Mediaboss Marketing

KOTA KINABALU: An illegal immigrant was arrested after trying to escape from a Road Transport Department (JPJ) roadblock at KM23 of the Lahad Datu-Sandakan road at around 10.30am on Friday (Jan 10).

The 20-year-old had tried to ride his motorcycle through the roadblock, but the attempt failed when the suspect lost control and hit the JPJ vehicle before landing up in a ditch.

Lahad Datu police chief Asst Comm Nasri Mansor said the suspect became aggressive with JPJ personnel, and a brief struggle took place before he was captured.

"The suspect did not have any valid travel or identity documents and did not have a licence," he said,

He confirmed that the JPJ had lodged a police report on the incident and added that the police were investigating the suspect for restricting a government officer from carrying out his duties and for acting in a manner that could have caused injury to the government officers under Section 186 and 323 of the Penal Code.

ACP Nasri also said the suspect would also be handed over to the Immigration Department for further action as he had entered the state illegally.

In a 43-second video that went viral on social media, two JPJ personnel were seen trying to overpower the suspect in a drain.

The JPJ has since said that it is carrying out an internal investigation into the incident.

See original here:
Illegal immigrant nabbed while trying to escape JPJ roadblock in Sabah - The Star Online

The minds behind the Fox series Party of Five didnt want to revive the show for the usual reasons.

Nostalgia sells, of course, and new versions of Will & Grace, Veronica Mars, and Roseanne scored (again) with audiences. Amy Lippman, who created the 90s hit Party of Five with Chris Keyser, told the TVs Top 5 Podcast that she needed a better reason to bring the story back to primetime TV.

The nations immigration crisis, and a hearty case of Trump Derangement, gave her team all the rocket fuel required.

Party of Five, debuting Jan. 8 on Freeform, doesnt feature five children whose parents die in a car crash as in the original version. This familys children are separated from their illegal immigrant parents when ICE agents deport them back to Mexico.

Lippman broke down the shows creative process, vowing that the series wouldnt be as political as it sounds. Her own words clashed with that description throughout the interview.

She said the genesis of the project began before President Trumps shocking 2016 election day victory. In the early stages, the story morphed from the car accident leaving the kids without parents to an immigration-based drama.

That gave the reboot a fresh coat of creative paint. Still, she worried the show wouldnt get on-air quickly enough to mirror reality.

We kept saying, lets get going on it because the situation may resolve itself in some way that means were sort of writing after the fact, were behind on it. And we wanted to be relevant, Lippman says.

I dont think any of us anticipated we would find ourselves debuting the show right in the middle of this crisis, she says of the current immigration battle.

Lippman concedes the show has a strong viewpoint on illegal immigration, but reveals the president wont be part of the conversation, at least not directly.

That, she confirms, was by design.

We dont mention the president or the administration throughout the [first] season, she says, a measure taken as an ideological olive branch. Wed like to reach everyone with the show because we think it has something to say regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.

Obviously were on the side of families, and families staying together seems very important to us, she says. Does that imply Americans who support border enforcement are anti-family?

Lippman also described the diversity of her writers room, including one colleague who made a dramatic change following Trumps victory.

After the election, one of the writers in our room went out and became a dual citizen of the country that her parents were born in, Lippman explains.

I said, why? I dont understand.Youre an American. You have a passport. Youre not even a naturalized citizen. You were born in this country. Why would you do that?

She said, I dont feel safe.

Lippman continues the writers thoughts on the dual citizenship decision.

I feel like even though Im completely here legitimately, in this climate it feels like it could all go away. Maybe people would begin to investigate how did my parents come over, or my grandparents? And that that could all unravel for me, Lippman recalls.

And thatfeeling of insecurity, and a feeling that prejudice and bias against you, is not my experience, Lippman says. I couldnt have done the show this season without beingsurrounded by people who had that perspective.

Early Party of Five reviews strain to describe the show as apolitical. Thats the line peddled by the liberal siteVulture.com.

Until it doesnt.

Make no mistake: All of this is political. But Party of Five humanizes the political and makes the audience see the deeply personal impact that the decisions made by the administration have on the lives of young people who are trying their best to do the right thing every day.

The Washington Post quotes lines from the first few episodes as preachy as a Michael Moore screed. Heres what an ICE official says to the parents as they round them up for deportation.

You think the rules dont apply to you? Things have changed, Mr. Acosta. I need to see your papers, the man growls.

Naturally, this critic frames the story as a welcome plea for open borders.

The show gives American viewers a solid, up close experience of how easily U.S. immigration policy (and its blunt enforcement) can tear apart a good, law-abiding family.

They broke the law by entering the country illegally, a point the critic clearly ignores.

The WaPo critic also contends the show isnt overly political and then quotes the family saying the immigration officials dont care who we are.

Nothing political or incendiary there. Never mind that these officials are just doing their jobs and enforcing the law.

Lippmans podcast interview eventually gives away the game.

She admits to wanting the shows audience to care so deeply for the family in question that they reconsider their views on immigration

If you embrace the family, maybe thats a path to understanding the political situation from a different perspective, she says.

A version of this article is also published on HollywoodInToto.com.

Excerpt from:
'Party Of Five' Relaunch Fueled By Trump Derangement Syndrome - The Daily Wire

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

Steven A Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center.

Under current policy all persons not just citizens are included in the population count when apportioning seats to states in the U.S. House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats. Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades as the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically. This report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats. Apportionment is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.

Among the findings:

Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that a census be taken every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Each state is assigned the one seat it is required to receive, and the remaining 385 seats are allocated based on each state's share of the total U.S. population, excluding the District of Columbia. (Congress capped the number of House members at 435 in 1911.) Immigrants, referred to as the "foreign-born" by the Census Bureau, include naturalized citizens, as well as non-citizens such as green card holders, foreign students, and guestworkers. It also includes illegal immigrants counted in the decennial census. Immigrants also have U.S.-born children. The presence of all of these individuals has a significant impact on the distributions of seats in the House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. This report examines that redistribution.

We focus on 2020 and report how the number of seats in each state changes with and without including immigrants and/or their U.S.-born minor children. While there is an absolute consensus that all U.S. citizens should be counted and included in the apportionment population, opinions vary as to whether non-citizens in general or illegal immigrants in particular should be counted when apportioning seats. This report does not explore the question of which populations should or should not be included when seats are apportioned, nor do we take a position on whether the children of illegal immigrants should be automatically granted citizenship. This analysis simply informs the immigration debate by reporting the impact of immigration on the distribution of House seats.

Our findings indicate that, over time, immigration profoundly redistributes political power at the federal level by changing the apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College. Immigration laws were changed significantly in 1965, spurring a new "Great Wave" of immigration as the number of immigrants grew roughly four-and-a-half fold between 1965 and 2019.1 Of all immigrants living in the United States today, 97 percent arrived after 1965. In effect, this analysis measures the impact of post-1965 immigration on the distribution of political power in Washington.2

The methods section of this report explains in detail how we estimate the impact of immigration on apportionment. In sum, we first project the population of the 50 states for 2020. We then calculate the apportionment of House seats based on these populations for 2020. We then use this as a baseline to compare what the apportionment of house seats would be without immigrants, non-citizens, or other populations of interest. The difference represents the impact of immigration.

Impact of All Immigrants. The second column in Table 1 shows the likely distribution of seats in the House after the 2020 census, based on current trends. This is the baseline projection against which all other scenarios are compared. The other columns in Table 1 show the distribution of seats under different population scenarios.3 Table 2 uses Table 1 and compares changes in the distribution of seats caused by what is likely to happen in 2020 under each scenario. The 21 states that are unaffected in any of the scenarios are not shown in Table 2. The bottom of Table 2 shows the total number of seats that change hands under each scenario.

In 2020, there will be more than 61 million immigrants and their U.S.-born minor children in the United States, representing nearly one in five U.S. residents. In 2020, the average House seat will represent roughly 760,000 people. So it is not surprising that immigration redistributes seats. Of course it is not just the number of immigrants or the number of children that matter. In 2020, just four states (California, Texas, Florida, and New York) will have 53 percent of the nation's immigrants and their U.S.-born children under age 18. It is both the size of this population and its uneven distribution that causes the significant redistribution shown at the bottom of Table 2.

Table 2 shows that Ohio is the biggest loser from immigration, with three fewer seats due to the presence of immigrants and their U.S.-born children residing in other states. Michigan and Pennsylvania will have two fewer seats, while Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will each lose one seat. California is the biggest winner, as it will gain 11 more congressional seats due to immigrants and their young children; New York and Texas will get four more seats each, while Florida will get three seats, New Jersey two seats, and Massachusetts and Illinois one seat each. Table 2 also shows that immigrants (legal and illegal) alone, not including their U.S.-born children, redistribute 18 seats. Ohio would have two fewer seats due to immigrants, while Alabama, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Utah would lose one seat under this scenario. California would still be the big winner, followed by New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. Immigrants alone, not counting their U.S.-born minor children, have a very large impact on the apportionment of House seats.

The Impact of Non-Citizens and Illegal Immigrants. There will be nearly 30 million non-citizens and their U.S.-born minor children in the country in 2020. Non-citizens include green card holders (permanent residents), long-term temporary visa holders (mainly foreign students and guestworkers), and illegal immigrants. Together with their U.S.-born children, these non-citizens will redistribute 10 seats in 2020. California will have four more seats than it otherwise would but for non-citizens and their young children; Texas will have three additional seats; and New Jersey, Florida, and New York will each have one additional seat. Alabama, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Rhode Island will each have one fewer seat as a result of non-citizens and their minor children. Non-citizens, not including their U.S-born minor children, will redistribute eight seats. The states that gain seats are the same, with Texas and California gaining one fewer than when the children are included. The losing states are also the same with the exception that neither Pennsylvania nor Tennessee will lose a seat.

Turning to illegal immigrants and their minor children, Table 2 shows that including them in the census redistributes five seats. California and Texas will each gain two seats as a result of including illegal immigrants and their young children, while New York will gain a seat. Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and West Virginia each lose a seat because of illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children in other states. If we look at only illegal immigrants, we find that including them in the count redistributes three seats in the House. California, Texas, and New York will each gain a seat; Alabama, Ohio, and Minnesota will each lose one.

High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution. If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation's total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.

The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants' share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)

Representing Non-Citizens in Congress. Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.

Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state's population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state's population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guestworkers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are "represented" in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guestworkers.4 While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.

Non-Citizens vs. "One Man, One Vote". There are a significant number of congressional districts in high immigration states where a larger share of voting-age people are non-citizens and, as a result, it takes relatively few votes to elect a member of Congress. Taking away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens so that districts can be created where a large share of the population is made up of non-citizens can be seen as in conflict with the principle of "one man, one vote". In the 2018 election in the five congressional districts where the largest share of the voting-age population were not citizens, only 132,000 votes were cast on average. In the five districts with the smallest non-citizen shares, 232,000 votes were cast on average. If nothing else, it means it takes far fewer votes to win a House seat in a district where a large share of adults is made up of non-citizens. Allowing in a large number of legal immigrants and tolerating illegal immigration has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration districts count much less than those of citizens is living in high-immigration districts.

While it's clear that American citizens in low-immigration states lose from mass immigration, the winners are not necessarily the non-citizens who cause the reapportionment, since they cannot vote or otherwise fully take part in the political process. Instead, it is citizens who live in the same districts with non-citizens whose political power is enhanced. Put simply, in a district in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than citizens in districts where almost everyone is an American citizen. Put a different way, large non-citizen populations take voting power from some Americans and give it to other American citizens in high-immigration districts.

Given the large number of immigrants allowed into the country and their concentration in relatively few states, it is inevitable that immigration will exact a political cost from those states that receive relatively few immigrants. Because family relationships and existing cultural ties determine where immigrants live, movement into new areas will take many decades. Thus, immigrants will continue to be concentrated in only a few states, and this in turn will continue to shift political power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

It is important, then, when making decisions regarding immigration policy, to take into account not only the economic, fiscal, cultural, and demographic impacts of immigration, but also the political impact, part of which is the realignment of power in Congress away from states receiving relatively few immigrants. In addition to this realignment, careful consideration should also be given to the loss of representation suffered by citizens in low-immigration states. Trying to deal with this problem by excluding non-citizens, legal or illegal, would be challenging. Whether the Constitution requires non-citizens to be included in the apportionment population is an open question.

Encouraging legal immigrants who are not citizens to naturalize would help to alleviate at least some of the problem. Of course, increased naturalizations would have no impact on the problem created by the presence of illegal aliens or the large number of long-term temporary visitors in the country. In addition, as long as one million or more new legal permanent immigrants are allowed in annually, there will always be a significant number of legal immigrants who have not lived here long enough to naturalize or chose not to do so even when eligible. Absent a change in policy, the non-citizen population will remain large even if new legal permanent immigrants naturalize at higher rates in the future.

Since the amount of redistribution is a direct consequence of the level of immigration, a more moderate level of immigration would produce less immigration-based reapportionment. Given the apparent remoteness of the other effects of immigration on low-immigrant states, citizens of such states and their elected representatives need to be particularly sensitive to the political costs of immigration.

While the Constitution requires the reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives after each decennial census, it is not clear on the exact method of apportionment. The Method of Equal Proportions has been used since the 1940 Census.5 This analysis assumes it will again be the method used in 2020. The Census Bureau attempts to capture all U.S. residents in the census.

To estimate the impact of immigration on the 2020 census requires six steps. First, project the resident population of the 50 states for 2020, excluding the District of Columbia. Second, project the size and state distribution of the Federally Affiliated Overseas Population (FAOP) in 2020, which is included in the apportionment population. Third, add the FAOP to the projected resident population in each state and calculate the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives based on the projections. Fourth, estimate the likely number of illegal immigrants, non-citizens, all immigrants (foreign-born), or other populations of interest that will be included in the apportionment population in 2020 by state. Fifth, remove the population of interest from the 2020 apportionment population and recalculate the distribution of House seats.

Sixth, compare the distribution of House seats from step three to the distribution of seats with the population of interest removed to determine the impact. The sections that follow explain in detail how this is done.

Projected Resident Population in 2020. While the U.S. Census Bureau no longer projects state populations, it does estimate each state's population every year. The state population projections for 2020 used in this report simply take each state's population as estimated by the Census Bureau in recent years and project the state's population to 2020 using a linear model.6 This is implemented by taking the Bureau's projections for each state from 2016 to 2018 (2018 is the most recent year available) and projecting the population to 2020.7 The projection has to be controlled back to April 1, since this is the date of the census, while the Bureau's population estimates are for each state as of July 1.8 The first column in Table A1 reports the projection of the resident population for April 1, 2020, in each state. The District of Columbia is excluded from the analysis as it is not part of the population used for apportioning House seats.

The Federally Affiliated Overseas Population. As already indicated, the apportionment population includes the resident population of each state and the Federally Affiliated Overseas Population (FAOP) of Americans: military personnel and their dependents, plus non-military federal employees and their dependents. The Census Bureau reports the number of military personnel overseas in its FactFinder data tool, but not the rest of the FAOP. The size of the FAOP is estimated for 2020 by taking the most recent estimate of military personnel overseas (236,475) from the Census Bureau's website as reported in FactFinder.9 The number of military dependents is estimated using the same ratio of military personnel to dependents as was the case in the 2010 census.10 This produces an estimate of 340,956 military dependents overseas, making for a total military and dependent population of 236,475 + 340,956 = 577,431.

As for federal employees overseas, the most up-to-date figure from the Office of Personnel Management is 21,393.11 Assuming the same ratio of federal employers overseas to dependents as in 2010 produces an estimated 35,833 federal employees and their dependents for 2020.12 Adding the estimated number of military personnel and their families calculated above to the estimated number of federal employees and their dependents creates an overall estimated FAOP of 613,265. Subtracting out those in the District of Columbia leaves an FAOP of 611,573.13 This FAOP can then be allocated across the states based on each state's share of the FAOP in the prior decennial census.14 Adding the state FAOP to the projected state population creates a projected apportionment population for 2020 for every state shown in the third column of Table A1.

Populations of Interest. The overall state population projections discussed above use the three most recent years of population estimates from the Census Bureau projected forward. For the foreign-born population, their U.S.-born children, and the non-citizen population and their children, we use a similar approach. Based on the public-use data from the American Community Survey for the three most recent years of data, we use a linear model to project these populations forward to 2020 for each state.15 Table A1 shows the projected foreign-born population in each state for 2020 using this approach. The table also shows the projected population of immigrants and their U.S.-born children and the non-citizen population and their children. We limit children to those with immigrant fathers. We then subtract these totals, depending on the population of interest from the total projected population (resident plus FAOP) and then recalculate the apportionment.

Likely Illegal Immigrants. There is no one definitive estimate of illegal immigrants. The Office of Immigration Statistics within the Department of Homeland Security estimates this population, but DHS has population estimates only for the 10 states with the largest illegal immigrant populations and their most recent estimates are only through January 2015.16 Although the Pew Research Center estimates the number of illegal immigrants, we use the Center for Migration Studies' (CMS) estimates of illegal aliens for 2017, as they provide estimates for every state.17 This analysis takes the CMS estimates at the state level and subtracts them from the projected apportionment populations generated above. For the U.S.-born children under age 18, we also use estimates provided by CMS. The apportionment of House seats absent illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children can then be compared to the apportionment of seats when the illegal population is included. The difference represents the impact of illegal immigration.

1 The most recent data available from the Census Bureau is the 2019 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, which shows 45.8 million legal and illegal immigrants in the country. The 1960 census showed 9.7 million immigrants and the 1970 census showed 9.6 million, so using either number shows a four-and-a-half fold increase.

2 Figures are based on an analysis of the 2019 public-use file of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, which is the most recent data available.

3 Table A1 in the appendix shows the populations used to create each scenario in Table 1.

4 The government estimated in 2016 that there were 2.3 million long term temporary visitors in the country, including guestworkers, foreign students, cultural exchange visitors, and foreign diplomats. This number is relatively stable, though it tends to rise over time. The vast majority will be counted in the census, though there will be some undercount. The Center for Migration Studies estimates that there were 9.84 million illegal aliens in Census Bureau data in 2017 and, given the recent influx at the southern border, it seems certain the number will be at least this large in 2020. Given current trends, we project 21.8 million non-citizens in the 2020 census. So it is almost certain there will be more than 12 million non-citizens who are either illegal immigrants or long-term temporary visitors counted in the 2020 census, accounting for more than half of the total non-citizen population. See Bryan Baker, "Nonimmigrants Residing in the United States: Fiscal Year 2016", Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, March 2018.

5 The U.S. Census Bureau has a detailed explanation of how congressional apportionment works here.

6 The Census Bureau's population estimates by state can be found here.

7 We use ordinary least squares to linearly project the population based on the Bureau's estimates for 2016, 2017, and 2018 to create the resident population in 2020.

8 This is implemented by taking the growth in the last year of the projection (2019 to 2020) and reducing it to reflect an April 1 date rather than the Census Bureau's control date of July 1.

9 Table PEPMONTHN generated in American Factfinder at Census.gov, The military population can be calculated by subtracting the first column from the second column.

10 The total size of the FAOP and its components including military personnel and their dependents, and civilian employees and their dependents in 2010 can be found in Table A7 of Karen Crook and Shirley Druetto, "2010 Census Federally Affiliated Overseas Count Operation Assessment", U.S. Census Bureau, March 12, 2012. The table shows 410,696 military personnel and 592,153 dependents or a ratio of 1.44183 to 1 in 2010.

11 OPM employment figure for those overseas can be found here.

12 "2010 Census Federally Affiliated Overseas Count Operation Assessment Report", 2010 Census Panning Memoranda Series No. 181 March 20, 2012. The table on p. 2 shows 23,686 overseas federal employees in 2010 and 15,988 dependents for a ratio of 1 to .6749. Multiplying the most recent figure from OPM of 21,393 by 1.6749 produces an estimate of 35,833 federal overseas employers and their dependents for 2020.

13 Ibid. Table A1 shows the FAOP by state and the District of Columbia in 2010. In 2010, the District of Columbia's FAOP accounted for 0.00276 of the total FAOP at that time 2,875 out of 1,042,523 FAOP residents. Assuming the same ratio for 2020 creates an estimated FAOP used for reapportionment of 611,573.

14 Ibid. Table A1 shows the FAOP by state and the District of Columbia in 2010.

15 The three most recent years of public-use ACS data currently available are 2016, 2017, and 2018. As is the case for total resident population, we use ordinary least squares to linearly project these populations.

16 Bryan Baker, "Population Estimates: Illegal Alien Population Residing in the United States: January 2015", Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, December 2018.

17 The Center for Migration Studies' most recent state level estimates can be found in Robert Warren, "US Undocumented Population Continued to Fall from 2016 to 2017 and Visa Overstays Significantly Exceeded Illegal Crossings for the Seventh Consecutive Year", Center for Migration Studies, February 2019. In an earlier report for CMS, Warren estimated that 92.5 percent of illegal immigrants are counted in Census Bureau data. See Robert Warren, "Democratizing Data about Unauthorized Residents in the United States: Estimates and Public-Use Data, 2010 to 2013", Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2014. In an email to the authors on April 27, 2018, Warren suggested assuming that 93 percent of illegal immigrants will be included in Census data, and this analysis uses that percentage for CMS state estimates for 2020.

Read more:
The Impact of Legal and Illegal Immigration on the Apportionment of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020 - Immigration Blog

Mayor Martin Walsh and Police Commissioner William Gross said Bostons newly beefed-up sanctuary-city law is the best way to increase public safety despite one critic warning it will make immigration enforcement more difficult.

It will protect public safety and bolster public trust in our communities, Walsh said on Thursday before signing the amendments to the citys sanctuary-city ordinance into law in the library in East Boston, a neighborhood with a large immigrant population. It will make clear to our immigrants and police officers that they are not immigration officers.

City councilors, led by Josh Zakim and Lydia Edwards, the bills main proponents, last week unanimously approved amendments to the citys 5-year-old Trust Act, further limiting the role police can play in situations that deal with civil immigration matters. The vote comes after a discovery by the ACLU this year that Boston police continued working with federal immigration officials to capture illegal immigrants in spite of policies blocking coordination.

The amendments specifically prohibit officers from sharing information with the division of ICE focused on civil enforcement matters. Previously officers were blocked from detaining a person solely based on their immigration status.

But Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said, No illegal alien should be released pending proceedings because they are inherently a flight risk.

She said the idea that immigrants dont report crimes because they fear deportation for themselves or loved ones is a myth.

ICE isnt just going to sit on its hands its going to find the criminal, she said. And instead of just arresting them in the jail, theyll be coming into the communities.

You should feel safe coming to the BPD. Before, the lines were blurred, said Gross, who said this is meant to encourage cooperation and confidence in the police by immigrant communities. Our interest is protecting the people against crime. And together we send this message here today: that all are welcome, but dont think youre going to commit crime against Bostonians, because Bostonians are from everywhere and Bostonians deserve justice.

The amendments differentiate between ICEs civil division, which focuses on deportations, and the Homeland Security Investigations Division, which carries out criminal investigations. Boston cops continue to be allowed to work with HSI on criminal cases.

Walsh noted that Boston is a safe, prosperous city right now, even after years of welcoming illegal immigrants.

He added, It goes counter to every single message that is coming out of Washington.

Read the original here:
Immigration watchdog warns Bostons Trust Act will free criminals - Boston Herald

My teenage son is a law-abiding American citizen. To obtain his drivers permit this year, he brought his birth certificate, Social Security card, passport and verification that he completed an approved drivers school course. It took a half-dozen trips back and forth between various government agencies to clear all the paperwork hurdles.

Every American citizen who has navigated such bureaucratic hurdles at a local Department of Motor Vehicles should be outraged at the open borders spectacles in New Jersey and New York this week. With the impeachment charade absorbing all the national medias oxygen, however, you probably didnt see more than a 10-second blip of these alarming developments on TV. Newsflash: America first nationalism is not winning.

Hundreds of illegal immigrants and advocates took to the streets and marched on the statehouse in Trenton, New Jersey, demanding drivers licenses without having to produce any citizenship papers. Both the New Jersey Assembly and the Senate approved the measure on Monday while defiant, entitled protesters screamed Si, se pudo! (Yes, we can!) and Licencias, ya! (Licenses now!). Identity thieves, drug cartels and human traffickers are also cheering Yes, we can!

In New York, thousands of illegal immigrants similarly flooded DMVs statewide to take advantage of the new Green Light law, which allows them to obtain licenses by simply presenting foreign consular IDs. The Mexican matricula consular card, as Ive long reported, is a notoriously fraud-prone document with little to no authentication procedures to verify identity. Meddling Mexican officials hand out matricula cards like Pez candy. They are intentionally designed as get-out-of-deportation cards and gateways to opening bank accounts in America.

Instead of a Social Security card, which American citizens have to present, illegal immigrants can just write up an affidavit stating that they dont have a Social Security card. If my son had presented such a letter at our Colorado DMV (which also issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants), he would have been laughed out of the office.

Wheres ICE? Remember: New Jersey and New York are sanctuary jurisdictions that harbor and shelter illegal immigrants. The Green Light law explicitly bars ICE from having access to DMV records. As the Center for Immigration Studies points out, the legislation now creates a situation in which a foreign nation, Canada, freely shares its DMV information with CBP and ICE, while the state of New York will refuse to do so.

Pay attention to this insanity. Its not just about rewarding law-breakers with driving privileges. Our countrys election integrity is under siege by foreign influence. Mass migration, legal and illegal, is bringing in millions of potential new voters who support gun control, socialized medicine, expanded welfare, free speech restrictions and resistance to immigration enforcement.

Illegal immigrant drivers licenses + Motor Voter + Soros-funded naturalization and registration drives + anti-Trump resistance lawsuits against voter citizenship checks = recipe for systemic voter fraud, more amnesty, and a permanent Democratic ruling majority.

In New York alone, some 265,000 illegal immigrants are projected to obtain their drivers licenses over the next three years. Earlier this year, after citizens passed a referendum barring licenses for illegal immigrants in Oregon, state Democrats handed them over anyway. Fifteen states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico now confer driving privileges on illegal immigrants. Latino groups, the Mexican government, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Charles Koch-funded Libre Initiative all banded together to secure these America last legislative victories.

Next step: Out of the shadows... and into the voting booths? The special interests of Open Borders, Inc. on the left and right deny that illegal alien and noncitizen voter fraud happens.. Its not just illegal border jumpers but also visa overstayers and other immigration phonies.

Illegal alien Nuradin Abdi the suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia was registered to vote in the battleground state of Ohio through the DMV.

So was convicted al-Qaida agent Iyman Faris, who planned to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge and had entered the country fraudulently from Pakistan on a student visa.

In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending.

And in New Jersey just two years ago, the Public Interest Legal Foundation revealed after a six-month review of New Jersey county voter registration files that thanks to the federal Motor Voter system, 616 admitted and officially recorded noncitizens in 11 counties engaged on some level with the NJ voter registration system; nine percent of aliens self-reporting their status also cast ballots prior; and 75 percent of noncitizens were invited to register while receiving drivers licenses or in other government transactions like community college admissions or public schools.

Imagine if American citizens took to the streets and raised their voices to stop the spread of drivers licenses for people here illegally in numbers that matched the open borders hordes in New York and New Jersey. Instead, Beltway bread-and-circuses distractions dominate the airwaves while the sovereignty saboteurs drive American law and order off the cliff.

See the rest here:
Malkin: Out of the Shadows... and Into the Voting Booth? - Marshall News Messenger