Mediaboss Marketing

Illegal immigration across the southwest border plummeted in the weeks after President Trump took office, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced Wednesday, calling the drop an early sign that Mr. Trumps get-tough policies are working.

In addition to a drop in the number of illegal immigrants nabbed while attempting to cross, Mr. Kelly said, they have seen a dramatic spike in the rates charged by smugglers paid to sneak people into the U.S.

Routes that cost $3,500 in November now cost $8,000, he said another signal that smuggling cartels business is suffering.

Mr. Kelly called the drop in apprehensions unprecedented. The number of people caught at the border is considered a good indication of the overall flow, so a drop in apprehensions is believed to signal a drop in total number of illegal crossings.

This trend is encouraging because it means many fewer people are putting themselves and their families at risk of exploitation, assault and injury by human traffickers and the physical dangers of the treacherous journey north, Mr. Kelly said.

All told, 23,589 people were caught trying to enter without permission at the border in February. That was the lowest number for the month in years and a 40 percent drop from the 42,504 caught in January.

In fact, its the lowest number for any month dating back at least to 2012, when monthly statistics were first released.

The Obama administration and its allies among immigrant rights groups had long argued that the surge of illegal immigration in recent years, chiefly from Central America, was a result of people fleeing horrific conditions.

Those groups argued that there was little the U.S. could or should do to stem the flow.

But Border Patrol officials, in internal documents, had said the surge was a result of lax enforcement within the U.S. They had predicted that a policy imposing tougher consequences for illegal immigration could stem the flow.

Mr. Kelly said Wednesday that appears to be the case.

The early results show that enforcement matters, deterrence matters, and that comprehensive immigration enforcement can make an impact, he said.

The drop was severe across all categories.

The number of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children caught by the Border Patrol fell below 2,000, while the number of people traveling as families was just 3,124. In January, that number had been 9,300, and in December, it had been more than 16,000.

Even particularly tricky countries such as Haiti saw improvement. In January, more than 1,600 Haitians showed up at ports of entry demanding to be admitted. In February, that number dropped to 218.

Mr. Kelly said the massive changes were the result of Mr. Trumps policies, which have given agents at the border and in the interior more leeway to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.

Mr. Trump has also promised to hire 5,000 more border agents and to build a wall across the southwest border, though neither of those plans has taken shape.

Instead, would-be immigrants appear to be responding to Mr. Trumps get-tough rhetoric.

Mr. Kelly said his department will be monitoring to see what happens in March, April and May, when the number of apprehensions and therefore crossers usually jumps.

President Obama oversaw a major drop in the number of Mexicans coming across the border during his time in office a result of a sour U.S. economy, an improving Mexican economy and a willingness to impose penalties on those nabbed.

But U.S. policy was more relaxed toward illegal immigrants from Central America.

They were generally arrested, given court dates and released into the interior of the U.S., where they often absconded, disappearing into the shadows with the estimated 11 million other illegal immigrants.

See original here:
Trump's get-tough policies credited for sharp plunge in illegal immigration - Washington Times

SANCTUARY COMMUNITY: Illegal aliens are welcome and, for the most part, safe from deportation in the rural community of Plainfield.

PLAINFIELD, Vt. The rural community of Plainfield on Tuesdayjoined an increasing number of Vermont jurisdictionsconsidered to be sanctuary communities for illegal aliens.

The change was adopted in a non-binding resolution put before voters on Town Meeting Day. The resolution passed by a 67-13 vote.

Andy Robinson, a local immigrant rightsactivist, led the effort by helping gather about70 signatures to get the issue on the ballot.

The goal here is to make sure Plainfield is perceived as a town that is considered welcoming and that immigrants here can feel safe, Robinsontold Watchdog.

Themeasure was taken up after careful consideration from legal experts from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and theattorney generals office, Robinson said. He added that the main advice he received is thatlocal authorities are not required to enforce federal immigration law.The measure essentially reiterates that Plainfield authorities are not required to do so.

James Simpson, a former analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget who now focuses on immigration, the Plainfield resolution is little more than words on paper, but nonetheless sends a message.

It doesnt matter if its just a meaningless resolution or something that becomes an ordinance, he said. It all sends the same message, and that is that the official position on illegal aliens is that they are welcome here.

Simpson sayswhile most illegal immigrants are seeking a better life, thepopulation as a whole is disproportionately more likely to be involved in crimes. As reported by Breitbart,U.S. Sentencing Commission data for fiscal year 2014shows thatwhile illegal aliens accounted for 3.5 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for 36.7 percent of federal sentencesfollowing criminal convictions.

Robinson said he understands Vermonterssecurity concerns but thinks the vast majority of those coming in are law abiding. He added that Vermont needs to embrace new young workers and entrepreneursto counterbalance the states aging population.

A concern for Plainfield and similar towns is whether the federal government will withhold discretionary grants fromjurisdictions that refuse to help feds enforce U.S. immigration laws.

While total federal funding to sanctuary cities nationwide may be as high as $27 billion, the left-wing Center for American Progressandthe American Immigration Lawyers Association released a report that states the portion of federal dollars that could be denied tosanctuary jurisdictions is$870,068,698.

Robinson said while he isnt worried about the potentialloss of federal funds, it doesnt mean it wont happen.

James Lyall, executive director of the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union, says Plainfields resolution is similar to those in other towns.

I dont know what the specific language of Plainfields resolution was, [but]its likely consistent with the other moves to affirm that those places and their public officials will respect the civil rights of immigrants, he said.

While state and local authorities have for decades voluntarily helped feds identify illegal immigrants, Lyall claimed it is not legally aresponsibility of local law enforcement to concern themselves with federal immigration enforcement.

Based on that distinction between what is legally required versus what is voluntary, about 600 cities and counties nationwide have adopted policies that mandatenoncooperation from local police, investigators and other officials. Suchnoncooperation limits the ability offederal immigration authorities to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

Lyall said in some cases local police lackauthority to pursue immigration enforcement, such as in asking for immigration status without appropriate probable cause. Hesaid that Vermont police must adhere to Fair and Impartial Policing, a policy that prohibits police from gathering immigration status from suspects.

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Watchdog in a recent interview that refusing to givefederal authorities information aboutimmigration statusis illegal.If [the state] passes an ordinance saying police may not notify the federal government of immigration status, that is in clear violation of [federal law], he said.

Robinson said he pushed the initiative in Plainfield as a response to thetough immigration rhetoric and policies out of the Trump administration. Lyall said it would be better if state legislators wouldpass laws so that smaller communities would not have tocome up with their own resolutions.

Simpson said giving any immigrant a free passisdisrespectful to all the immigrants who come to the United States legally.

Its really an outrage, he said. All their effort, and this is really just making a fool of them.

We go through all that stuff and then illegal aliens can just breeze on in and not merely have the door open but have their hand held and they are protected. Its simply incredible.

Robinson said while he sympathizes with the frustrations of those who go through the often-tedious legal immigration process, he said he also knowsundocumentedimmigrants who have been waiting as long as five years, going through multiple background checks, and are still waiting.

I think what we need is a more streamlined way, he said.

Michael Bielawski is a freelance reporter for Vermont Watchdog. Contact [emailprotected]

Original post:
Small town of Plainfield adopts sanctuary status for illegal aliens ... - Watchdog.org

Homeland Security could begin separating illegal immigrant mothers and children caught sneaking across the border, Secretary John F. Kelly said Monday, floating another get-tough proposal designed to make families from Central America think twice before making the treacherous journey north.

Stemming the surge of migrants is among President Trumps top immigration goals, and his administration is searching for any answers to a problem that bedeviled President Obama. But this latest proposal enraged immigrant rights advocates, who say the children and families should be treated as refugees deserving compassion, not as illegal immigrants seeking to thwart American laws.

Mr. Kelly, speaking on CNN, said his goal is to try to keep people from making the trip at all.

I would do almost anything to deter the people from Central America to getting on this very, very dangerous network that brings them up through Mexico into the United States, he said.

Those who have made the journey report being beaten, robbed and raped. Some women who make the journey begin to take birth control ahead of time specifically to prevent pregnancy from rapes they expect along the way.

If Mr. Kelly pulls the trigger on the change, it would mark a major reversal in U.S. policy.

The Obama administration worked to keep families together, opening new detention facilities in order to be able to keep mothers and their children in the same place. But after federal courts fretted over the conditions in which children were kept, the Obama administration began to quickly process and release families, with the often vain hope that they would return for their deportation hearings.

Border Patrol officials have said that those lax policies served as enticements for the wave of illegal immigrant children and families streaming out of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Over the past five years, since Mr. Obama announced his 2012 deportation amnesty for young adult illegal immigrants known as Dreamers, some 227,000 unaccompanied children and 245,000 people traveling as families have been caught at the border.

The latest numbers suggest this year is shaping up to set a record.

The children, in particular, put burdens on agents, who have been relegated to what their chief called professional child care duties rather than patrolling the border. The federal government has paid millions of dollars to shuttle immigrant children inside the U.S., and the Health and Human Services Department has struggled to find sponsors to take in the children.

Those sponsors are often illegal immigrant parents already in the U.S. awaiting the arrival of their children.

If the administration follows through on Mr. Kellys proposal, its not clear who would take in the children if they arrive with a parent who gets detained. Children who dont find sponsors to take them in the U.S. end up in dormitory-type detention homes.

The children could apply for protection in the U.S. even as their parents face deportation, immigrant rights advocates said.

Democrats said the proposed policy change stems from xenophobia and racism.

Breaking apart families flies in the face of the family values Republicans have campaigned on for decades, said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee. This is just the latest terrible proposal from this disastrous administration, and any humane and decent person should reject it outright.

The Womens Refugee Commission said it already had seen some mothers separated from their children at the border and called it a horrific trauma.

For some mothers, going back to what they are fleeing is not an option, said Michelle Brane, director of the migrant rights program at the commission. They feel they have no choice but to hope that by staying in detention, and letting their child be taken, that they might eventually be safe. The daily torture of sitting in detention, and not knowing what has become of their child is unimaginable.

Mr. Kelly, though, said the answer is for families to not begin a journey that could end with the separation of children and parents.

Im considering it in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, he said. I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.

More here:
DHS proposes separating illegal immigrant mothers, children caught sneaking across border - Washington Times

posted at 2:01 pm on March 7, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

I realize were in the midst of numerous discussions involving construction of the border wall and hiring new immigration law enforcement officers, but there remains a far more effective tool in combating illegal immigration available to us. I wanted to draw your attention to a story in the Los Angeles times this week which deals with an immigration raid taking place a decade ago at a French restaurant in that city. This is a remarkable story to see cropping up in a large, generally liberal newspaper because it offers the refreshing perspective of a business owner who was once busted for employing illegals but now wants enforcement to be more strict.

Michael Malecot is the owner of The French Gourmet, an upscale restaurant in Pacific Beach. In 2008 he was the subject of an ICE raid which netted several aliens working illegally at his eatery. Unlike far too many of these raids, it wasnt just the busboys and dishwashers who wound up getting in trouble with the law. Malecot himself was charged in the case and wound up being convicted and paying a rather stiff fine which he claims nearly put him out of business. Today the owner is a regular user of the E-Verify system and claims that he is in 100% compliance with the law in all of his hiring practices. Unfortunately, he goes on to say that this puts him at a disadvantage because the government does not enforce this law with an even hand and many of his competitors are still getting away with hiring cheap, illegal labor and not paying any price for it.

It was a difficult time, Malcot, 65, recalled in an interview in his cozy 45-seat dining room last week. He feared at one point he would lose his business. I am very lucky to love what I do.

A misdemeanor conviction and $396,000 in court-ordered payments later, Malcot says he is now 100% compliant when it comes to hiring legal workers through use of E-Verify, the government web-based program that green-lights the eligibility of employees.

But because the program is voluntary, many restaurants dont use it and whether knowingly or unknowingly employ unauthorized immigrants. Malcot said that puts him and other employers following the law at a disadvantage when their competitors have a larger workforce to pull from and the potential to pay lower wages.

One item which stands out in the story is the result of the court case against Malecot. Yes, he wound up paying more than a quarter million dollars in fines, fees and court costs, but he was convicted of a misdemeanor. How does that work? There are federal laws against aiding and abetting people who are in the country illegally so this mustve been some sort of a plea deal. The raid worked out well in the case of this one restaurant and the stiff fines might have sent something of a message to other employers in the area, but as Malecot himself notes, the memo clearly didnt get to everyone.

Ive been up on this particular soapbox in the past and the underlying point of the story remains just as true now as it has ever been. I firmly believe that the quickest and most efficacious method of cutting down on illegal immigration is to remove the main incentive for people to cross the border in violation of the law and choose to remain here. That means jobs. If the supply of employment and income essentially disappears you will see illegal immigration fall off virtually overnight to a degree which no amount of strict law enforcement activity will ever accomplish. Thats not to say that we shouldnt be building a wall, hiring more ICE officers, border patrol and all the rest. We absolutely should. But their jobs will become much easier with a smaller number of targets to go after, many of whom will likely wind up being gang members and those working outside the normal capitalist system.

E-Verify is out there and ready for use. Every owner of a business either knows about it or darn well should know about. The problem is we are still too reticent in prosecuting the people who would actually matter. Handing down a big fine to one restaurant owner is nice but its simply not enough. As I have said before, the first time that you see the millionaire owner of a huge restaurant chain or the CEO of a national retailer standing in an orange jumpsuit and leg irons in front of a judge who is handing down a 10 year sentence, jobs for illegal immigrants will evaporate in the blink of an eye. It may not be politically popular and could turn off some potential donors, but its a solution which is available and sitting out there on the table right now.

Excerpt from:
When arresting employers of illegal immigrants actually works - Hot Air

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Oliver Mauricio Funes-Machada, 18, has been confirmed to Breitbart Texas by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as an illegal immigrant living in North Carolina from Honduras.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) has issued a detainer for Oliver Funes-Machado, an unlawfully present Honduran national, following his arrest March 6 on local charges in Franklin County, North Carolina, ICE Communications Director Bryan Cox told Breitbart Texas.

Funes-Machada allegedly killed 35-year-old Yesenia Funes Beatriz Machada by severing her head, and then allegedly carrying her head in his hands, along with a butcher knife, down the street, according to the Charlotte Observer.

When they arrived, he was with the decapitation in his hand and it was a gruesome scene, Sheriff Kent Winstead told the media at the time.

It was a gruesome scene I cant tell you how many wounds, Winstead said.

Funes-Machada is allegedly the oldest sibling of his family, with two minor children at the home at the time of the alleged beheading, though authorities said they were unharmed. Another sibling was at school at the time of the alleged attack.

Funes-Machada is currently being held at the Franklin County Detention Center without bond, and ICEs Bryan Cox said the agency has requested that the illegal immigrant be turned over to federal authorities, should he be released for any reason.

John Binder is a contributor for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

Read the rest here:
Illegal Immigrant Teen Beheaded His Mother, Say Police - Breitbart News