Homeland Security

Imam told Portland Seven that combat against U.S. was 'legitimate jihad,' court papers say

The imam of Portland's biggest mosque collected money from worshippers after 9/11, sending the Portland Seven to Afghanistan to fight against coalition forces, the U.S. Department of Justice alleges in its fight to deport the imam.

Arguments between lawyers for Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye and the Justice Department reveal new details of the government's legal maneuvers to strip the imam of his citizenship.

As religious leader of Masjed As-Saber, Kariye told several members of the plot that "Muslims should fight with fellow Muslim brothers of Afghanistan against Americans" and that this combat was a "righteous fight ... legitimate jihad," Justice Department lawyers wrote in an exhibit filed earlier this month in the immigration case...

The imam was never charged with any crime related to the Portland Seven. While people who prayed in his mosque were sentenced to prison ...

Kariye's lawyers, Nicole Nelson and Philip James Smith, have filed papers seeking to dismiss the government's lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. ...

Government lawyers Benjamin G. Mizer, William C. Peachey and Christopher W. Dempsey argued in a response filed earlier this month that the law allows them to represent the U.S. in filing the complaint to strip Kariye of his naturalization.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown is expected to rule on the dueling motions, but it's unclear when.

Brown presides in another civil complaint involving Kariye: He is one of several plaintiffs in a lawsuit that accuses the FBI and its Terrorist Screening Center of violating the constitutional rights of those placed on the U.S. no-fly list, including him.

The exhibit that the government included in its response to the denaturalization lawsuit accuses Kariye of lacking the good moral character necessary to remain a U.S. citizen....

Letters from across the country reveal the frustration of the voting public about illegal immigration

Across the country, citizens are expressing their outrage at elected officials for their lack of action in securing our borders, protecting our jobs and enforcing our immigration laws.

It's critical that we keep the conversation going and demand action to protect our country and our citizens.  Please plan to attend Town Hall meetings in your area, write to your elected officials and submit letters to the editor or call a radio talk show and insist that elected officials be held accountable for policies that allow innocent American citizens to be raped, hit by drunk drivers and even murdered by illegal aliens that are not supposed to be in our country at all.

You're not alone in your anger and frustration.  But, too many have been too silent for so long that it is going to take all of us to keep the conversation going and the pressure on during this election cycle.  HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE for their actions that perpetuate the problems we are having.

Below is a compilation of letters from across the country.  Be inspired to write a letter of your own and submit it to a local newspaper.

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

New Haven Register
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter to the Editor: Murphy wrong on supporting refugees

Posted: 09/20/15, 2:54 PM EDT |

I don’t normally agree with most of what Norm Pattis has to say in his weekly column, but last week’s was on the money. Why do politicians think it’s our responsibility to take in and support people who aren’t happy in their own country when we don’t even take care of our own? And our own illustrious Sen. Chris Murphy said we need to accept 50,000 “refugees” from Syria! He’s very generous with our tax dollars, which I am sure will increase to absorb the cost. Add that to the 11.3 million illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America that they’re trying to give a free pass to already. Where does it end? Maybe Murphy and his compadres should bring them to their houses and support them. We don’t want them! Everyone’s ancestors came here from other countries but they came the right way — legally. This smells exactly like the Jimmy Carter Cuban Boatlift when Castro emptied his prisons and asylums and sent them here ... and we all know how that turned out! Send everyone who is here illegally back to where they came from and tell them to apply to come back the right way. There is a process — make them use it.

— Mike Pearson North Branford

http://www.nhregister.com/opinion/20150920/letter-to-the-editor-murphy-wrong-on-supporting-refugees

The Berkshire Eagle
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter: America's compassion will be its downfall

The Berkshire Eagle

Posted: 09/19/2015 12:17:34 PM EDT | Updated:  about 5 hours ago

American's Compassion Will Be Its Downfall

To the editor:

Tony Smith's Sept. 5 letter "Past immigrants earned their status" is so right, especially about the U.S. becoming the planet's homeless shelter. Our country's compassion is used and abused. We help one family, they bring in 10 families, and suck our country dry.

If we as Americans don't stand up for our country and stop this merry-go-round the country will be town down! It's time to do something. Breaking our laws and being illegal is wrong. What would any other country do to an American citizen who breaks their laws? Death, torture, jail? I know one thing for sure — it wouldn't be a free life.

K. Withers Lee

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/letters/ci_28842383/letter-americas-compassion-will-be-its-downfall

The Press-Enterprise

Opinion

LETTERS:

PRESS-ENTERPRISE

Published: Sept. 18, 2015 Updated: 4:27 p.m.

End Anti-Americanism

Re: “Deport illegal aliens, with no exceptions” [Letters, Sept. 7]: I concur wholeheartedly with the widespread opinions expressed by legal citizens everywhere that the time has now come to rid this country of all illegal immigrants who don’t belong here.

The sooner the better.

I’ve heard enough about the wonders of multi-culturism and bilingualism to give me a permanent stomach ache.

What ever happened to English only? Why do we have to put up “dial 1 for English”? Those who foist these anti-American rules on the rest of us need to be escorted out of the country, along with all illegal aliens.

Harry Miller

Hemet

http://www.pe.com/articles/job-780853-illegal-conscience.html

The Florida Times Union
jacksonville.com

Home/Opinion

Monday's Letters:

By Letters from readers Fri, Sep 18, 2015 @ 3:22 pm

NATIONAL SECURITY

Some good, some bad

On the one hand, it appears our nation is doing a good job in stopping terror attacks based on the lack of incidents that actually occur.

Most of the reports that I read name the FBI as the organization that is most active and effective.

But the Department of Homeland Security is largely a hugely expensive joke. It is a politically correct organization where the airport screeners fail to detect a very large percentage of the test cases presented them.

Both the immigration and the border patrol segments of Homeland Security are not fulfilling their missions. But that’s likely through no fault of their own.

The timid leaders we have elected — and the even more timid bureaucrats that they appoint — have effectively neutered our personnel on the front lines.

With a budget of $38 billion, we still haven’t been able to secure the U.S. border.

Why doesn’t someone on the U.S. side demonstrate an “act of love” for this nation by sealing our borders?

It’s time we put out the word to all our southern neighbors that the U.S. will stop those who cross the border illegally.

And that we will use deadly force to ensure the safety and sanctity of this country.

Heaven knows how many bad actors have simply walked into our country because of purchased politicians who value their campaign donors more than personal integrity.

Alec Lawson, captain, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Jacksonville

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2015-09-18/story/mondays-letters-we-shouldnt-feel-obligated-take-syrian

Mail Tribune

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor, Sept. 18

Posted Sep. 18, 2015 at 12:01 AM

End birthright citizenship

Maybe the most laughable canard bleated out by the open borders crowd is, “To eliminate birthright citizenship you’d have to change the Constitution.” But the statement has no basis in reality.

Birthright citizenship can be eliminated by Congress. The clause the border bleaters cling to is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States … . But in 1868, when the amendment was adopted, there was no restriction on immigration. It didn’t cover Native Americans until 1924, so citizenship has obviously already been changed legislatively.

Then there are the pesky words, “… subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” Senator Lyman Trumbull, an architect of the amendment, said that meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” So it certainly wouldn’t apply to Mexican migrants, who wave Mexican flags on California streets all the time. But the final nail in the open borders folks’ coffin is Section 5, which states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The U.S. and Canada are the only major modern countries in the world who still grant birthright citizenship. It’s way past time to change that.

Robert Bennett

Grants Pass

http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150918/OPINION/150919610

TribLIVE | Opinion/The Review

From whom they flee

Letter to the Editor
Thursday, Sept. 17, 2015, 8:55 p.m.
Updated 17 minutes ago

The refugee crisis in Europe and the U.S. exposes the lack of common sense in the Western world.

Moral leaders are quick to criticize European and U.S. governments for not doing enough for refugees coming to their countries. But where is the moral outrage against the corrupt, warmongering and dysfunctional leaders in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America who have created this crisis?

Why is the U.S. criticized for not wanting illegal immigrants while Mexican and other Latin American leaders are not criticized for creating circumstances causing their citizens to flee? Perhaps it's safer to criticize good guys than bad guys.

This situation has the same moral equivalence as members of a dysfunctional family living next door, demanding to move into your house to be fed and clothed at your expense, and creating turmoil in your household. Who would stand for this?

Wouldn't it be less expensive and more humane to militarily engage the bad guys in charge of refugee-producing countries than to allow the turmoil that massive world migration will bring to stable countries? It will take decades to recover from the disruption and upheaval from migration.

Allowing unchecked immigration is insane and ensures the crisis will continue indefinitely. It's a shame that we don't have world leaders with the courage to solve this problem!

Dave Majernik

Plum

The writer is vice chairman of the Allegheny County Republican Committee.

http://triblive.com/opinion/letters/9055630-74/countries-guys-leaders#axzz3m2br8NNu

Ledger-Enquirer

Letters to the Editor

September 17, 2015

Lawbreakers by any name

I read Wilkinson's column in the paper and I agree that our immigration policy is flawed. However, he described the Mexican bad guy as "an undocumented immigrant," and I disagree with that. Such a description of Mexican citizens unlawfully present in our country may now be politically correct, but in my opinion it is incorrect.

Thousands of Mexicans willfully break our laws every day and surreptitiously cross our southern border, and they should only be referred to as "illegal aliens." Regardless of why Mexicans sneak into our country, their sneaking should not be tolerated by our governments (local, state and national), and when someone is found to be here illegally, they should be considered a criminal and treated accordingly. I know that many illegals come here to become American citizens, but I believe most want to keep their allegiance to Mexico and only desire the economic benefits of our rich country. It doesn't matter if they're behaving themselves while they're here. They're here illegally.

We can't immediately fine and deport all the illegal aliens, but if we withhold from them all of our social benefits, including educational and medical (except in special cases), they'll soon deport themselves.

We should also jail every businessman who profits from the low wages he pays to an illegal. My grandfather legally came from Germany to have a better life here, and he found it for himself and his posterity. All Mexicans should be required to do the same. If our present politicians won't fix our immigration problems, then we need to cast our votes in the next election for the folks who will.

Carl "Bud" Paepcke

Columbus

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article35606901.html

BUCKS COUNTY
Courier Times

Opinion | Bucks County | Letters to the Editor

Enforce the immigration laws

Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:15 am

Everyone who doesn't like what Donald Trump says about immigration are the same people who have ignored the problem for decades.

We have laws that allow people from foreign countries to attain citizenship legally. Occasionally there is news about new citizens. I actually attended one of these naturalization ceremonies in 1973 when my wife became a U.S. citizen. These people did what the law required. Just because we are so close to Mexico and South America it has become a problem with the politicians ignoring the people crossing the border and living here illegally. Businesses are to blame also for employing illegals for cheap wages.

Every politician from both parties is afraid to do anything about the problem because it will offend the Hispanic population. How ridiculous that is to let laws continue to be ignored. Obeying political correctness so we don't offend any minority is an epidemic in this country. We need someone who will actually do something about this problem, which is beyond critical as this point.

No other candidate is willing to address the problem and offer a solution. Amnesty for the illegals would cause a backlash of gigantic proportions and is a slap in the face of the people who obeyed the law and became U. S. citizens.

Both political parties created this problem and the Democrats won't do anything because the illegals are part of their government-dependency base. Likewise, Republican business owners would lose the cheap labor they provide. There are also the criminals who are shipping in illegal drugs and killing people. We have more than enough of our home grown criminals and don't need any more here illegally.

We definitely need a political outsider to lead this country after the eight years of damage done by the incompetency of the present administration. There are three Republicans who are not career politicians running for President. Hopefully we will chose right this time so this country can be great again and not the Third World country we are headed for.

Ron Bolvin

Middletown

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/opinion/letters/enforce-the-immigration-laws/article_f745eee8-1089-5828-ada9-cda451badf35.html

ORANGE COUNTY
REGISTER

Opinion

Letters: A simple immigration policy

Sept. 16, 2015

Updated 12:00 a.m.

By ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Our country was founded by legal immigrants and could be destroyed by illegal immigrants.

According to a study conducted by the Federation of America Immigration Reform, the cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year – an average of $1,117 for every household in America – and it is growing rapidly. Supporting illegal immigrants has caused our country to become almost insolvent.

I have read many of the expensive strategies proposed by our presidential candidates to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. However, they will only put us in more debt, and are not assured to be very effective.

We all know that illegal immigrants come to this country to improve their way of life. They all seek benefits without payments, better living conditions and employment. All the benefits that they receive are too numerous to mention. I have an inexpensive solution to solve the problem of illegal immigrants entering this country: Discontinue all illegal immigrant benefits.

Any landlord that rents an apartment to an illegal immigrant will be severely punished financially. Any tenant that allows illegal immigrants to move into their residence will be severely punished financially. Any employer that hires an illegal immigrant will be severely punished financially.

This will take away most of the incentives for immigrants to enter this country illegally and is not expensive to implement. I don’t know why none of the presidential candidates have mentioned this as opposed to building a wall and providing man power to service the wall which will be very expensive and not assured to keep illegal immigrants out of this country. It appears so simple. Am I missing something?

Paul Rubenstein

Mission Viejo

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/illegal-682798-immigrants-country.html

Minnesota Daily

Opinion » Letters to the Editor

Comment on “We need to tell modern immigrants’ stories”

By Dave Francis, Daily reader September 16, 2015

All of the presidential candidates have little to say about the illegal immigrant problem. They are all close-mouthed and probably scared of their own shadows. 

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is completely different from the pack. He is not hindered in saying anything true — and that is exactly what people want to hear. Rhetoric is finally old hat, and the majority of the population is not listening to it anymore. They want change!

Trump’s greatest benefit to average Americans is that no one can buy his loyalty. … We want a true outsider who is not looking for a handout to fill campaign or personal bank accounts. 

I believe Trump will bring back all the jobs to our country again — jobs for every genuine new American and jobs for people who have given up and can hardly put food on the table. … No matter who you are, as long as you’re here in the United States legally, then you will be eligible for a job. …

It’s about time employers were held more accountable for hiring illegal workers. … Every American of any race, color or religion should be first for any job. …

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified before the House Oversight Committee a few weeks ago. He said that the agency only controls approximately 40 percent of the border between the United States and Mexico. … Before that committee, border patrol agents testified about the brutal conditions facing them. …

Why are so many of our tax dollars spent to defend foreign countries? American citizens should be able to travel highways in southern Arizona without fearing for their lives. 

http://www.mndaily.com/opinion/letters-editor/2015/09/16/comment-%E2%80%9Cwe-need-tell-modern-immigrants%E2%80%99-stories%E2%80%9D

M Michigan
LIVE

Letter: Government should penalizes those who hire illegal immigrants

By MLive/Jackson Citizen Patriot opinion
on September 16, 2015 at 9:55 AM, updated September 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM

With all the supposedly intelligent politicians in Washington, I am amazed at all the talk about building a wall at the border between the United States and Mexico.

One need only look at the map and recognize that the Gulf of Mexico provides and easy way to go around the end of any wall, fence, ditch, etc.

Our government needs to arrest and penalize any American or American business which hires an illegal immigrant.

They should charge the culprit and then send the illegal person back to Mexico or any other home country.

It can't solve the problem overnight, but it should be an ongoing procedure. This is a country of laws which attempts to safeguard its citizens. I fought in WWII for just that purpose.

William W. Harper / Jackson

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/jackson/index.ssf/2015/09/letter_government_should_penal.html

Capital Gazette

Letters: Immigration

SEPTEMBER 15, 2015

Immigration

A nation is defined by borders, culture, language. Without borders, our nation is vulnerable to the influx of illegal immigrants, who will bring drugs, cause crimes and cause deaths by autos, destroying the identity of our country.

Our nation is in the process of this transition. Our Judeo-Christian culture is under attack from without and from within. Illegal immigrants are coming to America, setting up their own enclaves, refusing to blend in with the American mosaic.

Years ago, immigrants would come to our country and would become part of our communities. This is not so today.

For years, English was the preferred language in our country — not so today. I have seen notes from providers that can be in five languages. Is this the modern-day Tower of Babel? If we are not willing to fight for the values that made America great, we will become a Third World nation — our demise is imminent.

WILL HUBBAR

Glen Burnie

http://www.capitalgazette.com/opinion/letters/ph-ac-ce-letters-0915-20150915-story.html

The Jamestown Sun

Letters

Trump may be right about children of undocumented immigrants

By Roland Riemers from Grand Forks Today at [September 14, 2015] 6:32 a.m.

Donald Trump has stated that babies of illegal immigrants should not be considered citizens. I believe he is right.

The current legal standard is based on the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong. Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legally residents there but not U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court ruled Wong was a born U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

This ruling is often used as the basis for claiming anyone born here is now a citizen. But that is not what the ruling says. Under the 14th Amendment, parents have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and Wong’s parents met that requirement easily. But not so with modern “anchor babies” whose parents are not legal residents of the U.S.

So, how do we fix this? Congress is free to define wording to give effect to the constitutional provision, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and has attempted to do so with the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and 2011, but neither bill was even discussed in Congress.

While I am not a Trump supporter, it does appear that once again Trump may be proven right while the majority are again proven wrong.

(Riemers is chairman of the North Dakota Libertarian Party.)

http://www.jamestownsun.com/letters/3838436-trump-may-be-right-about-children-undocumented-immigrants

STATESVILLE
Record & Landmark

Opinion

LETTER: Amnesty is wrong for illegal immigrants

Posted: Monday, September 14, 2015 3:03 pm

In response to “Another View” in Monday’s Statesville R&L, the “Balancing opportunity and border control," did anyone question why people are fleeing their own country to come here? Might the reason be they did not want to follow their country’s laws? Could it be they did not like being told what to do in their own country? And with that kind of attitude, not liking their own country’s laws, why would American citizens not expect them to follow the laws of United States? And that is the problem, is it not?

The article says, “Trump’s solution might sound simple, but it isn’t, and he undoubtedly knows it. So why does he say it? He says it because it resonates with a large segment of the American public.” And I believe the paper’s statement is correct. But it gets complicated when the care of their children becomes a weapon of choice by those that do not want to fight for or follow our laws. Some say the children are our future, and it takes a village to raise a child!

OK, if those children are our future, what are we teaching them when exceptions to our laws are being made? Aren’t the illegal parents, who are now responsible for their American kids, being held responsible? It becomes simple if illegal aliens become legal, through existing laws, for their American children's sake. See? Simple! Amnesty becomes a get-out-of-jail card for illegal aliens and a bad example of becoming a law-abiding American citizen.

Troy D. Reed

Mooresville

http://www.statesville.com/opinion/letter-amnesty-is-wrong-for-illegal-immigrants/article_911c3d20-5b12-11e5-898c-ef6d26b3c28d.html

The Gazette

G LETTERS:

By: Letters
Published: September 14, 2015

Immigration's environmental cost

In the discussion of immigration, the environmental cost is seldom addressed. Every year we add 1 million legal immigrants to our population. In less than five years, that is like adding another "Colorado." The impact of a million initial immigrants is misleading as they reproduce and eventually become 2 million. The number of illegal aliens in the United States is guessed at11 million. That is as great as the population of Washington and Oregon.

Our population is 320 million. The Census Bureau estimates at current immigration rates we will have 399 million by 2050. Its high estimate is 458 million. Compare these increases to just 323,000,000 with zero immigration.

So what is the environmental cost of immigration? The loss of wildlife habitat, agricultural land and open space is especially great. Every hour of every day we lose 50 acres of farm and ranch lands to development. Between 1982 and 2010, we lost 24 million acres of agricultural land to urban sprawl, highways and malls to accommodate our growing population. Increased demands for water is a serious problem difficult to solve. Pollution, carbon footprint and energy demands increase with population increases.

Few in power care about the environmental cost of immigration. The Republicans want cheap labor and associated campaign contributions. The Democrats want the votes from Third World immigrants. Environmental groups are no longer opposed to immigration for the same reason.

If we don't reduce immigration the environmental cost will be huge. We need to end the anchor baby hedge, stop 'chain immigration', secure our southern border, crack down on expired visas, and reduce legal immigration to no more than 100,000. Unless the average American rises up against our policy of massive immigration, I see no hope for the long-term quality of our environment.

Robert Hooper

Montrose

http://gazette.com/letters-intersection-needs-caution-light-questioning-proposed-student-housing/article/1559277

The Tennessean

A GANNETT COMPANY

Letters to the editor, Sept. 15: Donald Trump

11:10 p.m. CDT September 13, 2015

Readers sound off on Donald Trump's presidential run.

Trump seeks greatness

The authors of the Tennessee Voices article bashing Donald Trump on immigration were not truthful in their representation of Trump’s stance on the subject. The first sentence in the article states that “Trump and his anti-immigrant rhetoric” should be rejected by Nashvillians.

I would agree with authors Dorn, Breen and Turner if this were a true statement, but it is not.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he loves immigrants from all countries, but immigrants to this country should obey the laws of the United States. The fact is that illegal immigrants are in this country because they broke the law.

Left-wing politicians and liberals state that we are a country of laws, but they want to pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce.

If the immigration laws that are now in place had been enforced, and our sovereign borders were secure, we would not have the massive influx of illegal immigrants, which is unfair to all citizens, especially those that played by the rules and immigrated to the United States legally.

Trump is sending a message that is resonating all across this land and it is time to “Make America Great Again."

Tom Wirth

Brentwood 37027

http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/09/14/letters-editor-sept-donald-trump/72237472/


 


 

On the 14th Anniversary of 9/11, a More Dangerous World and Lax Immigration Policies Leave the U.S. Vulnerable to Another Attack, Warns FAIR

Today, the nation marks the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that took the lives of some 3,000 Americans. In the 14 years that have passed, the world has become an even more dangerous place, while in many ways our defenses against another major terrorist attack have been weakened, warns the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Al-Qaeda, which carried out the attacks of 9/11, remains operational in many parts of the world, while other radical Islamic terrorist organizations have emerged. All of these groups have vowed to strike the United States and have demonstrated the ability to inflict significant harm. Despite the clear dangers and explicit threats, our nation's lax immigration enforcement policies provide a soft underbelly for terrorist organizations to exploit.

"Fourteen years ago, al-Qaeda took advantages of many weaknesses to carry out its attack. Some of them have been corrected, but the most important factor - the ability for terrorists to remain in the United States illegally - is as bad, or worse, than it was in 2001," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Among the glaring weaknesses in our immigration enforcement system that pose a threat to our homeland security in 2015:

  • Obama administration policies protect 87 percent of illegal aliens from enforcement. Under these policies, unless a potential terrorist is already on the government's watch list, his or her continued presence in the U.S. is protected by the administration.
  • A legislated biometric entry/exit system at all land, sea and air ports of entry has not been fully implemented. Thus, like the 9/11 terrorists who entered on visas and failed to leave the country, we still have no way of knowing who remains in the country illegally.
  • Our borders remain out of control. Only 40 percent of our southern border is under operational control, making it easy for terrorists and potentially weapons of mass destruction to enter our country without detection.
  • The Obama administration has reversed detention policies implemented under President Clinton intended to prevent people from gaining entry to our country by abusing the political asylum system.
  • Despite the growing presence of terrorist networks in Europe and other Western countries, we maintain the Visa Waiver Program which allows holders of EU passports to enter the U.S. without being screened by consular officials.

"The FBI and other law enforcement agencies, through their excellent work, have managed to thwart numerous attempts to carry out terrorist attacks in recent months. But no domestic intelligence agency can bat 1.000 indefinitely, especially when our weak immigration enforcement policies allow terrorists so many ways to infiltrate our country," warned Stein. "The Obama administration's politically driven effort to undermine immigration enforcement and Congress's tepid oversight are a potentially lethal combination.

"The commemoration of what took place 14 years ago provides a sobering reminder that global turmoil, and our own lax border and immigration policies, continue to pose a clear and present threat to our security," Stein concluded.

ABOUT FAIR           

Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country's largest immigration reform group. With more than 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

Police chiefs, sheriffs blast ICE over policy they say frees violent illegal immigrants

A California toddler fighting for her life Thursday after a brutal beating at the hands of an illegal immigrant with a long criminal record is the latest case to rile California sheriffs and police against a U.S. immigration policy they say is forcing them to release dangerous criminals out on the street.

Francisco Javier Chavez, the live-in boyfriend of the unidentified two-year-old's mother, is out on bail after being charged in the late July attack, which left the San Luis Obispo County girl with two broken arms, a broken femur, a compressed spine, a urinary tract infection and a fever of 107 degrees. Chavez's criminal record includes assault and drug convictions and arrests for violent acts including kidnapping, car jacking and cruelty to a child.

A disgusted San Luis Obispo Sheriff Ian Parkinson told FoxNews.com Chavez should have been locked away or deported long before he had the chance to inflict "horrific injuries" on the little girl, but said conflicting federal policies leave his department handcuffed. Instead, Chavez is now free, awaiting a court date for which he may not even show up.

"The law actually does not give us the right to place an ICE hold, unless there is a warrant for them. That is why we are united in California and asking that this be fixed and changed, because at end of the day, we are the ones who have to let them out the door.”

- San Luis Obispo Sheriff Ian Parkinson

“The truth is, if we had any legal right to hold him, we would, because of the concern that, not being a U.S. citizen, he will bail out and flee the country and flee prosecution,” said Parkinson, who suspects Chavez may have already fled the county.

The issue, says Parkinson and dozens of other sheriffs and police chiefs across California and Arizona, is that, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement routinely asks departments to hold prisoners like Chavez until they can take custody of them for deportation, the local law enforcement officials believe doing so will expose them to lawsuits. They cite court cases including the March, 2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling in Galrza v. Szalczyk that held states and localities are not required to imprison people based on ICE "detainer" requests, and that states and localities may be held liable if they participate in wrongful immigration detentions.

“I am not aware of any County in California that is honoring detainers, simply because we can’t,” Parkinson said. “We have to follow the law or the threat of violating the law ourselves,” Parkinson said, citing a Court decision issued approximately one year ago. “The law actually does not give us the right to place an ICE hold, unless there is a warrant for them. That is why we (local law enforcement) are united in California and asking that this be fixed and changed, because at end of the day, we are the ones who have to let them out the door.”

The Arizona Sheriffs’ Association agrees, noting every day ICE asks local sheriffs to ‘detain’ an inmate, yet don’t provide “rational, legal authority to do so,” putting sheriffs at enormous risk for legal liability. When the local authorities let an illegal immigrant criminal free on bail, they do so reluctantly - and they blame ICE.

ICE maintains there is no requirement that it obtain a judicial warrant to compel law enforcement agencies to hold suspects and that a detainer is sufficient. A spokesperson for ICE said the agency continues to work “cooperatively” with local law enforcement partners and is implementing a new plan, the Priority Enforcement Program – PEP, to place the focus on criminals and individuals who threaten the public safety and ensure they are not released from prisons or jails before they can be taken into ICE custody.

Martin Mayer, legal counsel to sheriffs and chiefs of police in 70 law enforcement agencies throughout California for the last 25 years, and general counsel to the California State Sheriffs’ Association, told FoxNews.com the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Office of the Attorney General, and ICE all take the position that the detainer is only a request and the law does not give sheriffs authorization to hold illegal immigrant suspects ordered released by a judge. 

If ICE agents are present when suspects are ordered released, and if they have the legal basis to take custody of them, they can, but local law enforcement does not have the authority to hold them in the absence of ICE, the California Sheriffs Association recently said in letter to Congress.

The American Civil Liberties Union's California chapter has been vocal in pressuring city police chiefs to honor the court rulings that said ICE detainers are mere requests, not mandates, and that honoring them would violate suspects' Constitutional rights.

“This (ACLU) letter to the cities states that ‘Your police department should immediately cease complying with immigration detainers, or else risk legal liability for detaining individuals in violation of the Fourth Amendment,’” Mayer said.

The ACLU did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

A string of murders across the country by criminal aliens has spotlighted the conflict between ICE and local law enforcement, and in recent days, caught the attention of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. After one of the cases, the July 24 murder of Marilyn Pharis, a 64-year-old Air Force veteran, Santa Maria Police Chief Ralph Martin blamed the state and federal governments for a convoluted policy that leaves local law enforcement holding the bag.

“I am not remiss to say that from Washington D.C. to Sacramento, there is a blood trail to Marilyn Pharis’ bedroom,” Martin said.
 

Feds. Visiting Illegals’ Homes To Seize Erroneously Issued Amnesty Docs

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials will begin visiting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiaries who received the illegal three-year work permits and have not yet returned them.

“USCIS officials will soon begin to visit the listed address of certain individuals who have not yet returned an invalid three-year employment authorization document (EAD) for the purpose of retrieving these EADs,” the agency explained in a statement. “USCIS has already attempted, or is in the process of attempting, to notify all recipients by mail and phone that the three-year EADs are no longer valid and must be immediately returned.”

According to the agency, officials will not be questioning people at the addresses they visit but rather retrieving the three-year work authorizations.

“Individuals who received these three-year EADs are not being penalized for requesting DACA, they are merely being reissued the correct two-year cards,” the agency added.

USCIS warns that those who do not return their three-year permits will find their DACA status terminated.

Judge Andrew Hanen — the judge presiding over 26 states’ legal challenge of executive amnesty, who issued the initial injunction — has said he will order top Obama immigration officials into court to explain the injunction violations if the agency has not recouped all the erroneously issued three-year work permits to the court’s satisfaction by July 31.

Hanen issued the injunction, halting Obama’s executive amnesty programs — expanded DACA and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) — in February. Prior to his injunction and after the Obama administration was issuing three-year work permits to DACA recipients, a part of the expanded executive amnesty DACA program.

...both sides have acknowledged that those post-injunction permits are illegal and must be recouped.

USCIS says about 2,100 three-year permits were issued post-injunction and another 500 were issued before the injunction but due to mail and address issues were mailed again after the injunction. All 2,600 are considered invalid. USCIS notes that the move does not apply to those three-year permits issued in advance of the injunction.

“This action does not apply to the approximately 108,000 three-year EADs that were approved and mailed by USCIS on or before the February 16, 2015, injunction date and that have never been returned or reissued by USCIS,” reads a USCIS fact sheet.

According to amnesty groups briefed on the matter, federal officials are slated to begin home visits Thursday in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Houston. The groups say that there are about 1,000 outstanding three-year permits.

Sanctuary Cities: No Peace And No Justice

by Michael Cutler - former INS Special Agent                                                                                                           Published in the Daily Caller July 10, 2015

The mere idea of providing illegal aliens with “protection” from federal law enforcement agents flies in the face of reason and commonsense.

Immigration enforcement personnel are charged with enforcing our immigration laws that were enacted to prevent the entry and continued presence of aliens whose presence in our country would be harmful or dangerous to America and Americans.  Shielding such aliens from detection by law enforcement officers turns logic on its head and makes it crystal clear that for all too many politicians on the local, state and federal level, that Americans who are injured or killed are simply to be written off as “collateral damage!”
 
This is the issue that I have focused on for my commentary today.
 
That the horrific death of Kathryn Steinle could have been prevented if a number of "public servants” had taken their oaths of office and their responsibilities seriously and worked to make certain that a convicted felon who not only had no lawful right to be in the United States, but whose presence in the United States represented a felony, is unfathomable.
 
Additionally, while this specific crime has captured the attention of the media- largely because one presidential candidate, Donald Trump, had the chutzpah to dare speak openly and unequivocally about the impact of the failure of our nation’s leaders to enforce our immigration laws, this sort of crime occurs virtually each and every day and, indeed, often many times each day.
 
While Trump’s use of language was not nuanced and was not artful, it certainly grabbed everyone’s attention.
 
Now that the topic has landed on the front page of just about every newspaper in the United States and has become the lead story in the mainstream media, we must not allow this issue to fade into the background as, undoubtedly new issues percolate in the realm of journalism.  We must seize the opportunities this provides to have an honest and candid conversation and not allow our politicians to attempt to offer the usual solutions that are not really solutions to simply create illusions that this issue is being dealt with so that the true dangers inherent in the failures of the immigration system will be put aside and quickly forgotten. 
 
What is now needed, more than new laws is more agents, more resources and a mandate that our federal government actually enforce the laws that are on the books right now!
 
Within the past few days, Hillary Clinton stated that there are those who don’t want to provide a "pathway to citizenship for immigrants.”  
 
That pathway to U.S. citizenship is already a part and parcel of our already existing Immigration and Nationality Act and, each year, well over one-half million lawful immigrants are granted United States citizenship via the naturalization process.  What Clinton is really advocating through her deceptive and intentionally misleading claim is that illegal aliens should be provided with United States citizenship.  These are foreign national who have no inherent right to be present in the United States.  They either evaded the vital inspections process conducted by Customs and Border Protection Inspectors at ports of entry or violated the terms of their admission after they were admitted into the United States.  Yet Clinton and other politicians are adamant that these aliens should be granted the highest honor and, indeed, the “Keys to the Kingdom” to such foreign nationals.
 
While criticizing any American who would oppose such lunacy she is attempting to vilify anyone who would express opposition to her plan to violate commonsense and the 9/11 Commission.  
 
In her parallel universe, those of us who want our immigration laws enforced don’t want to provide illegal aliens with a pathway to United States citizenship are unfair and xenophobic.  I would love her to find any country on this planet that would provide citizenship to illegal aliens.  This is the equivalent of providing a burglar with the key to the front door of the house he had broken into!
 
Politicians from both sides of the political aisle- “Demoncrats” and “Repugnantcans” alike, who want to provide illegal aliens with lawful status which is only one notch lower than citizenship.  For them, it would certainly seem that our immigration laws, which were enacted to protect American lives and the livelihoods of American are an impediment to their political goals.


 

Oregon judge’s connection to illegal immigrant’s murder of Kate Steinle

Tragedy on San Francisco's Pier 14

On Wednesday, July 1st, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot and killed on San Francisco’s Pier 14, “one of the city’s most scenic tourist spots.” The ABC affiliate in San Francisco reported San Francisco police said she “was walking along Pier 14 when a man came up and shot her in the upper torso.”

The ABC affiliate reported “Wednesday was supposed to be fun for Kate and her family. She met her father on Pier 14 that night. He was there to take her to Pleasanton, to learn if her brother and his wife were expecting a boy or girl. But tragedy struck instead.” The San Jose Mercury News reported “A bullet pierced Steinle’s aorta and she collapsed to the ground in front of her father, who desperately tried to save her life.”

April 2014 Oregon court ruling

Janice M. Stewart was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on October 13, 1993. She was the first woman to be appointed to serve as a federal magistrate judge in Oregon.

Judge Stewart ruled on April 11, 2014 that holding Maria Miranda-Olivares for an immigration hold violated her constitutional rights. Miranda-Olivares had been held for 19 hours after completing a two-day jail sentence in Clackamas County for a domestic violence charge. According to the Oregonian “jail officials detained her until the next day, giving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials time to pick her up.” As part of the ruling, the judge found that cities, counties and states could be held liable for unlawful detention for immigration detentions.

In the wake of the ruling, 30 of Oregon’s 36 counties quickly became “sanctuary counties,” according to the Center for Immigration Studies. One Oregon city, Springfield, became a “sanctuary city.”

A Portland immigration lawyer called Judge Stewart’s ruling a game changer and a Lewis and Clark College law professor said “Oregon may actually be one of the leading areas of the country in basically rejecting the idea that state and local law enforcement officers should pay attention to the detainers.”

The April 2014 ruling was followed by a coordinated campaign by immigrant rights’ groups and the ACLU to push other counties to defy federal immigration hold requests (“ICE detainers”) – which are part of the Secure Communities program. They sent letters to counties throughout the U.S.

On May 29, 2014 the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department announced that they would “no longer honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers unless they are supported by judicial determination of probable cause or with a warrant of arrest” – expanding San Francisco’s “sanctuary” status.

Accused murderer a felon illegal immigrant exploiting “sanctuary” status of San Francisco

The accused murderer of Kate Steinle, Francisco Sanchez, is a convicted felon who has been deported 5 times and was only recently released from prison. Sanchez used a gun that had been stolen from a federal agent’s car while the agent was in San Francisco on business.

USA Today reported “Federal officials say he should have never been walking the streets a free man. Federal officials released Sanchez in March from federal prison where he had served nearly four years for previous immigration violations. They delivered Sanchez to the San Francisco sheriff’s office, where he was wanted on felony marijuana distribution charges. Local officials dropped those charges a few days later and released Sanchez onto the street despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain him for deportation.”

U.S. News & World Report reported “The San Francisco sheriff, citing the city’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, released Sanchez in April after prosecutors dropped the drug charge, despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement request to hold him for federal authorities so deportation proceedings could begin.”

A federal immigration spokeswoman said “As a result, an individual with a lengthy criminal history, who is now the suspect in a tragic murder case, was released onto the street rather than being turned over to ICE for deportation.”

U.S. News & World Report reported “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told CNN that San Francisco was wrong to ignore the ICE detainer request and release Sanchez from custody.” They also quote Hillary Clinton saying “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.”

USA Today also reported that the accused murderer told a TV reporter he came to San Francisco to look for a job because he knew they offered sanctuary to people unlawfully in the country.

San Francisco Killing Sparks Illegal Immigrant Detention Debate

The fatal shooting of a woman in San Francisco last week, allegedly by an illegal immigrant man convicted of seven felonies and previously deported to Mexico, has sparked a debate about the extent to which local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities should cooperate.

At issue is the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of seeking to identify potentially deportable individuals in jails or prisons nationwide by issuing a “detainer,” a request rather than an order to extend the individual’s detention.

Kathryn Steinle, 32 years old, was walking with her father along Pier 14 on the evening of July 1 when she was shot in her upper torso, police said. She later died at a hospital.

With the help of people who had snapped photos of him on their phones, police tracked down the suspect, Francisco Sanchez, 45, a few blocks away. Mr. Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County Jail on suspicion of homicide.

...“Our officers lodged an immigration detainer asking to be notified before his release; that detainer was not honored,” said ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice. “As a result, an individual with a lengthy criminal history, who is now the suspect in a tragic murder case, was released onto the street rather than being turned over to ICE for deportation.”

A San Francisco ordinance adopted in October 2013 “deemed him ineligible for extended detention” after the local charges were dismissed, the sheriff’s department said, adding that “detainers are requests and not a legal basis to hold an individual.”

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee called Ms. Steinle’s death “tragic and senseless,” while defending the city’s policies...

At least 300 localities, including San Francisco, in recent years have stopped honoring detainer requests due to concerns that individuals are remaining jailed without probable cause.

In April 2014, in what is considered a landmark case, a federal judge ruled that an Oregon county had violated an immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights by holding her without probable cause.

Between Jan. 1, 2014, and June 19, 2015, there were 10,516 detainer requests declined in California and 17,193 declined nationwide, ICE said...

“What happened in San Francisco is tragic,” said Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of California. “But to the extent there is any question about whether a person should have been held, it was simply a form and there was no warrant signed off by a judge.”

San Francisco’s sheriff department said there was no active ICE warrant or judicial order of removal for Mr. Sanchez, “only a request for his detention.”

Last month, ICE announced that it would use detainers only in “special circumstances.”...

Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, who has been criticized for making derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, described Ms. Steinle’s death as “a senseless and totally preventable violent act committed by an illegal immigrant.”

Civil rights groups and critics of the detainer policy counter that immigration hard-liners are trying to capitalize on the slaying.

“During a time of unspeakable tragedy, there is something fundamentally wrong about demagogues who quickly seek to exploit tragedy for political gain,” said Chris Newman, legal director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Accused San Francisco Pier Shooter Should Have Been Deported: Immigration Officials

The man accused of gunning down a 32-year-old Pleasanton woman while she was out strolling San Francisco's Embarcadero with her father was in a Bay Area jail less than four months ago and should have been turned over to federal immigration officials upon his release, instead of being set free, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

But that's not the way the San Francisco County Sheriff's Legal Counsel Freya Horne sees it. In an interview Friday with NBC Bay Area, she said the city and county of San Francisco are sanctuaries for immigrants, and they do not turn over undocumented people – if they don't have active warrants out for them – simply because immigration officials want them to.

Meanwhile, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr said Francisco Sanchez, who was arrested following the Wednesday evening shooting of Kathryn Steidle, along Pier 14 has "made an admission" with regards to the seemingly random death in the middle of a populated part of town....

Sanchez, who law enforcement say is either 45 or 46 and has about a dozen aliases, was taken into custody after witnesses described him to police. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he is an undocumented immigrant with a long criminal history who has previously been deported to Mexico five times, the last time in 2008...

Kice told NBC Bay Area on Friday that Sanchez should have been returned to her agency's custody, because he had a "detainer" on his status in jail.
.
Federal records show Sanchez has seven prior felony convictions, four of which were for drug charges. Records indicate his convictions took place in states including Texas, Oregon and Arizona. And a law enforcement source said the case that landed Sanchez in San Francisco jail most recently was for a marijuana case that was about 20 years old.

Police have described the shooting as random, as she was not robbed and never even exchanged words with the man who killed her. Kathryn Steinle's father, Jim Steinle, said she was taken in the prime of her life. "She had so much to live for and died so senselessly,” he said Thursday. “It’s terrible.”...

San Francisco Police Officer Grace Gatpandan Gatpandan added that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city, so we do not hand over people to ICE." She also said that the police are "not responsible" for Sanchez once he is booked into county jail, "meaning we do not have control over his release."

Sanctuary cities, which are dotted throughout the United States, don't inquire about an immigrant's status for the federal government. It has no legal meaning, but is a de facto practice of a particular city.

San Francisco's particular ordinance is called the "Due Process Ordinance for All on Civil Immigration Detainers."

Obama immigration action may be dead, labor leader says

YAKIMA, Wash. — A federal appeals court upholding an injunction against the President Barack Obama’s controversial executive action on immigration probably means it is dead for the remainder of his term in office, a farm labor leader says.

“It is my understanding the administration probably will appeal and that could take a couple of years,” said Mike Gempler, executive director of Washington Growers League, a non-partisan association representing agricultural employers on labor issues.

The executive action would defer deportation and provide temporary legal work status for about 5 million of an estimated 12 million people in the U.S. illegally, was scheduled to take effect in May. Many of the illegal immigrants are farmworkers.

On Feb. 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, in Texas, ruled in favor of 26 states that sued to overturn the executive order and issued an injunction stopping the programs on grounds that they were implemented without following an administrative procedures act requiring a public comment period.

The injunction was appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. A three-judge panel of that court upheld the injunction on May 26.

“In my opinion, it was productive to push the envelope a little on this,” Gempler said. “It was provocative and made people think and hopefully would trigger action in Congress.”

Comprehensive immigration reform by Congress seems unlikely anytime soon but it is needed because an executive action “is a very temporary measure,” Gempler said.

Tom Roach, a Pasco, Wash., immigration attorney, could not be reached for comment. Previously, he has estimated 90,000 to 100,000 people in Central Washington and northeastern Oregon are eligible under the executive action for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans — known as DAPA — or an expanded 2014 version of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — called DACA.

Thousands of illegal immigrants are eligible in Idaho and California, he said.

Gempler said he believes there’s always been public support for DACA because it makes sense to not deport people who have grown up in the U.S.

“For DAPA, I don’t get a sense that there’s a lot of support in the general public or in the farm community necessarily, but I think there is in the immigrant community,” he said.

United Farm Workers, Keene, Calif., issued a news release denouncing the court ruling. UFW was among more than 100 organizations filing friend of the court briefs and issuing statements in support of the president’s action. UFW expressed optimism that Obama’s executive order eventually will prevail and said it will continue to help prepare illegals for administrative relief under DAPA and DACA.

OneAmerica, a Seattle immigration group, issued a statement calling the decision “disappointing” and saying it believes eventually millions will be given the chance to apply for DAPA and DACA.

Presente.org, a Latino power group, issued a statement saying the court ruling “is part of a continuing and well-orchestrated Republican attack on Latinos and immigrants.”
 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Homeland Security