Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. cities that refuse to step up efforts to focus on crimes committed by illegal immigrants will not be allowed to participate in a new crime reduction training program unveiled earlier this year by the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday.

In making the announcement, Sessions singled out four local police departments that had expressed interest in the new Public Safety Partnership Program, saying they first had to answer a list of questions by Aug. 18 confirming they do not have any "sanctuary" policies to shield illegal immigrants from possible deportation by ensuring they will allow federal immigration officials access to local jails.

"Cities and states with so-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe," Sessions said.

The four police departments that must respond are Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; and San Bernardino and Stockton, California.

"Baltimore is a welcoming city. We do not enforce federal immigration laws," said Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, adding that when cities were initially selected for the program, there was no formal selection process and that Baltimore does not control the local jail.

Jarrod Burguan, the police chief of San Bernardino, said his department first expressed interest in a similar program during the Obama administration, and remains interested in participating. He added San Bernardino is not a "sanctuary" city, it does not control the local jail, and he will answer the department's questions.

Representatives from the other two police departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sessions' announcement reflects part of a broader policy push by President Donald Trump to crack down on illegal immigration.

He has urged Congress to support funding the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and the administration has moved to dramatically widen the net of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation.

The National Public Safety Partnership is a program launched in June that involves a three-year initiative geared toward areas with high rates of violent crime.

Twelve cities were selected when it was first launched.

Some municipalities have pushed back against the Trump administration's immigration policies.

A U.S. judge last month refused to remove a block on an executive order by Trump that would have withheld federal funds from sanctuary cities, which do not use municipal funds or resources to help advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez on Thursday called on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to stop making arrests in courthouses amid concerns it has a chilling effect on local policing and is sweeping up those with low-level misdemeanor cases.

Rachael Yong Yow, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency's arrests are carried out "on a case-by-case basis."

Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington; additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; editing by G Crosse and Lisa Shumaker

Follow this link:
US Justice Department to cities: Focus on crime committed by illegal immigrants - Reuters

Within the torrent of shoddy arguments that has been unleashed since the White House put its weight behind the Cotton-Perdue immigration bill yesterday, one line has stood out to me. Conservatives, this argument goes, have said they were only against illegal immigration, but now we find out they are against legal immigration, too. Politically, Im sure this slogan will have an effect. Logically, though, it makes little sense.

Simply put, there is no reason that ones views on illegal immigration and ones views on legal immigration have to conform unless, that is, one is against absolutely all immigration with no exceptions. If one is not, there exists an infinite amount of flexibility in how one cuts the cake. Most people who oppose illegal immigration do so because they think it undermines the rule of law, and/or because they believe that the existing polity gets to decide who joins it and on what grounds. In consequence, they oppose it flatly, completely, and without ifs or buts. They are, one might say against illegal immigration.

The question of legal immigration, by contrast, tends to invite a range of views. Some voters want only a few immigrants; some want an unlimited number; some want a points system, as in Canada or Britain; some want to prioritize family reunification; some want to privilege refugees or economic migrants or what you will. And while they differ on the particulars, all of these people believe the same thing at root: Namely, that we should have some legal immigration, and that, because Congress is in charge of the process, that such immigration is qualitatively different. Indeed, in our age of terrorism even open borders types tend to want some form of processing or evaluation at the border, even if they wouldnt end up turning many people away. All of these groups, one might say, are in favor of legal immigration.

In order to sell the line that the people who want to reduce immigration numbers are against legal immigration and thus that, having said they were only against illegal immigration, they have exposed themselves as liars or hypocrites or bigots one has to play a clever linguistic game by which for, with qualifications is transmuted into against in toto. That game, if yesterdays debate was anything to go by, is about to be played incessantly, and bring with it all the corrupting effects you might imagine. It is a trick that leads otherwise smart people to propose that any reduction in the numbers or any change in their makeup is a personal insult to the Statue of Liberty. It is a trick that leads immigrants such as myself to be told we want to slam the door behind us because we dont believe that 80-plus percent of the people moving to the United States should be admitted solely because they have a family member already here (which, Id note, is an argument against interest, given that any change would make it more difficult for me to bring over the rest of my family). It is a trick that leads the present status quo which was unpopular when ushered in in 1965, and which has been amended piecemeal for good and ill since to be regarded as some sort of inviolable, sacrosanct gold standard, any departure from which signifies the destruction of the American way.

It is a trick, moreover, that is going to lead to a great deal of anger and astonishment and frustration, as good people find themselves cast as Klansmen for debating a rubric thats more like Canadas, and numbers that, while diminished, would still be extremely generous indeed. There are good arguments against the Cotton-Perdue bill, and they should be aired and debated and respected. But if the reflexive response of those who advance them is, agree with me or youre against immigrants, we will get nowhere at all.

Go here to read the rest:
'But I Thought You Were Only Against Illegal Immigration' - National Review

The "fiscal drain" of illegal immigrants on American taxpayers is about 6 times the price of deporting them, according to a new study that bolsters the Trump administration's bid to remove criminal illegals and cut overall immigration costs.

The Center for Immigration Studies on Thursday said in a new report that deportation costs an average of $10,854. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, that includes apprehension, detention, and processing.

Letting illegal immigrants stay in the U.S., results in a bill to taxpayers of $65,292 "for each illegal immigrant, excluding their descendants," according to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. That includes government benefits.

Camarota, citing two key fiscal impact studies, said that reason the cost of illegal immigration is high is because many are poorly educated and require more in government benefits than others.

"In short, illegal immigrants are a large net fiscal drain because of their education levels and this fact drives the results. Deportation, on the other hand, is not that costly relative to the fiscal costs illegal immigrants create," he wrote.

His key findings:

Deportation costs

Costs of illegal immigrants

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Read more here:
Report: 'Fiscal drain' of illegal immigrants is 6 times cost of deportation - Washington Examiner

Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-quarter of the amount spent on the countys entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News.

The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.

The sanctuary county of Los Angeles is an illegal immigration epicenter, with the largest concentration of any county in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. The county also allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.

Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who has written extensive studies on poverty and illegal immigration, said the costs represent the tip of the iceberg.

TRUMP, GOP SENATORS PUSH BILL TO CUT LEGAL IMMIGRATION LEVELS

He said the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family, much more than would be paid in taxes.

They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend, Rector said.

The Trump presidencys hardline immigration policies, though, may be playing some role in curtailing the population seeking welfare payments in recent months.

The same stats show Los Angeles County is expected to dole out $200 million less this year than in 2016, and several thousand fewer families are collecting benefits.

The number of entrants nationwide is going down. The population is static if not shrinking, Rector said.

The welfare benefit data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services shows:

Roughly a quarter of Californias 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County.

In 2013, California spent a total of $25.3 billion on illegal immigrants or $2,370 per U.S. citizen household, according to a 2013 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Texas and New York were second and third, at $12.1 billion and $9.5 billion, respectively.

Former state Republican Party Chairman Shawn Steel blasted Los Angeles policies but credited Immigration and Customs Enforcement with stepping up deportations.

The amazing thing is that everyone was expecting a big wall to stop [illegal immigration], he said. The decrease has been enhanced dramatically by ICE agents just doing their job.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a proponent of the citys sanctuary status, is a driving factor behind expanding immigrant benefits. He founded the Office of Immigrant Affairs shortly after taking office in 2013 to help immigrants navigate the maze of government benefits.

Immigration is at the heart of LAs story, he said in a written statement. LAs become one of the worlds great cities by embracing immigration and diversity and well continue supporting anyone who wants to work hard and invest in our future no matter who they are, where they came from or what language they speak.

Tori Richards is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.

Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter & Instagram

Originally posted here:
LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years - Fox News

President Donald Trump went to New York on July 28, 2017 to speak about the fight against gangs, especially the violent gang known as MS-13.

President Donald Trump, in a speech about the brutality of MS-13 gang members and his administrations resolve to deport criminal immigrants, claimed it wasnt until he came along that border crossings went down.

"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didnt go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent," Trump said in New York on July 28. "And, in fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me.They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States. So that whole group has been incredible, led by General (John) Kelly."

Trump congratulated Kelly for doing "an incredible job" as secretary of Homeland Security, and at a July31 Cabinet meeting the first for Kelly as Trump's new chief of staff reiterated his pride for reductions in illegal immigration.

"As you know, the border was a tremendous problem, and theyre close to 80 percent stoppage. And even the president of Mexico called me they said their southern border, very few people are coming because they know theyre not going to get through our border, which is the ultimate compliment," Trump said.

Based on past statements Trump has made, his remarks that "the border is down 78 percent" refer to apprehensions of immigrants trying to enter the country illegally. But calculations of different time periods do not show a 78 percent decline.

The claim that under past administrations apprehensions did not go down is not accurate.

The border is down 78 percent

Trump uses different timeframes to make a case that illegal immigration is down. He has looked at year-over-year March border apprehension data to say theres been a 64 percent decline; compared February 2017 numbers to the election month, November 2016, to say its gone down 61 percent; and said there was a 40 percent decline from January, the month he was inaugurated, to February.

Where does the 78 percent come from? We asked the White House but did not get a response.

From June 2016 to June 2017, apprehensions at the southwest border went down 53 percent.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection data also show that from November to June (latest available figures), apprehensions by border patrol agents declined about 66 percent. From January to June, it declined 49 percent. From Trumps first full month in office, February, to June, it went down 14 percent.

And though they remain low, the number of apprehensions actually picked up in May and in June.

As the Washington Posts Fact Checker noted, Trumps claim of apprehensions nearing 80 percent is clearer when comparing cherry-picked figures: the highest point in fiscal year 2017 (November) to the lowest point (April). That yields a 76.4 percent decline.

The border didnt go down, it went up

Trump also claimed, "Under past administrations, the border didnt go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing."

In fact, apprehensions have gone down under past administrations.

Unauthorized immigration also fell dramatically during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, said Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center.

Analyses of monthly and annual apprehension statistics show declines for both Bush and Obamas administrations.

"No matter how you look at it, Trump is far from the first U.S. president to preside over big drops in unauthorized immigration," Wilson said.

Apprehension rates at the southern border have plummeted since the 1980s. In 1986 there were 1.6 million apprehensions about 1.2 million more than in 2016.

The decline hasnt been as steady, however, as there have been increases and decreases over the years.

During the 1980s, there was an annual average of 1 million border patrol apprehensions at the southwest border. During the Obama administration, the average was below 500,000.

FactCheck.org also pointed out that apprehensions declined 75 percent from fiscal years 2000 to 2016.

Our ruling

Referring to border apprehensions, Trump said, "The border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didnt go down, it went up."

Calculations of the latest figures available from U.S. Customs and Border Protection do not show a 78 percent decline in apprehensions. The closest number to that would be based on cherry-picked numbers of the highest number of apprehensions in November to the lowest number, in April.

Though there have been fluctuations over the years in the number of apprehensions, they certainly have gone down under past administrations.

We rate Trumps claim False.

Share the Facts

2017-08-03 14:02:57 UTC

2

1

7

False

"The border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didnt go down -- it went up."

Donald Trump

President of the United States

in a speech

Friday, July 28, 2017

2017-07-28

Excerpt from:
False: Trump's claim about illegal immigration under past administrations - PolitiFact