President

The Trump administration is preparing to send Central American migrants caught along the southern border to Border Patrol stations "across the entire nation," according to a senior Border Patrol official who confirmed the plans Friday.

With more than 4,500 people being caught each day crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the agency has run out of room at its Border Patrol facilities in the four border states. The agency has started looking at its facilities around the country, which are mostly along the northern border with Canada and coastal states.

That means states from Oregon to North Dakota to Maine may begin receiving planeloads of migrant families in the weeks to come. On Tuesday, Customs and Border Protection sent its first plane full of migrants from Texas to San Diego.

The official confirmed reports on Thursday that the Florida counties of Broward and Palm Beach are under consideration given the size and capabilities of Border Patrol stations in the South Florida region. But he did not say if the decision is final or when the flights would start.

More: Record number of migrants puts 'severe pressure' on Border Patrol facilities

Asked whether any federal funds would be provided to help local communities deal with the relocation of migrants, the CBP official on Friday said he was not "aware" of any such plans.

The CBP official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to brief reporters on the agency's internal discussions, said politics is not playing a role in its search for places to process and release migrant families despite President Donald Trump's commentsthat he wants to send migrants to so-called "sanctuary cities" that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration officials.

"Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities," Trump tweeted last month.

Instead, the CBP official said they are searching only for Border Patrol facilities with the space and computer systems necessary to process large number of migrants each day. The official said the agency is not sending migrants to parts of the U.S. closest to their requested destinations, but making transportation decisions solely on each Border Patrol station's ability to receive large numbers of migrants.

Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said on Thursday that he was told by local Border Patrol officials to expect flights to start arriving in the area within two weeks, and that South Florida would receive about 1,000 migrants a month.

Officials in both counties complained that the transfers are coming with no apparent plan to house, feed, or care for the migrants after they're released from custody.

Migrants to Florida? Broward and Palm Beach officials worry about migrants dumped in their communities

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and ardent supporter of Trump, said he didn't know much beyond news reports about plans to release migrants in his state. But he said that if true, it would be a big problem.

"We cannot accommodate in Florida the dumping of unlawful migrants into our state. I think it will tax our resources, our schools, the healthcare, law enforcement, state agencies," he said after a bill-signing ceremony Friday, according to the Miami Herald.

The CBP official could not estimate the average cost of each flight. But on Monday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates the flights, issued a public request for a contractor to handle up to 60,000 migrant transfers a year, with the vast majority of them (88%) being transfers by air.

Border Patrol has complained that its facilities have been overwhelmed by the record number of migrant families crossing the border, most of them requesting asylum to stay in the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is responsible for interior immigration enforcement and has more detention space available, has also said it's running out of space.

That led Border Patrol agents in March to begin releasing migrants directly into local communities, at bus stations, community shelters, churches and other places along the border. That's been happening in Tucson since March.

CBP tried shuttling migrants between Border Patrol stations along the southern border, sending busloads of migrants from the flooded Rio Grande Valley sector in eastern Texas to other Border Patrol facilities in central and western Texas.

Now, the agency is looking all around the country to find more facilities that can help process the migrants. The migrants would be processed, given a date to appear in immigration court and then released into the community. Read more about Trump administration prepares to release Central American migrants 'across the entire nation'

In response to the endless stream of Central American migrants currently attempting to access the U.S. by any means, lawful or otherwise, President Trump has threatened to shut down the border.

Predictably, the armchair jurists in the media have opined that the president doesn’t have the authority to close the border and will be sued if he tries. The Washington Post proclaimed, “The only way Trump could potentially shut down the border would be through trade.” (Although, the legal sages at the Post didn’t go into any detail about how that would actually work, since the object of any border shutdown would be keeping out the people currently trying to get in.)

So what’s the real deal? Can the president shut down the border? He can. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly said so:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), unequivocally grants the president the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he finds that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”  
• In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., decided in 1993, the Supreme Court held that, 1182(f) was intended to give the president the authority to prevent unauthorized mass migrations. Therefore, it delegates “ample power” to impose entry restrictions on foreign nationals, in response to emergent situations that threaten America’s interests. In fact, the Court found that 1182(f) was a more than sufficient basis for the naval blockade which ended the mass migration from Haiti during the Clinton administration.
• More recently, in Trump v. Hawaii, the high Court reaffirmed Sale holding that, “Fairly read, [1182(f)] vests authority in the President to impose additional limitations on entry beyond the grounds for exclusion set forth in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] — including in response to circumstances that might affect the vetting system or other ‘interests of the United States.’” The court also noted that, “By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause.”

Based on the Supreme Court’s holdings in Sale and Trump v. Hawaii, 1182(f), it would appear to grant the president more than ample authority to close ports of entry because they are being overrun by people seeking to enter the U.S. by any means, lawful or illegal.

That the mainstream media has repeatedly presented its inaccurate opinions on this issue as a factual statement of the applicable law is completely unconscionable. Read more about Can the President shut down the border?

There are many media and internet comments and misinterpretations of Pres. Trump’s address to the nation on Tuesday night, Jan. 8.  Read here what he actually said:

President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border

January 8, 2019 , Oval Office, 9:01 P.M. EST

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-address-nation-crisis-border/

My fellow Americans: Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.

Every day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country.  We are out of space to hold them, and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their country.

America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.  But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled, illegal migration.  It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages.  Among those hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.  More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.  Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.

This is a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.

Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States — a dramatic increase.  These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs.  One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.  Women and children are the biggest victims, by far, of our broken system.

This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border.  This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.

My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers.  It’s a tremendous problem.  Our proposal was developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents at the Department of Homeland Security.  These are the resources they have requested to properly perform their mission and keep America safe.  In fact, safer than ever before.

The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things.  We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy.  Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.

Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home.

Finally, as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier.  At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall.  This barrier is absolutely critical to border security.  It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.  This is just common sense.

The border wall would very quickly pay for itself.   The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year — vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.  The wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.

Senator Chuck Schumer — who you will be hearing from later tonight — has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats.  They changed their mind only after I was elected President.

Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis.  And they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation.

The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.
My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation.  But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.

This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting.  I have invited Congressional leadership to the White House tomorrow to get this done.  Hopefully, we can rise above partisan politics in order to support national security.

Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.  Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes?  They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.  The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.

America’s heart broke the day after Christmas when a young police officer in California was savagely murdered in cold blood by an illegal alien, who just came across the border.  The life of an American hero was stolen by someone who had no right to be in our country.

Day after day, precious lives are cut short by those who have violated our borders.  In California, an Air Force veteran was raped, murdered, and beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal history.  In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder for killing, beheading, and dismembering his neighbor.  In Maryland, MS-13 gang members who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors were arrested and charged last year after viciously stabbing and beating a 16-year-old girl.

Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration.  I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers.  So sad.  So terrible.  I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls.

How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?

To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?
To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis.
To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border.

This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice.  This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve.

When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country.  And that is what I will always do, so help me God.
Thank you and goodnight.

END            9:11 P.M. EST Read more about The Crisis at the Border; Pres. Trump's address to the nation

The House voted Thursday to give President Trump $5.7 billion for a border wall, hours after Trump warned Republicans that he would veto the spending bill if it didn't boost border security.

The bill passed 217-185, and while Democrats were predicting a GOP split would prevent it from passing the House, only eight Republicans voted against it.

But the victory will likely be short-lived, as Democrats in the Senate are expected to reject the bill. That rejection looks increasingly likely to lead to a partial government shutdown after Friday.

 

After Trump rallied his party on the need for a border wall in a White House meeting, Republicans said the $5.7 billion is needed to secure the border and keep out dangerous migrants.

“It is common sense to secure our borders and know who is entering our country,” said Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, adding that drugs moving across the border has devastated rural Maine. “The greatest Christmas gift for America is securing our borders.”

Democrats objected and said Republicans were setting up a shutdown of several federal agencies just before Christmas.

“House Republicans have caved once again to Trump’s political whims,” said House Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is expected to take up the House-passed bill Friday. Senate Democrats will block it, and House Republican leaders suggested Thursday they will negotiate a compromise with Democrats.

If no agreement is reached, the lack of new spending authority will force several agencies to start furloughing workers after Friday.

But the bill is a win for Trump, who faced pressure from well-known conservatives all week to reject any bill that doesn't include wall funding. Several Republicans warned that Trump would face a difficult re-election in 2020 had he caved in.

Earlier in the week, Republican leaders told House lawmakers they believed Trump would sign a bipartisan bill that excludes wall funding. But Trump, under pressure from his conservative base, called Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Thursday, and summoned Republicans to the White House to tell them he would not sign a bill without the wall money.

The funding bill as passed by the House would keep funds flowing for about 25 percent of the federal government, including the Justice Department and Homeland Security. A temporary measure that's currently in place expires Friday.

The rest of 2019 government funding, including military spending, was signed into law earlier this year and will continue uninterrupted, regardless of how this week's fight ends.

Democrats say they’ll only agree to a fiscal 2018 level of $1.3 billion for border security but nothing for a wall.

The House-passed bill also includes another $7.8 billion in disaster aid to states hurt by wildfires and hurricanes.

  Read more about Trump's veto threat pays off: House approves $5.7B for border wall

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review its decision to rescind the Obama-era DACA program Tuesday night.

The request is unusual, because legal challenges to DACA’s termination are still underway in the lower courts.

The Justice Department said the Court must act now to resolve the dispute this term, but left-leaning civil rights groups called the petition a political student ahead of Tuesday’s election. 

The Trump administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night seeking to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends protected status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children.

The move is aggressive and unusual, as decisions on Trump’s efforts to rescind DACA are still pending in several federal appeals courts, and the justices seldom take up cases before those judgments issue. But the U.S. Department of Justice told the Supreme Court Monday that action is needed in the near term.

The Trump administration previously sought the Supreme Court’s review of its efforts to phase out DACA. After two federal judges issued injunctions requiring the government to continue administering the program, the Justice Department bypassed normal appellate procedure and went directly to the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 to vindicate its right to terminate the program.

The justices rejected that request on Feb. 26, but asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to quickly process the case so it could return to the high court in a reasonable timeframe. Other challenges to DACA repeal efforts are currently before appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C.

“It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case,” the Supreme Court’s February order read. No decision has since come from the circuit courts.

In a letter attending the government’s petition, Solicitor General Noel Francisco explained that the high court should take the cases now — even though the appeals courts have yet to render decisions on the matter — to ensure the justices can resolve the dispute during the current term.

“As this Court’s previous order recognized, prompt consideration of these cases is essential,” the letter reads. “By virtue of the district courts’ orders, DHS is being required to maintain a discretionary policy of non-enforcement sanctioning an ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million individuals.”

“Yet, absent prompt intervention from this Court, there is little chance this dispute will be resolved for at least another year,” the letter adds.

On the merits of the dispute, the Trump administration contends that its decision to terminate DACA cannot be reviewed in court, since the program exists entirely at the executive branch’s discretion. Even if its termination decision is reviewable, they continue, it is still reasonable and lawful.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights denounced the move as an “election eve stunt.”

“The day before an election that will have huge implications for this administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his Department have shamelessly asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appellate courts in their quest to end DACA,” said Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference. “This administration is in a rush to pull the rug out from under Dreamers and subject them to deportation. This extraordinary move is blatantly cruel to immigrant youth who call this country their home and contribute to their communities.”

“The Supreme Court must reject this politically motivated and unnecessary request,” she added.

But Sessions said that the 9th Circuit left the administration with little choice.

“The Department of Justice should not have been forced to make this filing today — the 9th Circuit should have acted expeditiously, just as the Supreme Court expected them to do,” the AG said Monday night. “But we will not hesitate to defend the constitutional system of checks and balances vigorously and resolutely.”

DACA extends temporary legal status to approximately 700,000 migrants, and allows them to obtain work permits.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org Read more about Trump Administration Returns To Supreme Court, Seeking End To DACA

First off, the policy of separating illegal border crossers from minor children has been going on forever. The media are just mad because Trump is enforcing the law, is refusing to “catch and release” illegals into our country, where most disappear never to be seen or heard from again (I explain why here).

You see, that is something the media refuse to tell you, that is something the media dare not allow the American public to grasp — that the only way to “keep the family together” is to release them into our country....

There is simply no other way to “keep families together” other than to release them.

Because of loopholes in the law that make it impossible to hold children for more than 20 days, a finite amount of resources from congress (there are no facilities to hold legitimate illegal families together), and the fact that many of these children are being used by sex traffickers and drug dealers as a free pass into America (meaning, we need to separate families to ensure the child is not being exploited), those are the only options Trump has…

He can either separate families or he can release them into America. That impossible choice is the most important piece of news the media are covering up.

Before I begin, let me first make a crucial distinction between legitimate asylum seekers and lawbreakers — another important point the media are intentionally muddying up.

Those families seeking asylum through legitimate means are not being separated by the Trump administration, and they should not be separated. People who follow the rules should be treated like people who follow the rules. And those seeking asylum for legitimate reasons should be granted asylum. God bless these families, and welcome to America. Same with legal immigrants. I am married to one. So thank God for legal immigration because she’s awesome.

But here are four reasons why separating children at the border is the ONLY humane choice…

1. Abusive Parents

If any American citizen force-marched their minor child through miles and miles of dangerous desert with the intent of committing a crime, the government would (and should) take our child away....

2. We Must Separate Children From Sex Traffickers and Criminals

Because of the loopholes in the law, because of stupid and inhumane policies like “catch and release,” the American media and left have turned innocent children into a golden ticket into America for monstrous criminals.

This encouragement has resulted in untold numbers of criminals using children (who are not their own) to disguise themselves as part of a family unit....

3. ‘Keeping Families Together’ Encourages Sex Trafficking

...

4. America Citizens Cannot Be Forgotten

Again — and I cannot stress this enough — Trump has only two choices: he can either separate families, or he can “keep families together” by letting them loose into America.

There is no third option....

In the three points above, I detailed why separating these families is the only humane option for the migrant children....

All because the Democrats and their media allies want more voters (how this works is laid out here)....

The media have intentionally turned the moral world upside down, have gaslighted too many into believing the monstrous policy of “keeping families together,” which only means one thing — setting illegal aliens loose into America, is a virtue as opposed to what it really is: an act of naked evil that encourages child abuse, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and punishes the already-struggling working class. Read more about Four Reasons Why Separating Border Children Is the Only Humane Choice

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. 

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.”

"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.

  Read more about Senate rejects Trump immigration plan