Sunday, June 24, 2018

Slave wages in Honduras are kept that way, $1.80 per hour. This guarantees endless flow of people into US from a slave wage country which in turn places constant downward pressure on US wages

2013,Honduras rises the national minimum wage,” 

“In 2013, the national minimum wage in Honduras remained fixed at 248.1 € [$289 US] per month, that is 2,977 euros per year, taking into account 12 payments per year.” 

That’s $72 per week, $14.40 per day, $1.80 per hour. Honduras population is 9,112, 867. 


Added: Unelected global superiors require constant downward pressure on US wages. Unprompted, Globalist Republican Sen. Ron Johnson acknowledges that global bosses “dictate” what US businesses can afford to pay workers. It's not about immigration per se, it's about global bosses:

5/4/17, On Immigration, Washington Doesn’t Know Best,Wall St. Journal, Jason L. Riley, opinion

“Two GOP congressmen have a plan to give states authority over visas and work rules.”

When I asked Mr. Johnson why employers couldn’t simply raise wages to attract more U.S. workers, he replied that there are multiple causes for labor shortages. “We pay people not to work. We tell our kids that you have to get a four-year degree, which kind of implies that working in factories or the crafts or the trades—that there’s something wrong with that.”The senator also cited the international marketplace with which so many employers now must grapple. “Remember, you’re also operating in a global economy where you have competitive prices on products,” he said. “So you have globalization of product prices, which dictates what you can actually afford in terms of paying workers. I understand the anecdotal stories of American workers being displaced by immigrants and illegal immigrants. But there’s also the truth that a lot of business can’t hire enough people at any wage.””…

Added: “America Last” globalist US Senator Ron Johnson says forget about bringing back high paying manufacturing jobs to the US: 

2/14/18, Republican Senator Ron Johnson Tells President Trump “it makes no sense to try and bring back high labor manufacturing jobs,” tcth, sundance


Mueller investigation faces legal obstacle that political bias attended its 2016 origin. Due process demands at minimum that special counsel’s activity be paused. Federal law enforcement attempted to influence a federal election, shocking as that may be. FBI officials displayed not mere bias, but animus bordering on hatred-Wall St. Journal, opinion, Rivkin and Foley, 6/22/18

"The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed." 

6/22/18, "Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree," Wall St, Journal, opinion, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley (print edition, Sat. 6/23/18) "Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington." 
"It makes no difference how honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016."  
Strzok and Mueller
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

 Some of their communications, the report says, were not only a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects. Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane. 

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.” 

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), the court held that a state judge’s potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlier, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the taint but heighten “the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be obscured,” the justices wrote. A single biased individual “might still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nevertheless significant.”

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. 

And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations.. . 

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.

The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.

Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.

No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment.  

The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.

Crossfire’s progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: If Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, how would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and potentially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising information and getting his aides to jump at it.

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington. 

On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” 

On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” 

On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. 

On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.

That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed.

The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first." (images from Boston Globe)

"Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. She is a professor at Florida International University College of Law."

Among comments

"David Crutchfield, subscriber, 1 hour ago



It's not about 'keeping families together,' it's that US encourages criminal rapist smugglers by accepting families who've hired them. As long as US tolerates illegal immigrants participating in their own or their children's smuggling, the dangerous industry will continue-July 16, 2014, Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies

"Illegal immigrant parents are being allowed to walk away and the smuggling operations continue. Those involved in smuggling should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. This would include the “coyotes” as well as families paying for their services." (subhead, "Solutions") 

7/16/2014, 2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis Center for Immigration Studies, by Jon Feere 

“The recent influx of Central American illegal immigrants has resulted in a significant debate about how the United States should deal with the newly arrived families and children. Despite the attention it has received, by its own terms, the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008” — a law aimed, in part, at “unaccompanied alien children” who are victims of trafficking — may have little applicability to the current situation on the border:

It is important to remember that trafficking laws are not responsible for the current illegal immigration surge and any changes that might be made will likely have little impact. Amending them should not become a distraction from addressing the bigger problem of lax enforcement of existing immigration laws, which continue to encourage people to come to the United States illegally.

Defining the Recent Arrivals. Minors who enter the United States illegally arrive primarily from four countries: Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The most recent arrivals are primarily from Central America. In FY 2009, Mexican minors accounted for 82 percent of the 19,668 children apprehended along the U.S. border, while 17 percent were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Within the first eight months of FY 2014, the proportions had nearly reversed. Of the 47,017 minors apprehended at the border, 25 percent were Mexican and 73 percent were Central American.1

The latest figures from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show a 106 percent increase in the number of minors entering the United States illegally and that 57,525 such minors have been apprehended between October 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014.2

Deportation records show a steady decline in the number of youths (under age 18) removed from 2008 to 2013. The number of Central American minors deported declined despite the increased number of minors arriving over the last several years.

The records confirm that very few of the tens of thousands of Central Americans apprehended by the Border Patrol or ICE in recent years have been sent home, suggesting that the aspirations of tens of thousands of Central Americans now surging across the border are based on a realistic assessment of their chances to remain in the United States.3

Data on whether minors are arriving with family has been difficult to come by, but it is critical in crafting an appropriate response to the situation. It would be helpful to know what percentage of immigrant minors are arriving with family, and secondly, for those who arrive without family, what percentage have family inside the United States. These factors determine the applicability of the 2008 trafficking law.

It is unclear how many minors arriving at the U.S. border come with family members. But what happens to those who arrive on their own is more significant to the analysis. According to a leaked ICE memo, over 77 percent of non-Mexican children arriving at the border without a family member were released to family members inside the United States in FY 2013.4 

According to advocates and media reports, around 90 percent of non-Mexican and non-Canadian children coming across the border are placed with family or guardians in the United States.5 Similar percentages have been noted by some policymakers and agency administrators. HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell recently testified that approximately 55 percent of released alien children are released to parents and another 30 percent are released to other family members, bringing the total to 85 percent of such children being released to family.6 Mark Greenberg, acting assistant secretary within HHS, recently testified that, thus far in FY 2014, approximately 95 percent of children released went to a parent, relative, or non-relative sponsor.7

While better data would be helpful, what the available data suggest is that the overwhelming majority of minors arriving at the U.S. border are either with families or will be released to family members or guardians already in the United States. As explained below, children who have family or legal guardians in the United States are not “unaccompanied alien children” under federal law. 

Trafficking Is Different from Smuggling 

The “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008” was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law on December 23, 2008, by former President George W. Bush. As explained in a press release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the law is named after English abolitionist William Wilberforce, who led the parliamentary movement against the British slave trade in the early 19th century. The law supplements the “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005”, which amended the “Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000”.8 The aim of these laws is to prevent people from becoming victims of human trafficking and to protect women and children who are often the targets of human traffickers.

Under the “Trafficking Victims Protections Act of 2000” and the acts that amended it, the focus is on “severe forms of trafficking in persons”, which the act defines as “sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age” or “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”9

The 2000 act explains that, “The term ‘victim of trafficking’ means a person subjected to an act or practice” of the type described above. While it is likely that some of the illegal immigrants who have recently arrived at the U.S. border were subject to difficult, if not horrific, situations, it is incorrect to refer to them as “victims of trafficking” without evidence that they are part of a non-consensual sex trafficking or forced labor ring, for example.

Human smuggling, which is generally consensual and largely what is taking place along the border currently, is different from human trafficking, which generally is done against the will of the person being trafficked. As ICE explains, “Human trafficking and human smuggling are distinct criminal activities, and the terms are not interchangeable.”10 

Children in the 2008 Trafficking Act

The 2008 trafficking act includes a section titled, “Eligibility for interim assistance of children”. The section provides direction to Health and Human Services (HHS) in the instance they come across “credible information that a child … may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons“. HHS is tasked with “promptly” determining if the child is eligible for interim assistance, and although an exact definition of “interim assistance” is not given, it likely refers to sheltering and assistance given by non-governmental organizations, for example, as the child waits to be deported or reunited with family in the United States. The assistance can last for a period of up to 90 days and may be extended for an additional 30 days.

The officials who first come into contact with an individual “who is under 18 years of age” and “may be a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” have 24 hours to notify the HHS secretary to facilitate the provision of interim assistance.

The phrase “severe form of trafficking” is important because, if an alien meets the definition, it allows for certain benefits. For example, if a federal law enforcement official files an application stating that an alien is “a victim of a severe form of trafficking” and may be a potential witness to such trafficking, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary can permit the alien to remain in the United States to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the crime. Additionally, law enforcement officials may submit written requests to the DHS secretary to “permit the parole into the United States of certain relatives” of the alien.

Government sources tell the Center for Immigration Studies that, although the Border Patrol and ICE routinely screen minors crossing the border to determine if they are victims of trafficking, there is no provision requiring these agencies to actually certify that a minor is a trafficking victim before the services and legal protections designed specifically for trafficking victims kick in.

All of this is based on the notion that the trafficked alien is a victim of a severe form of trafficking. In the instance where the alien actually hired a human smuggler to bring him across, these benefits likely would not apply.

The act created a section of law titled, “Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking of Children”.11 The law is aimed at preventing “trafficking in persons” and requires DHS, the State Department, HHS, and the U.S. Attorney General to develop policies and procedures “to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are safely repatriated to their country of nationality or of last habitual residence.”

Federal law defines an “unaccompanied alien childas a person who “has no lawful immigration status in the United States” and “has not attained 18 years of age” and does not have a parent or legal guardian in the United States.12 

The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.

Consequently, to the extent the 2008 law applies to “unaccompanied alien children”, it may not apply to a significant majority of minors currently arriving at U.S. borders.

It should be noted that it is unclear what type of paperwork non-familial guardians are being required to sign, if anything, and what type of legal responsibilities attach to the guardian; they may or may not be considered “legal” guardians for the purposes of the 2008 law. It should also be noted that a child coming across may be considered an “unaccompanied alien child” even if he or she does have a parent or guardian in the United States if that person is not “available to provide care and physical custody”, which would include people in convalescent homes or prison, for example.

Canada and Mexico. The 2008 law provides “special rules for children from contiguous countries”, meaning Canada and Mexico. If an immigration officer finds an “unaccompanied alien child” at a land border or port of entry of the United States and determines that such child is inadmissible, the officer may “permit such child to withdraw” his or her “application for admission” and return the child to the “child’s country of nationality or country of last habitual residence.”

Before doing so, however, the DHS secretary must first determine “on a case-by-case basis” (within 48 hours of apprehension of the child) that the child 1) “has not been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, and there is no credible evidence that such child is at risk of being trafficked upon return” home; 2) “does not have a fear of returning to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence owing to a credible fear of persecution” (meaning the alien does not have a valid asylum claim); and 3) “the child is able to make an independent decision to withdraw” his or her application for admission to the United States.13

If DHS cannot make this determination within 48 hours, or if the child does not meet the criteria (meaning he or she is a victim of a severe form of trafficking, or fears persecution upon return home, for example) then the child “shall immediately be transferred” to HHS and treated largely the same way as an unaccompanied alien child who is not from either Canada or Mexico.

Unaccompanied Minors from Other Countries. The 2008 law states that “any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed” by DHS other than those from Canada and Mexico, shall be “placed in removal proceedings” and is generally eligible for relief and voluntary departure at no cost to the child. By contrast, unaccompanied alien children from Canada and Mexico do not necessarily face a formal removal proceeding.

The law requires “[e]xcept in the case of exceptional circumstances” that any department or agency of the federal government that has an unaccompanied alien child in custody to transfer the custody of such child to the HHS secretary within 72 hours after determining that such child is, in fact, an unaccompanied alien child. It is unclear what would count as “exceptional circumstances”, but perhaps a massive surge in illegal immigration could be taken into account. In fact, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) recently told DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson at a Senate hearing that the “exceptional circumstances” provision in the 2008 act would allow President Obama discretion in how the law is applied in light of the influx of illegal immigration.14 The senator suggested that amending the law was unnecessary. 

Under the law, a non-Mexican, non-Canadian unaccompanied alien child also must be provided access to counsel “to the greatest extent practicable”. Specifically, the provision on counsel provides that the Secretary of HHS “shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable … that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of [DHS]” (other than those described under the provisions related to Canada and Mexico) “have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings or matters”. HHS is also required “[t]o the greatest extent practicable” to make every effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel “who agree to provide representation to such children without charge.”

Again, these provisions only apply to “unaccompanied alien children” who, by definition under federal law, are individuals who do not have family or legal guardians in the United States. 


Since there is little evidence to suggest that illegal immigrant children currently arriving at the U.S. border are victims of trafficking, and since few can be described as “unaccompanied alien children” under federal law, the 2008 trafficking law has limited applicability to the current border surge. Accordingly, the Obama administration should be limiting its use of the law where possible. Even where the 2008 act is applicable, provisions within the law allow its enforcement to be limited in “exceptional circumstances”.

If President Obama seeks to discourage the current wave of illegal immigration, there are many things that can be done without the need for new legislation or the amendment of trafficking laws.

First and foremost, the president should cease all public discussions about amnesty and the legalization of illegal aliens and instead send a message to would-be illegal aliens that the United States will defend its sovereignty and will not welcome those who seek to violate it.

Unfortunately, in his most recent immigration-related speeches, President Obama has repeatedly pressed to legalize illegal aliens and has suggested he would do so unilaterally if Congress refuses to act. Such commentary can only encourage more people to attempt to enter the United States illegally.

Secondly, the Obama administration should stop invoking trafficking laws in situations that involve smuggling. It was never the intent of Congress that legislation aimed at helping trafficking victims be used to benefit illegal immigrants who are willingly being smuggled into the United States. Not only does the much-discussed 2008 trafficking act include language that allows for its application to be narrowed in exceptional circumstances; it is largely inapplicable to the problem at hand, anyhow. Not applying it would likely allow for faster processing of aliens from non-contiguous countries.

It is important that the administration go after the smuggling operations in order to stop some of the illegal immigration. It is difficult to determine who the smugglers are, however, unless ICE is able to interview the people who are paying them: the families of illegal alien minors. It might make sense to offer benefits or incentives to those illegal immigrants who give good information about the smuggling rings. But under current policies, illegal immigrant parents are being allowed to walk away and the smuggling operations continue.

Those involved in smuggling should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. This would include the “coyotes” as well as families paying for their services. As ICE explains, human smuggling involves a “deliberate evasion of immigration laws”.15 Tolerating such violations encourages more smuggling. Actual enforcement against those involved could quickly stop some of the operations.

When an illegal immigrant child is turned over to family members in the United States, ICE should interview them to learn about the smuggling activity, make a determination of their immigration status, and apply the appropriate law. Those who are here illegally should be put into deportation proceedings. Until it is clear that the United States does not tolerate illegal immigrants participating in smuggling, there is every reason to believe the dangerous phenomenon will continue.

The Obama administration could make better use of Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 Since the Obama administration claims to seek the quick repatriation of recently arrived illegal aliens, it naturally would want to make use of Expedited Removal.

Additionally, the Obama administration should negotiate repatriation agreements with countries that are seeing its people attempt to enter the United States illegally so that they can be returned home more quickly and efficiently. This does not require new legislation. Such agreements are critical during an emergency situation.

Ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nearly 300,000 Central Americans, many of whom are here because of natural disasters that occurred nearly 16 years ago, could also discourage more illegal immigration. Honduras and Nicaragua nationals received TPS because of Hurricane Mitch in 1998, while nationals from El Salvador received TPS status because of earthquakes in 2001. Some argue that the presence of Central Americans with on-going TPS status encourages more people to come here illegally to reunite with TPS recipients. Very little discussion occurs when the White House extends this status every 18 months, and the Obama administration has made little effort in explaining it justification for extending the “temporary” status seemingly indefinitely.

Again, all of this assumes that the goal is to stop the current influx of illegal immigration. Those who do not view the current situation as a humanitarian or border “crisis” are likely not so interested in discouraging more people from coming here illegally. The Obama administration appears to be hiding behind the 2008 law and acting like it requires them to allow the current wave of illegal immigration to continue.

Yet the trafficking statute has little applicability to the situation at hand.

Even without new legislation, the White House has a number of tools at its disposal to discourage the current influx of illegal immigrant families.”

End Notes
1 Lisa Seghetti, Alison Siskin, Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview”, Congressional Research Service, June 23, 2014. For a detailed demographic analysis of the Central American population in the United States, see Steven Camarota, “Central American Immigrants in the U.S.”, Center for Immigration Studies, July 2014.
2 “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children”, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
3 Jessica Vaughan, “Records Reveal Few Central Americans Deported”, Center for Immigration Studies, June 2014.
4 The 77 percent figure includes mothers, fathers, adult siblings, uncles, aunts, and grandparents. The memo notes that the remainder were discharged “to more distant relatives, family, or associates”.
5 See, e.g., Alan Greenblatt, “What’s Causing The Latest Immigration Crisis? A Brief Explainer”, National Public Radio, July 9, 2014.
6 Testimony of Sylvia Burwell, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, July 10, 2014.
7 Testimony of Mark Greenberg, acting assistant secretary, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, July 9, 2014.
8 “President Bush signs William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to combat Human Trafficking”, Press Release, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, December 23, 2008.
9 22 U.S.C. §7102, Defintions. See also, “Definition of ‘Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons'”, Department of State, (defining terms in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act).
10 “Fact Sheet: Human Trafficking and Smuggling”, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, January 16, 2013.
11 8 U.S.C. §1232.
12 8 U.S.C. §1232 is the statute in which the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008” is located. The statute cites to the definition of “unaccompanied alien child” at §1232(g), and refers to 6 U.S.C. §279(g)(2).
13 In 2009, DHS issued a policy that has largely resulted in the three-prong test being applied to all unaccompanied alien children, even though the statute only requires this for children from contiguous countries. See congressional testimony of Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Ryan, September 13, 2011: “CBP issued guidance in March 2009, requiring its officers and agents to screen all UAC for these three risk categories at CBP ports of entry and Border Patrol sector stations”.
14 Congressional hearing, “President’s Emergency Supplemental Request”, Committee on Appropriations, July 10, 2014.
15 “Human Smuggling”, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (viewed July 14, 2014).
16 Both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations chose to administratively limit the scope of Expedited Removal. The Clinton administration implemented Expedited Removal only at a few ports of entry, while the Bush administration decided not to use the removal process for Mexican or Canadian aliens. After 9/11 the process started being used at more ports of entry, but only for non-Mexican, non-Canadian aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the borders, and only if the alien was apprehended within 14 days of entry.”


The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985. It is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.”


Saturday, June 23, 2018

Cruel France not accurate in portraying migrant impacts on Italy. Inhumane France has refused migrants waiting in Ventimiglia, Italy


6/23/18, "Italy says 'arrogant' France could become main enemy on migration," Reuters, Paris 

"Italy on Saturday said “arrogant” France risked becoming its “No.1 enemy” on migration issues, a day before European leaders convene in Brussels for a hastily arranged meeting on the divisive topic. 

In answer to comments by French President Emmanuel Macron, who said migration flows toward Europe had reduced compared with a few years ago, Italy's Deputy Prime Minister Luigi DiMaio, said Macron’s words showed he was out of touch.

 “Italy indeed faces a migration emergency and it’s partly because France keeps pushing back people at the border. Macron risks making his country Italy’s No.1 enemy on this emergency,” Di Maio wrote on his Facebook page. 

Macron said European cooperation had managed to cut migration flows by close to 80 percent and problems stemmed from “secondary” movements of migrants within Europe. 

“A country like Italy has not at all the same migratory pressure as last year. ... The crisis we are experiencing today in Europe is a political crisis.” 

But Italy’s Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said his country had faced 650,000 arrivals by sea over the past four years, 430,000 asylum requests and the hosting of 170,000 “alleged refugees” for an overall cost of more than 5 billion euros ($5.8 billion).

If for the arrogant President Macron this is not a problem, we invite him to stop insulting and to show instead some concrete generosity by opening up France’s many ports and letting children, men and women through at Ventimiglia, he said in a statement, referring to the northeastern Italian town at the border with France.

June 14, 2015
Macron also said France favored financial sanctions for EU countries that refuse migrants with proven asylum status. 

“You can’t have countries that massively benefit from the solidarity of the European Union and that massively voice their national selfishness when it comes to migrant issues,” he added, in a clear hint to Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, which oppose the EU relocation scheme for asylum seekers. 

The fate of the Aquarius rescue ship and its more than 600 migrants sparked a heated debate this month over EU states’ responsibilities. Italy and Malta refused to take in the ship which was stranded at sea for days before being offered safe haven in Spain. On Saturday, another migrant rescue ship, the MV Lifeline, was waiting in the Mediterranean having been refused harbor by Italy and Malta.

The French president suggested that additional conditions should be attached to the granting of the EU’s structural funds to guarantee the recipients take their share of asylum migrants. 

He made the comments after his first meeting with the new Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, at the Elysee palace. 

Both leaders agreed that additional detention centers should be opened in Europe to review asylum seekers’ applications.

This would come on top of so-called “disembarkation platforms” outside the EU where asylum requests could be assessed before claimants reach Europe. 

Migrants seeking to reach Europe were picked up in the hundreds in the Mediterranean on Friday and Saturday. 

Spanish authorities said they had rescued nearly 600 migrants trying to make the perilous crossing from Africa, while off the coast of Libya coastguards recovered bodies of five migrants and picked up 210 survivors, the coastguard said. 

The container ship Alexander Maersk picked up 113 migrants from a boat off southern Italy on Friday, the ship owner said. The ship was south of Sicily awaiting further instructions from the authorities."

"Reporting by Valentina Za, Marine Pennetier and Mathieu Rosemain; Editing by Ros Russell, Mark Potter and Andrew Bolton" 



If your restaurant doesn't want business of Trump supporters, please say so on your website or on your door so patrons can go elsewhere without wasting their time-commenter

"If a restaurant doesn't want my business, I really would appreciate it if they say so on their website or on their door. Then I can go somewhere else without wasting my time.
100 posted on 6/23/2018, 5:39:58 PM by Sooth2222"

Above among comments to following article at Free Republic:

6/23/18, "The owner of the Red Hen explains why she asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave," Washington Post, Avi Selk


We hope this is an accurate map showing whom Trump represents-Mark Simone twitter


Above, 6/23/18, Mark Simone twitter


Comment: Appropriately, "Republicans" don't appear on this map. The Republican Establishment represents the same people Democrats represent, ie, anyone outside the US, but they're not as honest about it as Democrats are. Therefore they don't deserve mention on this map.


More Fake News: First Lady did not wear that jacket while visiting the border or detention centers. She only wore it to cross the White House lawn in front of the media-Mark Simone twitter


Above, 6/22/18, Mark Simone twitter


Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay-Hillary Clinton