legal immigration

The radical leftist group that helped a gunman commit an act of terrorism against a conservative organization was officially reprimanded by the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) for its hateful attacks, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an extremist nonprofit that lists conservative organizations that disagree with it on social issues on a catalogue of “hate groups.” The previously undisclosed DOJ rebuke is a vindication for groups targeted by the SPLC’s witch hunts and is especially impactful because the Obama administration was tight with the SPLC and even hired the controversial nonprofit to conduct diversity training for the government. Judicial Watch uncovered documents relating to the SPLC’s diversity training at the DOJ back in 2013.

Also in 2013, Judicial Watch reported that a Virginia man who planned a mass shooting based on the SPLC’s “hate map” of conservatives got a 25-year prison sentence. Prosecutors called it an act of terrorism and recommended a 45-year sentence. The terrorist, Floyd Lee Corkins, stormed into the headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC) and carried out the politically-motivated shooting based on an SPLC target list. The FRC is a Christian organization that promotes the traditional family unit and the Judeo- Christian value system. Corkins pleaded guilty and admitted that he learned about the FRC from the SPLC, which describes itself as a civil rights group but labels conservatives who disagree with it on social issues as hateful.

In 2015, the SPLC issued a hit list of U.S. women against sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism. This included a starter kit for Islamists to attack American women who refuse to comply with Sharia law and a detailed list of female bloggers, activist and television personalities who reject Sharia law, which is rooted in the Quran. Among those targeted were colleagues and friends of Judicial Watch who fear for their safety simply for practicing their rights under the U.S. Constitution. That SPLC hate list is titled Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen and includes illustrations and detailed information on all the women, who are branded “the core of the anti-Muslim radical right.” The SPLC hate brochure further targets them by claiming that they’re “a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.”

Another favorite SPLC target is any group or individual that speaks openly against illegal immigration. The DOJ reprimand, issued last year but kept quiet at the agency’s request, involves the SPLC’s atrocious behavior during immigration court proceedings. Two groups that oppose illegal immigration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), were the target of personal, baseless and below-the-belt attacks from SPLC attorneys during official immigration court proceedings. The SPLC filed a motion attacking and defaming the two respected nonprofits by describing them as “white supremacist”, “eugenicist”, “anti-Semitic”, and “anti-Catholic.” In its reprimand the DOJ says it is troubled by the conduct of SPLC lawyer Christopher Strawn and that his conduct “overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy and was unprofessional.” Furthermore, SPLC made “uncivil comments that disparaged FAIR and its staff,” the rebuke states, adding that the language constitutes frivolous behavior and doesn’t aid in the administration of justice.

The Obama administration kept the reprimand confidential and asked FAIR and IRLI to keep it under wraps. In the meantime, SPLC continues to publicly trash the groups and escalate attacks against them by putting them on the official hate list. The executive director and general counsel of IRLI, Dale Wilcox, says his nonprofit and FAIR will keep fighting for immigration policies that put America first. “The SPLC’s latest tactic in its never-ending witch-hunt and the federal government’s resulting reprimand should send the following message to the mainstream media,” Wilcox said: “Stop using the SPLC as a legitimate hate-watch source in your news coverage. That a cabal of biased list-keepers can play such an important role in distorting the immigration debate in this country is testament to the utter failure of much of the mainstream media which frequently publishes their inflammatory commentary and refuses to question their baseless methods or financial motivations.” Read more about Obama DOJ Reprimanded SPLC for Hateful Attacks on Immigration Control Groups

Two polls -- both conducted since last weekend's news coverage of protests against Pres. Trump's Jan. 27 executive order -- show that significantly more Americans support the President's order to pause the refugee program for four months than oppose it.

A Rasmussen Poll, conducted from Jan. 31-Feb. 1 found that 52% of likely voters support the action compared to 43% who oppose.

Meanwhile, a daily tracking poll by Reuters/Ipsos, conducted from Jan.31-Feb. 2, found that 48% support compared to 42% who oppose.

Both polls are consistent with public opinion measured before Pres. Trump signed the order. A Rasmussen poll taken after the executive order was leaked to the press, but before Pres. Trump signed it, found that the majority of Americans support a pause. A poll conducted by Quinnipiac in early-January also found that more Americans support a pause in immigration from terror hot spots than those who oppose.

These are the only polls taken after the weekend that have been made public.

Rasmussen's question added more context, helping to explain why it found majority support for the order. The question noted that the pause is only for four months and the purpose is to implement a better system for vetting refugees.

"The federal government has banned refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Do you favor or oppose such a ban?"

The Reuters/Ipsos poll asked about both the pause on refugees and the pause on visas from seven countries identified as hot spots for terror. But the question posed the visa pause as a religious test -- mentioning Muslims -- rather than describing the actual reason the seven countries were chosen. The poll still found more support than opposition, but not as much as the Rasmussen poll.

"Do you agree or disagree with the Executive Order that President Trump signed blocking refugees and banning people from seven Muslim majority countries from entering the U.S.?"

The Reuters poll is a daily tracking poll using a five-day rolling average. In each of its three releases, the number of Americans who support the order outnumber those who oppose.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA

  Read more about Polls Show Popular Support for Trump Order on Refugees

WASHINGTON (February 3, 2017) – A report from the Center for Immigration Studies covers the asylum seeker resettlement deal the Obama administration entered into with Australia, which is currently on hold. President Trump is considering honoring the agreement, which would bring to the U.S. 1,250 detainees – mostly men (1,161 men, 49 women and 44 children) from Iran. But he questions the security risk of offering permanent resettlement to the population who refuse to return to their country of origin or to accept an offer of asylum from Cambodia.
 
The asylum seekers reside at Australia's offshore detention centers on the small island nation of Nauru and on Manus Island, part of Papua New Guinea. The Australian government spent at least $3.6 billion on offshore processing at these detention centers between 2013 and 2016, but is now closing the facilities and hopes to transfer the costs and security risks of resettling these individuals to the U.S.
 
Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center and author of the report said, “Convincing the U.S. to take Australia's unwanted asylum seekers would be a great achievement for Australia, but one of America's worst deals.”
 
Although negotiations between the two governments were ongoing for months, President Obama did not announce the agreement until just a few days after the U.S. presidential election. Australia is unwilling to take the detainees as the nation follows a policy of mandatory and indefinite detention of unlawful non-citizens, including asylum seekers.
 
View the entire report at: http://cis.org/rush/australias-unwanted-asylum-seekers-mostly-iranians-be-resettled-us
 
The detainees were offered the opportunity to return home or to resettle in Cambodia. To encourage resettlement to Cambodia, Australia offered cash incentives of $15,000 per person and promises of family reunification with the same cash amount given to these family members. Five refugees accepted the offer.
 
Rush writes, “The refugee resettlement program is not about 'picking and choosing' one's resettlement country. Resettlement, by definition, is to be implemented when no other viable option is available. Cambodia (or other countries) might not be ideal for asylum seekers trying to reach Australia and family members already settled there. But America is no consolation prize either.” Read more about Will the U.S. take Australia's Unwanted Asylum Seekers

Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

AP/DAMIAN DOVARGANES

A just-released poll shows that Donald Trump’s campaign-trail immigration and labor policies have overwhelming public support, and strong opposition from just one-sixth of voters. 

The Ipsos poll shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.

Trump’s labor and immigration policies are “strongly” backed by .... an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.

Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16, a week after the election....

Trump’s promise to start “immediately deporting” illegals who have committed crimes gets 75 percent strong and somewhat support, and only 7 percent strong opposition. That’s 10-to-one support.

Sixty-two percent support and 13 percent strongly oppose, “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.”

Sixty-seven percent of respondents support, and only 9 percent strongly oppose, the implementation of current laws that levy fines on employers who hired illegals instead of Americans...

The poll shows that Trump’s revised plans to minimize the danger of immigrant Islamic terrorism is backed by 59 percent, and strongly opposed by 12 percent. That result echoes the public’s strong opposition to Islamic doctrines.

The most significant result in the poll, however, is the strong support for reductions in legal immigration, which amounted in 2015 to roughly one new immigrant for every two Americans entering the workforce, or one immigrant for every two American births... 57 percent, back reductions in legal immigration, while 13 percent did not take a position.

On the campaign trail, Trump called for a two-year pause in legal immigration....

Any significant reduction in immigration would raise Americans’ salaries and wages, cut welfare spending, reduce housing costs and drop unemployment, according to recent studies by a Wall Street advisory group that backed Hillary Clinton, and by the National Academies of Sciences.

More importantly, a major reduction in immigration would force Democrats to give up their 20-year strategy of gaining political dominance by importing government-dependent poor workers and voters...

 Many polls show that most Americans do like immigrants, and they want to be seen liking immigration — but they also want a reduction in the annual immigration of 1 million people, which cuts salaries for the 4 million Americans who enter the job market each year. ...

This same outspoken response is also visible in a pre-election poll of the midwesterners who gave Trump his election-winning state victories, and of Latinos, who mostly prioritize the economy over additional immigration of their ethnic group. On Nov 8, “actual election results from counties with large Latino populations suggests that Trump probably did no worse than [Gov Mitt] Romney among Latinos, and probably did better,” said Harry Enten, a data analyst at Fivethirtyeight.com.

These disparate views of Americans are highlighted in the IPSOS poll by unusually strong opposition to Trump’s campaign-trail promise to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Overall, 42 percent strongly or somewhat supported building a wall, while 32 percent strongly opposed a wall, said the poll.

But this response from the 1,005 adult respondents is likely influenced by party solidarity because it was conducted Sept. 1 to Sept. 2, 2016, during the political campaign where Trump’s main theme was construction of a border wall...

Similarly, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed cancellation of the Obama’s 2012 quasi-amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” 23 percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.

But when the same question is asked without any reference to “children,” support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws. 

The public’s conflicting answers may also be caused by the poll’s lack of information about the scale and economic impact of current immigration. Read more about Hidden Ipsos Poll: Public Strongly Backs Donald Trump’s Plan To ‘Pause’ Legal Immigration

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A man who was adopted from South Korea almost four decades ago by Americans has been deported to his native country, his attorney and a government official said Thursday.

Adam Crapser's supporters say he doesn't know the language or the culture of South Korea.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ordered Crapser deported because of criminal convictions, including assault and being a felon in possession of a weapon.

His Seattle attorney, Lori Walls, told The Associated Press in an email Thursday: "Adam got deported last night. I just heard from him."...

Crapser was brought to the United States when he was 3, but no one ever sought U.S. citizenship for him. He and his older sister were adopted by Americans, who later abandoned them. The siblings then were separated and sent to live in foster and group homes.

When Crapser was 12, he moved in with an abusive family. ...  Crapser himself later got into trouble with the law, which made him liable for deportation. He had come under the scrutiny of federal immigration authorities only after he applied for a Green Card.

Richeson said Crapser was arrested by ICE on Feb. 8 after serving a 60-day sentence for menacing...

The New York Times reported recently that his birth mother in South Korea, who had put her son up for adoption because she couldn't afford to keep him, was learning English so they could communicate when they were reunited. Read more about Adam Crapser deported: Man was adopted from South Korea at age 3

SALEM — A South Korean man flown to the United States 37 years ago and adopted by an American couple at age 3 has been ordered deported ...

“It is heartbreaking news,” said Dae Joong (D.J.) Yoon, executive director of the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, who had been in contact with Adam Crapser. Crapser remains confined in an immigration detention center...

Crapser’s plight mirrors those of thousands of others who were brought to the United States but whose adoptive parents didn’t secure green cards or citizenship for them. ...

Yoon said arrangements are being made for Crapser to get documents to enable him to fly to South Korea.

Seven years after Crapser and his older sister were adopted, their parents abandoned them. The foster care system separated Crapser, 10 at the time, from his sister.

The boy was housed at several foster and group homes.....he was physically abused, Crapser has said....

Federal immigration officials say they became aware of Crapser after he applied to renew his green card two years ago: his criminal convictions, ranging from burglary to assault, made him potentially deportable under immigration law. ..

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” Walls said. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.” Read more about Adopted at 3 by Oregon couple, South Korean man to be deported

An Ethiopian immigrant who was working as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Portland, Oregon is behind bars, charged with rape, unlawful sexual penetration and other sexual contact with patients who were 87 and 94 years old.

Around a half dozen other alleged victims came forward after the September 14 arrest of Adeladilew A. Mekonen and he is likely to face “many more charges,” the Washington County Sheriff’s Department confirmed to Breitbart News...the 34-year-old suspect is currently facing 18 charges

Even more shocking: a lawsuit filed on behalf of the 87-year-old victim claims that many of the assaults could’ve been prevented had the hospital where the accused rapist worked acted after the 94-year-old victim told the hospital she had been raped back in June.

The lawsuit alleges that Providence St. Vincent Medical Center:

knew and had reason to know that Adeladilew Mekonen had abused and was likely to again sexually abuse ill and elderly female patients,...

As the 87-year-old woman’s attorney Greg Kafoury told Portland TV station KOIN: “When you get an accusation as serious as this, you’re really supposed to do something about it,...

It is unclear what happened in June after the lawsuit claims the 94-year-old woman told the hospital she had been raped but Providence St. Vincent gave KOIN 6 News this statement:

Providence has been working closely with law enforcement and prosecutors in this ongoing investigation. As additional patients contacted us, we worked with Washington County detectives to connect patients with investigators and conduct interviews. We played a direct part in helping detectives take action in these new cases. Providence is committed to the safety of our patients and their families. In all of our hospitals, we have a team of people working to review and investigate any patient concerns we receive. We work every day to earn the trust of our patients, just as we have been doing for 160 years.

The suspect’s neighbor, Jeff Reed, expressed dismay to news station KATU, telling the station he was shocked to hear the allegations after Mekonoen’s arrest. “I thought he was a very nice guy, family oriented,” said Reed, who lives across from Mekonen at an apartment complex in Southeast Portland.

Mekonen had been working at the hospital since May, just a month before the first rape was allegedly reported.

Breitbart News has confirmed with the Washington County authorities that the suspect, Adeladilew Mekonen, told a detective that he came to the United States from Ethiopia in 2011. Read more about More Victims in Portland after Ethiopian Charged with Rape of 87 and 94-year-old