, they are required to find another Agent who speaks the language or to utilize contract interpreters.

All Border Patrol personnel at the border are directed to clearly explain the relevant process to apprehended individuals. CBP provides detainees with written documentation (in Spanish and English) that lays out the process – to include the appropriate phone numbers to contact.

 


Myth

CBP and ICE officers are not properly trained to separate minors from their custodians.


Fact

The safety of CBP employees, detainees, and the public is paramount during all aspects of CBP operations. CBP treats all individuals in its custody with dignity and respect, and complies will all laws and policy, including CBP’s National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS). TEDS reinforces/reiterates the need to consider the best interest of children and mandates adherence to established protocols to protect at-risk populations, to include standards for the transport and treatment of minors in CBP custody.

All ICE facility staff who interact with adults receive trauma-informed care training. ICE is augmenting mental health care staffing, to include trained clinical staff, to provide mental health services to detained adults.

 


Myth

DHS detention facilities are in poor condition and do not provide clean drinking water.


Fact

DHS facilities are safe and sanitary, and adults and minors are provided access to food and drinking water, medical care as needed, and adequate temperature control and ventilation.

 


Myth

DHS and HHS houses migrants in “inhumane fenced cages” or in an “ice box.”


Fact

DHS and HHS utilize short-term facilities in order to process and temporarily hold migrants that have been apprehended. These short-term facilities do not employ the use of ‘cages’ to house minors. Certain facilities make use of barriers in order to separate minors of different genders and age groups – for the safety of those who are being held. Additionally, CBP facilities have adequate temperature control and ventilation. ICE facilities are designed for longer-term detention of adults and, in some cases, families.

DHS takes seriously our responsibility for the safety and security of all migrants in the custody of the United States government.

 


Myth

DHS has never separated families for prosecutions before – this is a new policy in this Administration.


Fact

Illegal border crossers, including family units, were referred for prosecutions, as appropriates, under the previous Administration. The average referral rate for amenable adults from FY10 – FY16 was 21 percent.

 


Myth

By choice, DHS refuses to keep families together through the immigration adjudication and removal process.


Fact

Court decisions interpreting the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), which has been in existence for over 20 years but was significantly broadened in 2016, limits the government’s ability to detain family units. Pursuant to these court decisions, minors detained as part of a family unit cannot be detained in unlicensed facilities for longer than a presumptively reasonable period of 20 days, at which point, minors must be released or transferred to a licensed facility. Because most jurisdictions do not offer licensure for family residential centers, DHS can rarely detain a family for longer than 20 days.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) requires unaccompanied alien children (other than those from contiguous countries – Mexico and Canada – who are eligible to withdraw their application for admission) be transferred from DHS to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours, absent exceptional circumstances.

13 Facts the Media 'Pros' Don’t Want You to Know About 'Family Border Separation'

The fire hose of fake news from the establishment media this week on the issue of illegal immigrant families separated at the border is designed to mislead the American people — and to distract from Trump’s recent successes.

Here are the facts — 13 truths the media do not want you to know about President Trump’s legal, humane, and moral handling of adults and children who enter our country illegally.

 

1. Trump Is Only Enforcing the Law

... In truth, Trump is only complying with and enforcing the law, which is his constitutional duty and responsibility.

When the media claim Trump has a “choice,” what they mean is he has a choice to ignore the law as Obama did when he illegally released untold numbers of illegals into America....

2. Trump’s Only Choice Is to Separate Illegal Alien Families

When an illegal alien crosses the border into the U.S., he is a lawbreaker, and, like any lawbreaker (including American citizens), he is put into the criminal justice system.

This is the law.

Obviously, when an illegal alien is in custody, he is housed in an adult detention center. For obvious reasons, it would be illegal for Trump to “reunite” this family by allowing children to live in adult detention centers....

Keep in mind that when we are this early in the process, we do not even know if this is a real family unit. It is not uncommon for illegal aliens (including criminals) to pretend the children they are traveling with are their own....

 

3. The Left Wants Illegal Aliens to Enjoy Privileges Denied to American Citizens

If an American citizen breaks the law and is funneled into the justice system, he is separated from his family and children. This American citizen is not allowed to keep his family with him in a detention center....

 

4. Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated...

 

5. Trump Is Correct About the Loophole

In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.

Trump is wisely choosing to do the latter ...

 

6. "Reuniting" Families Would Be a Disaster for Countless Children

Again, the only way to “keep a family together” is to allow illegals to pour into our country....

 

7. Obama and Democrats Incentivized This ‘Family Separation’

Until Obama came along, illegal border crossings primarily involved young, single men. Obama incentivized the idea of dragging minor children along on this dangerous journey (where many children are sexually assaulted) through his policy of “catch and release.”...

 

8. Barack Obama Separated Illegal Alien Families, Media Said Nothing

Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, families were indeed separated. Obama, of course, rarely prosecuted, even though the law calls for it.

Neither Democrats nor the media cared about family separation then, which proves this manufactured and coordinated uproar is only about politics....

 

9. IMPORTANT: The ONLY Way to Unite Families Is to Release Them into America

... But when you hear the media call for these families to be reunited, remember that is coded language that means only one thing: releasing illegal aliens into our country with nothing more than a court summons....

 

10. Incentivizing the Act of Bringing Minor Children Across the Border Is Evil

... Evil people want these children dragged across the border, want this abuse incentivized by “keeping the family unit together,” because flooding the country with future indebted voters is more important to them than the safety and well-being of small children....

 

11. Those Who Come to America Legally Face ‘Family Separation’

 

12. “Family Reunification” Is an Invitation to Human Traffickers

Because of “catch and release,” because of this dumb and destructive loophole carved out for families, the number of illegal aliens using children to enter the U.S. increased by 315 percent between October 2017 and February 2018.

Trump understands what is happening and this is why he has moved to a zero tolerance policy....

 

13. Media Do Not Give a Shit About American Families Separated by Criminal Illegal Aliens

Illegal alien families are choosing to be separated by voluntarily engaging in lawbreaking. These illegal alien families, if they so choose, can stay together, simply by obeying the law....

Here's the real story on migrant children separated from parents

As is usually the case, the latest Trump outrage as presented to you by the self-righteous media is not an accurate reflection of what’s really going on.

If you’ve been listening to the scandalized reports from the press and the outraged howls of Democrats and celebrities, you have the impression the Trump Administration is seizing migrant children, separating them from their families and banishing them to dark dungeons – never to see their parents again. And they’re doing all of this because they’re racist xenophobes ...

Is this even close to what’s really going on?

.... National Review’s Rich Lowry explains the truth about how this works, and under what circumstances, and why:

Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the adjudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

The media coverage tells you none of this, of course....

The truth is that when there is separation, it’s very brief, and every family that wants to come to the United States can easily avoid it happening by a) going to a legitimate port of entry instead of sneaking across the border illegally, and by telling the truth about who they are....

But much of America, including almost all of the media and just about every member of the Democratic Party, has stopped taking illegal immigration seriously as a crime. But the law says it is, and the border patrol is charged with treating it like it is....

 

A Civil Rights Commissioner Weighs In On Children at the Border

On Friday, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on the subject of separating families who enter the country illegally at the southern border. Peter’s letter is as clear an explanation of the issue as I have seen. It is so cogent that I am duplicating it here...

The reason parents and children are separated is the law: When an adult illegal alien is prosecuted for unlawful entry, that person is taken into the custody of the U.S. Marshals and the children are taken into custody by HHS. Nonetheless, unless the adult applies for asylum, the unlawful entry is resolved relatively quickly and the separation is brief. But if the adult applies for asylum, the process–-and separation–is lengthier. ...

The bottom line is that the Commission majority is opposed to enforcing almost any immigration laws pertaining to illegal entry. ...

People who have potentially valid claims for asylum can present themselves at ports of entry and request asylum. They will be processed normally and will not be separated from their children because they are following the law....

It is unwise to release detained individuals into the United States, because they are then very likely to abscond into the interior and fail to appear for their immigration hearing. “Over the past 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending their trials – 918,098 out of 2,498,375 – never showed for court.”...

Separating children from their parents is regrettable. It is not, however, unique. American parents are separated from their children every day when they are arrested or incarcerated. According to HHS, during Fiscal Year 2016, 20,939 American children entered foster care because their parent is incarcerated. This is more than ten times the number of children who have been separated from their parents due to entering the United States illegally. People who cross the border illegally have committed a crime, and one of the consequences of being arrested and detained is, unfortunately, that their children cannot stay with them. ...

 

View the letter on ScribD

Children used as human shields against immigration enforcement

“We will not apologize for doing our job,” declares DHS Secretary Nielsen.

There is a coordinated effort now by some Democratic Party leaders and their allies to stop any immigration enforcement involving children.  Oregon’s Senators and Reps. Bonamici and Blumenauer participated in a demonstration in Sheridan OR this past week-end. 

In a statement released today (6/18/2018), Mark Krikorian, Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, analyzes the media hysteria created thus far and exposes the deceit and misrepresentation being used in the campaign.  Read the entire article, 'We will not apologize for doing our job' .

Below is an excerpt:

The manic wave of "concentration camp" accusations and Hitler comparisons is reminiscent of the atrocity propaganda that helped propel us into World War I (stories of Germans "bayoneting Belgian babies", raping nuns, and the like). Democratic politicians are weeping on television, staged photos are widely retweeted, and even former President George Bush's wife has penned an op-ed calling for a "kinder, more compassionate" means of enforcing our immigration laws.

The reality is more mundane. Border apprehensions of adults bringing children with them skyrocketed during the Obama administration, from about 15,000 in Fiscal Year 2013 (the first time separate statistics were reported) to more than 75,000 in FY 2017. Before the Obama years, it was rare for a parent to bring children with her when trying to infiltrate the U.S. border. No parent, after all, would subject her children to such risks unless there was an incentive to do so.

And that incentive was not flight from gang violence; research has shown almost everyone leaving Central America is motivated by economic reasons. Instead, the prospect of being released into the United States if you brought a child with you was what has caused the spike in arrests of what he Border Patrol calls "family units" at the border.

As the New York Times reported earlier this year:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

Children have served as get-out-of-jail-free cards for border infiltrators, ensuring the whole family's release with a notice to appear in immigration court some months or years in the future, and when they failed to appear, the Obama administration's prioritization rules meant no one would track you down.

When you reward something, you can expect to get more of it.  …

These problems could be fixed with legal changes present in both immigration bills expected to be voted on this week, as my colleague Andrew Arthur explained earlier today. The alternative is to surrender to the use of children as human shields against immigration enforcement, which will only invite even more widespread use of children as tickets to America, not only for Central Americans but also for illegal immigrants from around the world using Mexico as a springboard to sneak into the United States.

 

Members of Congress Call Out DACA

Today the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), representting Rep. Steve King (IA-4th Dist.) and five other members of Congress as friends of the court, filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas supporting Texas and other states in their lawsuit against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Because of the office they hold, these representatives have a compelling interest in the faithful execution of the laws passed by Congress. IRLI shows in its brief that the DACA program, created by President Obama in reaction to Congress' rejection of the DREAM Act, an amnesty bill for illegal aliens rejected no less than 24 times since 2001, was unauthorized by any statute, violated procedural requirements in its promulgation, and was a glaring example of forbidden executive lawmaking.

IRLI also shows in its brief that DACA flouted the Constitution's command that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." As the brief puts it:

Though, at some level, any substantively or even procedurally ultra vires action represents a failure faithfully to execute the laws, U.S. CONST. art. II, §3, it requires more to violate the Take Care Clause — a failure even to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Id. That failure, however, is amply present here. Indeed, the prior administration itself candidly acknowledged the unlawfulness of DACA numerous times before issuing DACA for political reasons when Congress did not enact the legislation that the prior administration sought. A court issuing an equitable remedy in these circumstances could find that the Executive willfully failed to take care, then tailor the remedy to account for that willfulness.

This case comes at a time when liberal courts around the country are issuing bizarre rulings claiming that DACA, supposedly a discretionary program, must go on despite the Trump administration's attempt to exercise its discretion to rescind it," commented Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "Success in this lawsuit would cut off those rulings at the knees. If DACA is unlawful, courts cannot reinstate it, and the pre-DACA status quo should be restored – no matter what these coourts may claim about Trump's rescission."

The lawsuit is being heard by Judge Andrew Hanen, the judge who blocked the very similar Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAPA") program, which would have granted amnesty to 4 million illegal aliens and included an expanded version of DACA, in 2015. Judge Hanen's ruling in the DAPA case was upheld by both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and (in a 4-4 ruling) by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The full list of congressmen IRLI represents in its brief filed today is as follows:
Rep. Steve King, Iowa 4th Congressional District
Rep. Andy Biggs, Arizona 5th Congressional District
Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas 1st Congressional District
Rep. Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S, Arizona 4th Congressional District
Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky 4th Congressional District

Rep. Ralph Norman, South Carolina 5th Congressional District

The case is State of Texas v. United States, 18-cv-00068 (S.D. Tex.).
 

For additional information, contact: Brian Lonergan • 202-2322-5590 • blonergan followed by @ irli dotorg

How Barack Obama's DACA Encouraged Identity Theft by Illegal Aliens

As the dilemma of what to do about the illegal alien participants in former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has dominated the immigration debate for more than a year, a new investigation has revealed the lengths to which the previous chief executive facilitated the program.

They did so by, among other things, ignoring widespread identity theft by illegal aliens and keeping Americans in the dark about being cut off from their Social Security benefits. The findings show how DACA is not the act of benevolence that is portrayed in the media, and has actually caused great harm to American citizens. It simply has to end.

Diving deep into the beginnings of DACA, Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple and former assistant commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, details how the Obama Homeland Security Department (DHS) kept the use of stolen Social Security numbers from being counted against would-be DACA applicants.

As he shows, the promise to forgive the crime, one that is pervasive among illegal aliens, was consciously designed to incentivize DACA-eligible “dreamers” — for the never-passed Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act — to come out of the shadows and apply for the program.

In addition to being a blatant violation of the Constitution and our immigration laws, DACA can now be seen as the product of an administration that refused to enforce the law for political reasons, and at the expense of honest citizens.

Further, Ting reveals how the DHS omission was supplemented by the Social Security Administration (SSA), which halted a program started in the 1970s that communicated to working people when there was a mismatch between the information submitted in employer wage reports and what was in the agency’s database.

The notices, which had formerly been posted to millions of people across the country and appear to be mandatory under SSA regulations, are important because when a submitted name/SSN combination isn't lining up in SSA's system, the citizen or legal resident's number appears illegitimate, which can lead to their Social Security benefits' being frozen.

This can happen, for instance, if there's a typographical error on an employer's W-2 wage report or when a newly married woman changes her name but forgets to report it. According to SSA records, hundreds of thousands of legitimate SSN users had been responding to such letters annually, requesting help from the SSA to ensure they received the benefits to which they are entitled.

Over the years, however, the vast majority of letter recipients have been illegal aliens. As Ting writes, before DACA, the SSA had estimated that three out of every four illegal aliens possessed a Social Security number, which had either been stolen from an American citizen or legal resident or simply made up.

Although almost never reported on, when illegal aliens steal a Social Security number, the consequences can be very serious for the legitimate user. On top of receiving IRS letters and audits accusing them of having income they are not claiming or having their benefits blocked, reconciling a compromised identifier is estimated to cost thousands of dollars and take years of effort.

This doesn't matter to most illegal aliens, given the benefits involved, including the documentation they need to obtain work in the U.S., where wages, at least compared to Mexico, are 10 times higher.

The pervasiveness of this crime was, however, apparently lost on the Obama DHS. When DACA was first implemented, DHS did nothing to allay the uncertainty and fear among applicants about whether the discovery of identity fraud would trigger a denial or be used to prosecute them.

As Ting shows, after the DACA rollout, DHS jumped to correct the "mistake," rushing out a statement after the program's announcement assuring potential applicants they were "not interested in using [DACA] as a way to identify one-off cases where some individual may have violated some federal law in an employment relationship." Just as with their initial immigration violation, DACA aliens' Social Security number fraud was to be swept under the rug.

Giving DACA applicants the assurance they needed to apply was further aided by the SSA. Just eight days after DACA was implemented, its letter-mailing program was halted. With applicants' receiving letters from the SSA flagging them as possible identity thieves, they would likely be far less confident in approaching the government for DACA benefits.

Moreover, for the SSA's program to persist alongside DACA would have simply looked absurd. On the one hand, DACA aliens would be told they had been flagged for a serious criminal violation, while on the other, they were being called "dreamers" and told they needn't worry about the violations.

Further, as Ting found, the suspension of the SSA letters wasn't made public until late 2016, a full four years after the program was terminated. Publicly announcing the suspension just days after DACA went into effect no doubt would have created suspicion from an American public already skeptical of Obama's unprecedented amnesty push.

That Obama would go to such lengths to ensure the successful rollout of DACA is unsurprising, considering the dubious legal justifications of the program to begin with, along with other extreme nonenforcement measures taken throughout his tenure.

The direct harm inflicted on the American public, the details of which we hope will come to the surface as this story unfolds, perhaps puts it above other damaging aspects of Obama's immigration legacy.

Those dubious justifications included the "prioritization" of removals only for serious criminal aliens, plus the legal attacks on state and local governments that sought to cooperate with the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts.

But the direct harm inflicted on the American public, the details of which we hope will come to the surface as this story unfolds, perhaps puts it above other damaging aspects of Obama's immigration legacy.

For now, we at the Immigration Reform Law Institute are suing SSA and DHS, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for records concerning decisions made by the DACA program's architects. Congress, the relevant inspectors general, and the Department of Justice should to investigate the matter fully.

Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.

A good bill went awry in the Legislature; consequences follow

You can trace the course of HB 4111 in the just-closed session of the Oregon Legislature and learn a lot about how political ball is being played there now to serve entrenched interests.

A perfectly good bill relating to Department of Transportation documents, which described “fees required when person is applying to replace or renew current driver license with Real ID compliant driver license or is applying for new original driver license that is Real ID compliant” was hi-jacked by means of an amendment and converted into yet another benefit — official driver licenses — for a group of illegal aliens.  This benefit can reverberate in future elections also unless voter registration processes are tightened.

The bill was Pre-Session filed, and originally sponsored by several Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Carl Wilson, of Grants Pass.  After the hi-jacking into a benefit for illegal aliens, Rep. Wilson removed his name from sponsorship and spoke against HB 4111.  As passed on March 3, HB 4111 was sponsored by these legislators, all Democrats:  Reps. Witt, Hernandez, Alonso Leon, Greenlick, Keny-Guyer, Salinas, Sanchez, Sollman, Williamson, and Senators Gelser and Manning. 

The maneuver to change the bill was accomplished through a Senate amendment referred to as Dash-10 in legislative lingo.  Then the bill incorporating “Dash-10” was put before the House for a final vote on Saturday afternoon, March 3, in the waning hours of the session

The claim is that “Dash-10” applies only to persons enrolled in the DACA and TPS programs, but those programs are not mentioned in the bill, and the bill contains other provisions that appear to weaken requirements for verification of applications.

OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll watched the action:   “… they introduced the amendment as Dash -2, with Rep. Hernandez as the sponsor - and then pulled it – and then, re-introduced it as Dash-10 - with the Senate Transportation Committee as the sponsor, then pulled it again ‘for negotiations,’ then, submitted the bill to the Senate with the amendment ‘engrossed’ in the bill.  It seems at every turn, and with virtually NO notice, the effort was made to obscure the fact that forces were at work behind the scenes to ADD driver cards for illegal aliens to HB4111.  Several people told me they went to OLIS and saw no amendment - so, ultimately did not submit comments - or call in about it.  Would we call that a slight of hand?”

Originally, the bill was introduced in the House on February 5.  The House considered the bill and passed it, without changing the text.  Then it went to the Senate where advocates for benefits to illegal aliens succeeded through “Dash-10” in turning the bill into a tool to suit their purposes.  It passed the Senate by a vote of 20-8, with 2 members not voting.  All Democrats present voted Yes, along with 4 Republicans, Senators DeBoer, Hansell, Thompson, and Winters.

Because the Senate amendment had changed the bill, it had to go back to the House for a final vote, 36-22.  Again, all Democrats voted Yes.  One Republican voted Yes, Rep. Richard Vial, who represents Sherwood, Wilsonville and Gaston.  All other Republicans present voted No.

OFIR President Cynthia Kendoll submitted testimony to the Senate Committee on Business and Transportation hearing on Feb. 26.  Her statement to the Committee can be read here.

OFIR Board member Mark Callahan gave oral testimony which can viewed in the Legislative video recording of Committee proceedings at: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=24705.  He appears at about 6:35 in the video, speaking for approximately 2 minutes.  He entered into the Committee record a colorful chart  showing M88 vote results statewide; see it here

OFIR Board member Janice Dysinger submitted testimony also.  For some time, Ms. Dysinger, has been involved in research on the conduct of state elections and is active in Oregonians for Fair Elections, a citizen group working to protect the integrity of our state’s elections.  Her detailed statement to the Senate Committee on Business and Transportation on Feb. 26, raised many good questions about voter registration in Oregon and how it would be impacted by HB 4111.  See her statement here.

The only person who submitted testimony in favor of HB 4111 was Andrea Williams, Executive Director, Causa Oregon.   She wrote a letter that was entered into the record.

While Secretary of State Richardson recently gave Oregon’s voting system a clean bill of health, it’s clear that the registration processes can easily be corrupted and probably are, to an extent far beyond what the public is led to believe. There’s a high probability that HB 4111 would make the problem of illegal voting worse.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET OREGON ON THE RIGHT TRACK?

To OFIR members who feel discouraged after the passage of HB 4111 – remember – that is not the final move in immigration policy.  The route to change is open to us, in election of legislators who understand the importance of immigration controls and will put the interests of U.S. citizens first. 
 
Already through an informed and civic-minded citizenry, the U.S. has elected a President who believes in vigorous immigration law enforcement.  Other states are cooperating in the effort, and Oregon has shown broad support in the 2014 vote on Measure 88. 

Primary elections are coming up soon -- in May.  With members’ help, OFIR will provide information on the immigration positions of candidates, and members will have the opportunity to support good candidates and work to get them elected. The next session of the Legislature will convene in February 2019, after the November 2018 elections. 

You can view the candidate information that  OFIR posted on its website for the 2014 and 2016 elections here.  Many 2018 candidates for the Legislature and statewide offices have already replied to the 2018 Oregon Abigail Adams Voter Education Project questionnaire which includes questions on immigration policy.

Already candidates are speaking publicly and discussing issues; many have websites online.

In their candidacy websites, some candidates make their positions on immigration issues quite clear.  OFIR hopes to post all relevant information on its website for as many races as possible.   Three candidates for Governor who have good positions on immigration spoke at the February OFIR meeting. 

Senate rejects Trump immigration plan

The Senate rejected legislation based on President Trump's framework for an immigration deal in a 39-60 vote on Thursday, leaving an uncertain path forward for Congress with nearly a million immigrants sheltered by an Obama-era program facing the prospect of deportation.

The measure spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) needed 60 votes to clear a filibuster, but failed to meet the mark.

It was the fourth proposal in a row rejected by the Senate ...

The Grassley measure provided a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. Many of these people could face deportation beginning in March as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is scaled back, though court rulings are complicating that matter.

It also included $25 billion for border security, tougher interior enforcement and new limits on legal immigration.

Supporters of the plan and the White House mounted an intense pressure campaign to win over the 60 votes needed to move forward with their plan.

"The president, in my view, has gone more than halfway to meet the Democrats and resolve this matter..." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said ahead of the vote.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also called the framework a "reasonable compromise."

And Trump, in a tweet, urged senators to "strongly consider a system of merit based immigration."

"While the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are working hard to come up with a solution to DACA, they should be strongly considering a system of Merit Based Immigration so that we will have the people ready, willing and able to help all of those companies moving into the USA!" he said.

Bolstering the White House, most Senate Republicans backed the measure, despite some concerns about cuts to legal immigration. And Trump won over three Democrats — Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) — all of whom face tough reelection races in deep-red states this fall. 

“I share the President's commitment to border security," Manchin said. "That’s why I voted for his plan. That’s why I fought to ensure the $25 billion he requested for border security was included in the bipartisan deal. That’s why I opposed the Democratic proposal that did not provide a single penny for border security." 
 
Trump and McConnell threw their support behind the Grassley plan earlier this week, bolstering its chances. Republicans are wary of moving forward with an immigration bill that the president doesn't support given that the issue is a political lightning rod amongst the party's base.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), one of Trump's closest allies in the Senate, warned ahead of the vote that any Republicans who supported a separate bipartisan proposal should be concerned about "their electoral futures.”

But the interior enforcement measures, limits to legal immigration and nixing of the Diversity Visa Lottery program were largely considered nonstarters for Democrats.

"President Trump, since he created this problem by terminating DACA last August, has stood in the way of every single proposal that has had a chance to become law," said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Republicans tried to pressure Democrats into supporting the measure, making it the fourth of the four proposals to get a vote in the Senate Thursday. But Democrats largely scoffed at the take it-or-leave it set up.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) separately told reporters that “I think the writing’s on the wall with the Grassley proposal. … Few if any Democrats will vote for it.”

Grassley tried to win over Democratic support by pledging they would be able to offer changes if it overcame an initial procedural hurdle.

"Aren't you at a point where here the Democrats have been pleading for months and months and months for justice," he said, "why would they turn it down?"

Where the Senate's debate goes next is unclear, though Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters that both sides would keep talking ahead of the March 5 deadline.

Where the Senate's debate goes next is unclear. 

The Trump administration announced last year that they were ending DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children to work and go to school.

Under that decision Congress has until March 5 to pass a fix. But two court dates have thrown that into limbo.

McConnell said late Thursday afternoon that it had been a "disappointing week" and Democrats "couldn't take yes for an answer." 

And while noting that he had "held up my end of the bargain," the GOP leader left the door open to bringing immigration back up if a plan emerged that could pass both chambers and had the support of the White House. 

"Even though this week has been squandered, this does not have to be the end of our efforts," he said.

 

News media get F on immigration reporting

How trustworthy are the major newspapers and news media in this country?  Judging from recent reports, not very.  Critical information about the amnesty bills before Congress was omitted by major media.  Here’s proof:

Media Fail: June 30th, 2018 provision goes unreported

By Jeremy Beck, NumbersUSA, Friday, Feb. 16, 2018

Excerpts:

54 Senators voted yesterday in support of an immigration proposal put forward by Senators Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mike Rounds (D-S.D.), and Angus King (I-Maine), the self-described "Common Sense Caucus". Did they know what they were voting for?

The proposal's language was still being tweaked on Wednesday but by Thursday morning, Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times had the scoop on some extraordinary details:

Not only would the bill enshrine Obama-era deportation rules, protecting most of the current 11 million illegal immigrants from fear of removal, but it extends those same protections to any illegal immigrants who can jump the border between now and June 30....

.... The key language is on the last page of the amendment which Mr. Schumer introduced last Wednesday.

The bill reads: "In carrying out immigration enforcement activities, the secretary shall prioritize available immigration enforcement resources to aliens who arrived in the United States after June 30, 2018."  …

The "Obama-era deportation rules" effectively exempted 87 percent of unauthorized aliens from immigration law by requiring enforcement agencies to only prioritize convicted felons, gang members national security threats and "recent" border crossers.

The "Common Sense Caucus" attempted to reinstate the Obama rules legislatively, but changed the "we-promise-to-get-serious-now" date from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018. Doing so would ensure that people who entered the country illegally after January 1, 2014 wouldn't be held accountable for the Obama administration's failure to keep its promise and (inexplicably) extend that assurance to people who successfully enter the country illegally at any point over the next four months. …

If American voters had asked Congress to devise a plan to cause another border surge, they could not have asked for much more than what the "Common Sense Caucus" came up with.

Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA, has read more immigration legislation than anyone on Capitol Hill and she told the Washington Times that she had never seen anything like the June 30th provision. …

… in the hours leading up to the Senate vote...

The New York Times did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Washington Post did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Associated Press did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Wall Street Journal did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

Reuters did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

McClatchy did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

USA Today did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

The Los Angeles Times did not report the June 30, 2018 provision.

We've seen this kind of epic fail before. In 2013, the Senate voted on - and passed - the "Gang of Eight" bill that included what would have set off the largest immigration increase in United States history, yet in the months leading up to the votes, none of the above newspapers reported the size and historical nature of that provision. The focus back then - as it was this week - was on the legalization provision. The proposed increases in immigration were deeply unpopular with the public and one would imagine the June 30th provision would be as well. By keeping those details out of news reports, the media helped the sponsors of both proposals present their ideas in the best possible light without having to defend the deeply unpopular aspects. …

------------------

Read the entire article here.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - DACA