Mediaboss Marketing

For six years under the Obama presidency, illegal aliens cuts almost 10,000 holes in the border fence, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. CNS News Terry Jeffrey wrote about how these gaps are located in the pedestrian portion of the fence, which only covers 354 square miles:

Only 654 miles of the 1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border currently have any type of fencing, according to GAO. The other 1,300 miles of border have no fencing.

Of the 654 miles of fencing, 354 miles consists of what the Department of Homeland Security calls pedestrian fencing. The other 300 miles is vehicle fencing.

Border fencing types, explains GAO, include pedestrian fencing, which is primarily intended to slow down and deter pedestrians from crossing the border, and vehicle fencing, which is intended to resist vehicles engaged in drug trafficking and alien smuggling operations and is typically used in rural or isolated locations that have a low occurrence of illegal pedestrian traffic.

[]

The GAO report noted that it is common for illegal entrants to cut holes in the existing border fences so they can enter the United States.

Agents we spoke with in the El Paso and Tucson sectors explained that one of the most common methods employed by illegal entrants involves cutting openings, or breaches, in pedestrian and vehicle fencing, says GAO. Once breached, illegal entrants can cross through the fence or smuggle people and contraband into the United States.

President Donald J. Trumps executive order on immigration calls for more border patrol and immigration enforcement agents to help secure our border and intends to build a physical wall, something that congressional Democrats will staunchly oppose.

See the original post:
Under The Obama Presidency, Illegal Immigrants Cut Almost 10,000 ... - Townhall

By Melissa M. Firman

With a focus on illegal immigration that parallels current issues in the news, Shanthi Sekaran's second novel Lucky Boy explores how innocent lives, especially those of children, can irrevocably change because of reckless decisions and complicated systems.

"LUCKY BOY"

By Shanthi Sekaran G.P. Putnams Sons ($27).

Eighteen-year-old Solimar (Soli) Castro-Valdez dreams of a new life in America, away from her impoverished Mexican town of Popocalco. Her cousin promises work in California and her trusting father finances Solis trip, believing a coyotes false promises to safely smuggle his daughter into the country. Predictably, Solis trek becomes harrowing and dangerous (several rape scenes may be difficult for some to read); also, predictably, Soli falls in love with her protector during their shared journey.

Shortly after arriving at her cousin Silvias home in Berkeley, Soli discovers she is pregnant. A warm family reunion this isnt. A domineering and cold woman, Silvia manages a workforce of undocumented immigrants and only views Soli as a revenue source.

While Soli works as a housekeeper and cares for her newborn son Ignacio, Ms. Sekaran introduces her reader to Kavya and Rishi Reddy, an affluent and emotionally insecure Berkeley couple preoccupied with work and status. Desperately desiring a child for reasons mostly stemming from a chance to best Kavya's perfect childhood nemesis and to quiet societys expectations they turn to fertility treatments.

After a routine traffic stop gone bad results in Soli being discovered as an illegal alien, Soli and Kavyas lives and Ignacios begin to interact more clearly. Deportation procedures are initiated and Ignacio is placed into foster care, landing in the custody of Kavya and Rishi who, in one of the novels many disingenuous moments, hand-pick Ignacio among a room of toddlers and infants seemingly ripe for the taking.

This erroneous portrayal of the foster care and adoption process is only one example albeit a significant one of how Lucky Boy is rife with generalities and stereotypes. The novels plodding and stilted prose is laden with melodrama, flat metaphors and odd phrasing. (On Solis pregnancy cravings: She ate like a beast in a cave. She found herself addicted, thinking only of her next meal, where it would come from, what it would taste like, how much of it she could cram down the hole before anyone saw her.

The sex-on-demand nature of Kavya and Rishis fertility quest gets similar treatment: She was timing herself religiously now, waiting for mittelschmerz, that sharp ache in her lower abdomen that meant an egg was on its journey. She felt it that morning in the shower: The mittel had arrived and she was schmerzing like a fiend.

Although Soli and Kavyas experiences and losses evoke a readers compassion and sympathy, Lucky Boy doesnt find its focus and footing to succinctly convey how different paths and obstacles to motherhood shape ones identity. If a woman is unable to become pregnant, what messages are received from society about ones value? If someone doesnt have identification, how does that person justify ones worth and purpose and is it ever possible to gain a sense of belonging and place?

These are complicated questions, and while Lucky Boy attempts to answer them through the connected path of motherhood and immigration, this novels rambling journey stumbles before reaching its intended destination.

Melissa M. Firman is a Pittsburgh based freelance writer and editor.

Here is the original post:
'Lucky Boy': the tale of the life of an illegal immigrant - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

I want to address the question concerning immigrants living in this country on a legal basis or on an illegal basis.

My maternal grandparents came to this country from Ukraine around 1910, through Ellis Island, the legal gateway to America, to start their new lives. They came in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty through the appropriate legal immigration channelsnot over a fence, not smuggled in a small boat, not swimming across a river, not paying thousands of dollars to be hidden under blankets or in trunks of cars.

The point is simple. Some 10 million to 12 million people are living here illegally, and most have been for years. They are hiding under the radar, are paid under the table, take the jobs of legal immigrants with green cards and work-permits and so much more.

Employers throughout the country have encouraged illegal status to take advantage of these people.

Sure, those here illegally are scared; sure, they are worried about deportation. They have only themselves to blame. If they had taken the appropriate steps, most of them would probably be permanent residents or citizens.

Employers should be heavily fined if caught employing illegal people.

Maybe another amnesty, like President Reagan initiated, is one answer.

Immigration problems have been discussed for decades. Action is happening. Legal immigrants have worked too hard to have jobs, housing, benefits and so much more taken away as others disregard our laws, which are on the books to protect all legal American citizens. We should expect no less from Washington. Follow the laws and live free of fear here.

Originally posted here:
Letter: Nation must deal with illegal immigration | Letters To Editor ... - Fredericksburg.com

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) / AP

BY: Jack Heretik March 3, 2017 3:23 pm

Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) is working to bring an illegal immigrant back into the United States.

Lee is trying to bring back Jose Escobar, a 31-year-old who was deported to El Salvador after he was arrested by immigration agentson Feb. 22, according to KPRC Click2Houston.

Escobar was ordered to leave the United States back in 2006, but federal officials said that he fled and became a fugitive. He was arrested in 2011 and subsequently released in 2012 after seven months in federal custody.

He was given time to prepare for his deportation back to El Salvador, but instead obtained a work permit to stay in the U.S. Escobar checked in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for five years before he was arrested and deported last month.

Escobar's wife, Rose, an American citizen, and two children remain in the United States. His wife asked the Trump administration to return her husband and stop its deportation plans in a press conference on Thursday .

Lee held a press conference on Friday afternoon with Escobar's supporters calling for him to be returned to the United States.

"This has to cease and desist," Lee said regarding the deportations.

Lee also said the United States is currently mass deporting illegal immigrants.

More here:
Sheila Jackson Lee Trying to Bring Illegal Immigrant Back to US - Washington Free Beacon

Recently, a group of young illegal immigrants in California filed alawsuitagainst Wells Fargo bank for denying their student loans applications on the basis of their immigration status. TheLos Angeles Timesprofiledone of the plaintiffs, Mitzie Perez, who came to the U.S. illegally in 1997 from Guatemala. Five years old at the time, she is now 25 and a junior at the University of California-Riverside, focusing on gender and sexuality studies.

Perez and the rest of plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The 2012 executive order, signed by President Barack Obama, gave temporarydeportation relief to young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children, who metcertain criteria. That relief applies for a period of two years, subject to renewal.

About 750,000 immigrants have applied for DACAs reprieve, which lets them work and study in the U.S. legally. Does that mean a bank like Wells Fargo must ignore these young peoples immigration status when making loan decisions? Absolutely not.

Other than the Federal Reserve, U.S. banks do not print money. For a commercial bank such as Wells Fargo, its largest funding source is depositors: people who entrust the bank with safekeeping their hard-earned dollars. When evaluating any loan application, its only prudent for a bank to evaluate a potential borrowers ability and willingness to pay back the loan.

Loan officers usually look for thefive Csof an applicant: character (trustworthiness), capacity (debt to income ratio), capital (funds available), collateral (assets available in case of default), and conditions (outside circumstances that may affect the borrowers financial situation and ability to repay).

A loan applicants immigration status is one of those conditions that a bank must take into consideration, because it could seriously impact a borrowers ability to repay the loan.

Wells Fargo should be concerned about lending to DACA beneficiaries, because theres a great deal of uncertainty about how long they can stay in the U.S.

First, DACA doesnt grant these young illegal immigrants any permanent legal status. It only grants them a two-year deportation relief. Yes, a DACA beneficiary can request a renewal after the two-year period. But theres no guarantee that renewal will be approved. An applicant could be denied if he or she no longer meet thecriteriaafter two years.

Secondly, President Trump hasnt made any official policy decision on DACA yet. There is overwhelming public sympathy towards DACA beneficiaries, and bi-partisan support to codify DACA into law. But until that legislation actually takes place, no one knows for sure how long DACA beneficiaries can legally stay in the U.S. Therefore, offering student loans to someone who may or may not remain in the U.S. legally after a two-year period is a risky businessespecially considering the average student loan size is$25,000 with a 10-year repayment plan.

One of the many things that the 2008 economic meltdown taught us is that bad loans can have devastating effects on the overall economy. To protect its depositorsand ultimately U.S. taxpayersbanks are right not to make student loans to someone in the country illegally (even though its not their fault). What Wells Fargo did is not discrimination. Its called prudence.

By suing Wells Fargo on the ground of discrimination, ignoring the uncertainty of their immigration status and the challenges it presents, Perez and other plaintiffs are not helping their cause. Instead, they are pushing people sympathetic to their situation away.

As a nation, the United States has been the most welcoming and generous place on earth to young illegal immigrants. Putting aside various welfare benefitsincluding food, shelter, and healthcare that many states provide to illegal immigrants and their childrenU.S. taxpayers have provided unmatched support to young illegal immigrants education. Ever since thelandmark 1982Plyler v. DoeU.S. Supreme Court decision, states are required to provide all students with free K-12 public education, regardless of students immigration status.

Since the ruling, American taxpayers have picked up the tab to provide funding for K-12 public education to all children in America, including those who were brought here illegally like Perez. Plaintiffs, including Perez, are the direct beneficiaries of this free education. They probably have no idea how much this free education actually cost. Data (with a delay of three years) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)showsthat as of 2012, taxpayers spent on average about $122,000 (adjusted for inflation) per child for public K-12 education in California alone.

The Supreme Courts decision on education doesnt apply to education beyond high school. But according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),many states extend generous higher education benefits to young illegal immigrants all the same. California is one of 18 states that allows young illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates. Perez attends UC Riverside (UCR), which charges an in-state tuition rate of$13,581and$40,263for out-of-state.This means a legal resident or a U.S. citizen from outside California has to pay more than three times more to attend UCR than Perez does.

In addition,California is one of at least six states that allows young illegal immigrant students to receive tax payer funded state level financial aid. UCRs ownwebsitesays Over 85% of UCR undergraduate students receive financial aid, and 70% have their full fees covered by grants and scholarships.Collegedata.com reports that average financial aid at UCR is about$21,638per recipient. Again, Perez and many plaintiffs of the lawsuit are beneficiaries of this taxpayers-funded generosity.

The American people, bearing most of the financial burden, have gone above and beyond to ensure young illegal immigrants like Perez receive a quality education which is not available to them in their home countries. Such generosity, however, shouldnt be taken as an entitlement. Higher education is not a right, and no one is entitled to coerce a private business into making unsound business decisions.

The majority of Americans, including liberals and conservatives, are sympathetic to DACA beneficiaries and are advocating for a permanent legal solution. Sadly, the lawsuit against Wells Fargo is a big turnoff for many DACA supporters, and it only makes it harder to forge a viable legal immigration solution for these young people.

If Perez and the rest of the plaintiffs truly want to become Americans, do it the American way. If you cant afford something now, dont get it. No one is obligated to provide it to you, and that has nothing to do with discrimination. Higher education is not the only path to a productive and rewarding life. There are many paths to learning. Be self-reliant. If you focus on what you can do to better your life, and pay little attention to what others can or should do for you, you will be able to live kind of life you want.

Link:
Rather Than Suing Wells Fargo, Illegal Immigrants Should Thank Americans For Funding Their Education - The Federalist