WORLD-WIDE THREAT ASSESSMENT MAKES POWERFUL CASE FOR BORDER SECURITY
Senate hears from leaders of the intelligence community. February 1, 2019
Timing is everything. Congress is currently in the midst of debating the construction of a "border wall" or “border barrier” to protect the dangerous U.S./Mexican border as the clock ticks down to another possible partial shutdown of our government if an agreement cannot be reached.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, "World-Wide Threat Assessment," that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.
As we will see, elements of that report addressed issues that have a clear nexus to border security and immigration law enforcement.
However, the leaders of the Democratic Party have thus far made it clear that they will oppose any and all efforts to construct a barrier to block the uninspected entry of aliens and cargo into the United States while simultaneously claiming that they don't oppose border security -- even as some Democrats call for disbanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While the Democratic Party leaders claim that a wall or barrier on the southern border is a waste of money and find all sorts of other absurd excuses to oppose it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outrageously and infamously claiming that any such structure would be “immoral,” the leaders of the U.S. Border Patrol as well as the leaders of the Border Patrol Council, the union that represents our valiant Border Patrol agents, have publicly and repeatedly stated that a wall or barrier is essential to help them to secure our nation’s borders.
Clearly the Democrats have no interest in actually securing our borders or in the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Now we come to that hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report that served as the predication for that hearing.
Inasmuch as the report contains material furnished by all of the elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the leaders of these agencies were witnesses at the hearing.
This is the Witness List:
Director Daniel Coats
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Director Christopher Wray
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Director Gina Haspel
Central Intelligence Agency
Director General Robert Ashley
Defense Intelligence Agency
Director General Paul Nakasone
National Security Agency
Director Robert Cardillo
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Several areas of concern about national security vulnerabilities addressed in the report have a clear and unmistakable nexus to immigration, border security and related issues.
Page 4 of the report included this paragraph:
Migration is likely to continue to fuel social and interstate tensions globally, while drugs and transnational organized crime take a toll on US public health and safety. Political turbulence is rising in many regions as governance erodes and states confront growing public health and environmental threats.
Page 10 included the following excerpt:
Sunni Violent Extremists
Global jihadists in dozens of groups and countries threaten local and regional US interests, despite having experienced some significant setbacks in recent years, and some of these groups will remain intent on striking the US homeland. Prominent jihadist ideologues and media platforms continue to call for and justify efforts to attack the US homeland.
Page 18 of the report focuses on Transnational Criminal Organizations and provided vital information about drug trafficking and human trafficking.
Here is an excerpt of the material provided in this chapter of the report:
TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME
Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.
The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.
Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.
Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.
Other Organized Crime Activities
Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.
Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.
Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.
Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.
Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.
This is not the first report or the first hearing to provide clear evidence that the porous U.S./Mexico border creates national security, public safety, and public health vulnerabilities for Americans.
I have written a number of articles about this issue; one of my recent articles took on the bogus claim that technology is better than a wall: "Why Trump’s Wall Is A Must" - And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.
My May 11, 2018 article, "Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.," was predicated on a hearing conducted by the House Homeland Security Committee.
A failure to stop the flow of illegal alien workers also undermines the U.S. economy, and costs American and lawful immigrant workers jobs and suppresses their wages. That fundamental fact was the basis for my commentary, "OPEN BORDERS FACILITATE AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM" - “Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.
As I have noted ever so many times in my articles and in my Congressional testimony, simply securing the problematic border against the illegal (uninspected) entry of aliens won’t end the immigration crisis but would close one of the major holes in what I have come to refer to as the Immigration Colander. I have come to conceptualize the wall on the U.S./Mexican border as the equivalent of a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but the wing by itself would go nowhere.
The immigration system has never had a meaningful program to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. The need to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is commonsense and was noted as an important issue by the 9/11 Commission. The dirty secret is that our political leaders understand just how important interior enforcement is but have intentionally never provided the resources to enforce those laws from within the interior. Consider that, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS ) and in so doing, broke the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into multiple components that then blended immigration with other agencies such as Customs.
However, while the leadership of neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been willing to take the necessary measures to finally save the immigration crisis through effective but fair law enforcement, unhinged members of the Democratic Party are now calling for dismantling ICE altogether. They are calling for immigration anarchy even as yet another hearing, involving the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, are clear about the nexus between threats confronting America and border security and immigration law enforcement.
Meanwhile cities and states that are controlled by the Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that shield illegal aliens from detection from ICE including criminals, members of transnational gangs and drug trafficking organizations. These jurisdictions also shield international fugitives and terrorists and, in shielding aliens who were smuggled into the United States, protect the human traffickers who smuggled them here.
If these politicians were really concerned about the plight of trafficked aliens, they could cooperate with ICE and make certain that ICE provides these aliens with visas that are available for aliens who cooperate with investigations into human trafficking and major crimes.
As we have seen with the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, New York City -- the American city with the largest, best-trained and -equipped police department in the United States -- became the hub for the Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel that purportedly moved hundreds of tons of drugs including heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl, and marijuana into the U.S. across the Mexican border.
The only rational reason that NYC would have been selected as the hub, given the nature and reputation of the NYPD is the fact that NYC is a “Sanctuary City.” This was the focus of my article, "NEW YORK CITY: HUB FOR THE DEADLY DRUG TRADE" - “Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.
For far too long America has been bleeding red (blood) and green (money). Truly secure borders wold represent a giant step on the road to resolving the immigration crisis. Failure to secure the border costs innocent lives, each and every day.
WHY TRUMP’S WALL IS A MUST
And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.
December 27, 2018
President Trump has demonstrated, once again, that he is a man of his word, opting to shut down the government rather than accede to the globalist Democrats who refuse to provide funding for the wall to be erected to help secure the dangerous and porous U.S./Mexican border.
Schumer, Pelosi and others, mostly Democrats, have opposed a wall and called for drones and other elements of a “virtual fence” along the southern border insisting that a wall would be too expensive and not needed.
As I noted in an earlier article, America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation, just as the cost of insulating houses ultimately saves money, by keeping warm air from escaping the house in the winter, insulating America against contraband (including deadly, dangerous narcotics), illegals and the criminals and terrorists among them, would protect America and Americans; and help staunch the flow of tens of billions of dollars annually sent out of the United States by illegal alien workers and criminals.
The cost of a secure border wall should be considered an investment in national security, public safety and the livelihoods of American workers. This is one investment that would not only pay for itself and, indeed pay dividends, but save many, many innocent lives.
For years, drones--also known as UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles)--have been deployed along that border at great expense and with little or nothing to show for the costly effort.
The deployment of the U.S. military’s Predator UAV’s to support the Border Patrol’s efforts to secure our borders provided many Americans with a sense of security. After all, the military relies on those drones and we all know the U.S. military’s prowess at achieving national security goals and objectives.
In reality, for the most part, that sense of security provided by the drones has been false security. False security is worse than no security.
The stark and irrefutable reality is that drones and other such devices cannot stop the entry of any illegal aliens or contraband.
Drones can spot illegal aliens and contraband only after our borders have been violated. This is true for all of the technological devices that are deployed along the border.
Furthermore, unmanned drones cannot make arrests. All that drones, pole-mounted cameras, radar and other sensors can do is transmit alerts and images to alert members of the U.S. Border Patrol that illegal entries into the United States have already taken place. The Border Patrol then must have the resources to respond to those alerts and images provided by the drones and other costly high-tech devices.
On May 1, 2018 the Cato Institute published the Immigration Research And Policy Brief No. 5: Drones on the Border: Efficacy and Privacy Implications which began with the following two paragraphs:
In response to President Donald Trump’s call for a border wall, some members of Congress have instead offered a “virtual wall”—ocean-to-ocean border surveillance with technology, especially unmanned aircraft known as drones. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) already operates a fleet of nine unmanned aircraft. Although drones have been widely used in foreign battlefields, they have failed to help CBP apprehend illegal border crossers and seize drugs. Drones have led to only 0.5 percent of apprehensions at a cost of $32,000 per arrest.
At the same time, drones undermine Americans’ privacy. Their surveillance records the daily lives of Americans living along the border, and because CBP regularly uses its drones to support the operations of other federal agencies as well as state and local police, its drones allow for government surveillance nationwide with minimal oversight and without warrants. CBP should wind down its drone program and, in the meantime, establish more robust privacy protections.
Drones cannot assist Border Patrol agents who come under attack by illegal aliens and alien smugglers. All that drones can do is transit images of agents who are being attacked and other agents then need to respond to back up the agents who are being attacked.
Drones are also vulnerable to hacking. On December 17, 2015 the website Defense One published a report, DHS: Drug Traffickers Are Spoofing Border Drones that include the following statement:
“The bad guys on the border have lots of money and what they are putting money into is into spoofing and jamming GPS systems. We’re funding some advances so we can counter this,” said Timothy Bennett, a science-and-technology program manager at the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP. Those bad guys aren’t ISIS, just traffickers, Bennett said on Dec. 16 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies “It’s more about trafficking drugs and people,” he told Defense One. “We know who’s over there. We can guess who’s doing it.”
On December 24, 2014 the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Unmanned Aircraft System Program Does Not Achieve Intended Results or Recognize All Costs of Operations” that included the following assessments:
Although CBP’s Unmanned Aircraft System program contributes to border security, after 8 years, CBP cannot prove that the program is effective because it has not developed performance measures. The program has also not achieved the expected results. Specifically, the unmanned aircraft are not meeting flight hour goals. Although CBP anticipated increased apprehensions of illegal border crossers, a reduction in border surveillance costs, and improvement in the U.S. Border Patrol’s efficiency, we found little or no evidence that CBP met those program expectations.
We estimate that, in fiscal year 2013, it cost at least $62.5 million to operate the program, or about $12,255 per hour. The Office of Air and Marine’s calculation of $2,468 per flight hour does not include operating costs, such as the costs of pilots, equipment, and overhead. By not including all operating costs, CBP also cannot accurately assess the program’s cost effectiveness or make informed decisions about program expansion. In addition, unless CBP fully discloses all operating costs, Congress and the public are unaware of all the resources committed to the Unmanned Aircraft System program. As a result, CBP has invested significant funds in a program that has not achieved the expected results, and it cannot demonstrate how much the program has improved border security.
Given the cost of the Unmanned Aircraft System program and its unproven effectiveness, CBP should reconsider its plan to expand the program. The $443 million that CBP plans to spend on program expansion could be put to better use by investing in alternatives, such as manned aircraft and ground surveillance assets.
An effective wall, however, could prevent the illegal entry of aliens and contraband in the first place.
This should be a matter of common sense, yet many members of Congress have resisted the construction of a wall.
The major corporations that sell the government the drones, cameras and sensors find this to be an extremely lucrative venture. All too frequently you have to consider the potential for what has come to be referred to as “crony capitalism.”
Of far greater concern however, is the simple and unavoidable conclusion that I came to many years ago. I have come to refer to this as the magic act, comparable to the magician who promises his audience that he will slice his lovely assistance in half.
Using all sorts of devices, blue smoke, mirrors and lighting, the magician creates a most convincing illusion that he had, indeed, cut the poor young woman in half. However, to everyone’s relief, after the stunt is carried out, his assistant bounds up onto the stage to the enthusiastic applause and cheers of the audience.
Of course, it is clear that the last thing that the magician would want to do is really slice his assistant in half. He would go to jail and probably never be able to find anyone willing to work with him again.
Politicians like Schumer and Pelosi know damned well that the great majority of Americans, including their supposed constituents want our borders secured against the illegal entry of aliens, particularly the criminals and terrorists among them. The politicians know that the voters want to keep drugs out of their communities. However, the politicians also know that the majority of the special interest groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want our borders left open so that cheap and exploitable workers can flood into the United States.
Politicians know that they need those campaign contributions from those special interest groups if they are to win their next elections, so they are compelled to meet the demands of their de-facto employers, those who write those big, fat political campaign checks.
Not unlike that magician, politicians have become adept at creating illusions that they are eager to secure our borders and demonstrate this by voting for expensive measures and programs that are largely worthless, but create the convincing illusion that lots of money is being spent to meet the demands of their constituents while, in reality, just as the magician’s assistant is unharmed, the flood of exploitable workers will be able to continue without impediment.
So, while Schumer continues to drone on, and on, ad nauseam, the truth is that America’s borders cannot be secured by blue smoke and mirrors.
NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE - THE SEQUEL (WORSE THAN THE ORIGINAL)As Reagan might have said, “There she goes again!”
December 12, 2018
In the movies sequels are usually worse than the original. Since Washington has often been referred to as “Hollywood for ugly people,” it is perhaps appropriate to consider another sequel in the making, not in film but in politics. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House and soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives, once again was the subject of a video posted on December 7, 2018 by Fox News, in which she rejected the notion of constructing a wall along the highly porous U.S./Mexican border to prevent the entry of illegal aliens, narcotics and other contraband.
Her outrageous statements and positions on immigration law enforcement and border security seemed to strike a new low during her first stint as Speaker. She has yet to resume that position and is already providing a disturbing peek into what America and Americans are in for with her in the position that provides her with a “leadership” role in the Congress and puts her in the chain of succession to the U.S. Presidency.
As my dad used to say, “Nothing is so good it could not be better or be so bad it could not get worse.” As hard as it might be to imagine, bad as Pelosi was the last time she held the position of Speaker, she may actually prove my dad was right.
This is the link to the Fox News video:
Pelosi Takes Hard Line on Trump's Border Wall: 'Immoral, Ineffective and Expensive'
It is unfathomable how Pelosi could declare that protecting the United States from threats posed by international terrorists, transnational gangs and the flow of narcotics into the United States is “immoral.”
It is similarly impossible to understand how Pelosi could determine that it is immoral to prevent the illegal entry of foreign workers who all too frequently displace American and lawful immigrant workers and drive down wages and working conditions of American and lawful immigrant workers who are similarly employed.
A wall would not prevent the lawful entry of a single person into the United States. The wall would not block America’s ports of entry but would funnel all traffic destined to the United States through ports of entry where they are subject to inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors and where a record of their entry into the United States is created. These issues have significant national security implications.
This is comparable to the way that guests who visit us are expected to knock on our front doors to ask permission to enter our homes. It would certainly be unacceptable for a stranger to enter our homes by climbing through a back window. Similarly an effective border wall would prevent aliens entering the United States surreptitiously.
In a very real sense, entering without inspection is, at a minimum, comparable to trespassing and, as I noted in my recent article, "Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters," Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical and contradictory position on trespassing on critical infrastructure and national landmarks versus aliens who trespass on America is astonishing.
Here is the relevant excerpt from my commentary:
Aliens who evade the vital inspections process conducted at ports of entry are, at a minimum, trespassing on the United States. This is a violation of law and poses a threat to national security and public safety.
On October 13, 2014 Schumer posted a press release on his official website which announced that because of dangers created by trespassers, particularly in this era of terrorism, that he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.
However, Schumer, who actually cited the antics of a 16-year-old boy in his press release, had declared that anyone who trespasses, including “adrenaline junkies,” should face a five-year prison sentence.
However, when aliens trespass on the United States, even where violence is concerned, Schumer and his Democratic colleagues are determined to provide those illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship!
The open-borders immigration anarchists refer to aliens who run our borders as being “undocumented immigrants.” In point of fact, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of enter the United States without inspection.
Such an entry is in violation of U.S. Code § 1325, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Some “journalists” have actually seized upon this linguistic sleight of tongue and have come to refer to illegal aliens as “immigrants who lack documents,” conjuring up the image of a student who went to the bathroom without taking the hall pass. The issue is not a lack of paperwork but legal authorization to enter the United States and remain here. Some of these aliens have no shortage of documents. In my 30-year career I encountered quite a few aliens who had been deported numerous times, some having been arrested and convicted of so many crimes during each of their illegal forays into the United States that their arrest record or “rap sheet” and their immigration files could have provided wallpaper to decorate a moderately-sized house, if you like hanging garbage on walls!
Aliens who seek to evade the inspections process do so because they know that they belong to one or more categories of aliens who are legally ineligible to enter the United States. Race, religion and/or ethnicity do not have any bearing whatsoever on the admissibility of aliens who seek to enter the United States.
In fact, 8 U.S. Code § 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States. It is clear that the purpose for this section of law is protect national security, public safety and public health and protect the jobs and wages of American workers.
Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who had been previously deported from the United States, aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness, are convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment, thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges, thereby burdening the economies of the towns and cities where they would live.
Pelosi claims that the wall would be “ineffective.” In fact, had a wall been erected the “Caravan of Migrants” (aspiring illegal aliens) would likely have been deterred from streaming to the U.S./Mexican border.
However, more must be done to address the immigration crisis than simply constructing a wall along the southern border. As I have frequently noted, a wall along the border is comparable to a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but a wing by itself goes nowhere. A border wall must be erected and additional enhancements must also be made to the enforcement program of the Department of Homeland Security. Currently ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has about 6,000 agents for the entire United States and they do not only enforce immigration laws but customs laws and other laws that have nothing to do with immigration. (The “C” in ICE is, after all, Customs.) ICE is more focused on those who produce counterfeit Gucci loafers than counterfeit passports. To put things in perspective, the NYPD has about 38,000 police officers, the Border Patrol has about 20,000 agents, and our armed forces have more than one million enlisted men and women.
Obviously many more ICE agents, immigration judges and support staff should be hired, not to deport all of the illegal aliens who are present in the United States (likely more than 30,000), but to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity and convince aspiring illegal aliens around the world that the United States takes its laws and its borders seriously.
Finally, as to the issue of the cost of constructing the wall, the wall would pay for itself just as the cost of insulating a house is payed back to the homeowner many times over through savings in the costs of heating and cooling the house. I drew upon that analogy in my article "America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation," in which I noted that each year tens of billions of ill-gotten dollars flow out of the United States in the form of remittances and other means of moving the money out of the U.S. that is earned by illegal aliens and as the result of the drug trade. Finally securing that border would help to stanch the flow of money and save many, many lives as an added bonus.
Of course, as I have noted in my article "Sanctuary Country - Immigration failures by design," the multiple failures of the immigration system are not the result of inability to enforce our laws but an abject lack of desire by political leaders of both parties to enforce the immigration laws.
To put it bluntly, while our borders and our immigration laws are America’s first and last lines of defense against transnational criminals and fugitives and international terrorists, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a laundry list of other organizations and special interest groups including immigration lawyers, they are viewed as an impediment to their wealth.
While Nancy is a highly-visible proponent for open borders, there are precious few members of Congress in either party who actually disagree with her.
That is the real horror show!
DID JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR SHIELD CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN FROM ICE? Taking judicial over-reach to a new low.
December 10, 2018
My article today is predicated on the December 2, 2018 Boston Globe report, "ICE agent was in courthouse. Did judge and others help man flee?"
Incredibly, a district court judge is now being investigated by a federal grand jury into her actions earlier this year, when she is believed to have acted, in concert with a prosecutor, to enable an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic to escape justice. As it turned out, the alien was using a false name, had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen at the time of his arrest and had been previously twice deported from the United States.
A detainer had been lodged by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and, at the time, an ICE agent was present in the courthouse waiting to take the alien into custody.
We will get into the details of this outrageous case but first I want to remind you how we have gotten to this point, to set the stage for this latest example of immigration anarchy.
The globalists have worked long and hard to convince politicians from both political parties and judges alike that it is somehow heroic to obstruct the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the jobs of American workers.
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission made it crystal clear that first and foremost, multiple failures of the immigration system not only permitted the 19 hijacker-terrorists who launched the savage attacks on September 11, 2001, but other terrorists the Commission studied as well, to enter the United States and embed themselves.
In spite of this, a growing list of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States” have openly declared their opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Members of the Democratic Party have even called for disbanding ICE and have even vilified ICE agents. New York’s Governor Cuomo has publicly referred to ICE agents as “thugs"!
There has been no shortage of reports of judges overstepping their authority and, as has come to be known, have “legislated from the bench” particularly where the enforcement of our immigration laws are concerned.
Since his election, President Trump has had his efforts to enforce our immigration laws stymied and blocked by a number of federal judges, particularly regarding DACA and the supposed “Travel Ban.”
I addressed these examples of judicial overreach in a number of my recent articles:
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban On Illegal Aliens
Judge’s ruling ignores Constitution, 9/11 Commission Report and common-sense.
DACA Ruling: Judicial Travesty Obstructs Presidential Authority
Fed. Judge Bates’ ruling ignores facts and national security.
Courting Disaster: Supreme Court Decides Against Homeland Security
Court guts presidential authority to prevent the entry of terrorists.
Incredibly, some judges have also attempted to prevent ICE agents from making arrests in courthouses. The safest place to take an individual into custody is often in a courthouse because all who enter there are carefully screened to make certain that they are unarmed. This protects the public, the agents and even the alien who is to be arrested. I speak from direct experience; when I was an INS agent I frequently arrested aliens in courthouses.
Let us remember that our immigration laws were duly enacted the very same way that all federal laws were enacted. Judges are supposed to enforce our laws dispassionately and objectively.
Our laws are not to be regarded the way a patron of a restaurant peruses the menu of offerings picking and choosing the items that appeal to that patron.
Time and again the globalist immigration/anarchists fatuously claim that our immigration laws are “Unconstitutional.”
They need to read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Now we come to the case that prompted me to write this article.
The newspaper report I cited above began by describing the conversation purportedly conducted at the sidebar among Newton District Court District Judge Shelley M. Joseph, the defense attorney representing Jose Medina-Perez an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic and Middlesex County prosecutor Shannon Jurgens.
Their conversation focused on how they should deal with the fact that Medina-Perez was facing deportation from the United States, a detainer had been lodged by ICE and, in fact, an ICE agent was in the courthouse waiting to take the defendant into custody.
Medina-Perez was arrested by Newton Police on drug charges and he also faced a fugitive warrant incidental to having been previously stopped for drunk driving in Pennsylvania.
Here is an excerpt from the news article:
“ICE is going to get him,” the judge told the attorneys during the April 2 sidebar conversation. “What if we continue [the case]?” she suggested, before instructing a clerk to turn off the courtroom’s audio recorder. Whatever was said during the next 58 seconds went unrecorded.
Minutes later, Medina-Perez was escorted downstairs, released from custody, and allowed out a back door, according to two people briefed on the episode. He scaled a fence and took off, leaving the immigration agent behind, the people said.
The following excerpt from the news report that includes the conversation among the judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor is particularly disturbing.
Their conversation — only occasionally audible on the recording — focused on the defendant’s immigration issue and whether he was the same person wanted on the fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania.
“ICE is convinced that this guy . . .” his lawyer, Jellinek said, his voice trailing off. “ICE will pick him up if he walks out the front door. But I think the best thing for us to do is clear the fugitive issue and release him . . . ”
The prosecutor chimed in: “There is a detainer attached to my paperwork, but I felt like that’s separate and apart from what my role is.”
“ICE is going to get him,” the judge said, before asking the clerk to go off the record, and halting the courtroom recording.
The defendant in this case, Jose Medina-Perez, was identified as a fugitive who had failed to appear for a court appearance previously, demonstrating that he was a flight risk a risk that was demonstrably increased when it was discovered that he had allegedly used two false names and had reportedly made a false claim to U.S. citizenship at the time of his arrest.
Making a false claim to U.S. citizenship is a felony under federal law (18 U.S. Code § 911) that carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison.
The judge, with the apparent assistance of the prosecutor, both of whom were so determined to shield him from deportation that they apparently decided to postpone his criminal case and found a way to dispose of a fugitive warrant issued by authorities in Pennsylvania. He was then surreptitiously hustled out of the courthouse and freedom, short-lived as it turned out to be.
Shortly after Medina-Perez made his “great escape,” with the apparent assistance of the judge and the prosecutor, he was arrested again in Roslindale in April but was once again released on bond by an immigration judge despite the fact that he was reportedly deported in January 2003 and June 2007 and had used a false name. According to immigration records his real name is Oscar Manuel Peguero.
Additionally, he had reportedly claimed to be a U.S. citizen when he was arrested and charged with possession of drugs. Finally, at the time of his arrest, the federal database showed that he had used an additional false alias, Julio Alexis Rios.
There is absolutely nothing sympathetic about this individual. He has shown utter contempt for the borders and the laws of the United States of the United States, yet a judge and a prosecutor are alleged to have committed potential felonies to assist him in evading immigration law enforcement. Such actions not only may constitute obstruction of justice but a violation of
8 U.S. Code § 1324 which, in part states:
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alienhas come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation
The newspaper report also noted that this is not an isolated case but that there have been previous instances where illegal aliens have been shielded from detention by ICE by other judges.
Consider this excerpt from the article:
Last year, the court’s presiding judge, Mary Beth Heffernan, freed a previously deported immigrant from the Dominican Republic accused of raping a Boston College student. The man, Luis Baez, drove for Uber using a fake name. Heffernan rejected prosecutors’ request for $100,000 bail, setting a bail of $2,500, which the accused paid, and then fled.
Each and every such case must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law possible, with serious jail time imposed.
Obstructing immigration law enforcement undermines national security and public safety and the punishment must fit the crime.
On Friday evenings from 7:00 PM until 8:00 PM Eastern Time, I host my show, "The Michael Cutler Hour" on the USA Talk Radio Network on Blog Talk Radio.
Call in and join the conversation!
The phone number is 310-982-4145
Here is the link to my program and my archived shows:
USA Talk Radio
Call in via Skype for free here
(while show is Live)