What the federal clampdown on illegal immigration means for Idaho ... Idaho Statesman The Treasure Valley's four largest law enforcement agencies say nothing really changes for them under President Donald J. Trump's new order that federal ... |
Here is the original post:
What the federal clampdown on illegal immigration means for Idaho ... - Idaho Statesman
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is ready to assist in President Donald Trumps crackdown on illegal immigration, but some of his fellow Republicans are less than eager to cooperate.
Bryant contends that beefed up enforcement at the federal level can only help states.
The federal law is the federal law, Bryant told Newsmax while visiting Washington for the National Governors Association winter meeting this weekend. You see now that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is simply enforcing the federal laws. I like to remind people, if we are going to ignore these laws, they need to tell us what other laws we need to ignore.
In late January, Trump signed a series of executive orders that included building a wall on the southern border, increasing interior enforcement and scaling back federal funding for sanctuary cities. Trump signed another executive order restricting immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries, which several Democratic states have sued to stop.
We are now working on a bill that would deny any support from sanctuary cities and sanctuary universities, Bryant said. We simply believe this is a nation of laws and we should abide by them.
Border state Republican governors have weighed in. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott praised Trumps actions. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey met earlier this month with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and the two did an hourlong tour of the border fence near the city. Florida Gov. Rick Scott said the current immigration system is a mess.
However, Vermonts Republican Gov. Phil Scott is putting a council together to push back against Trumps executive orders on enforcement and funding.
We want to take a little bit of a pause in looking at the executive order, in looking at federal overreach in terms of the Constitution, I think the Fourth and Tenth Amendment in particularly, Scott told Newsmax. I want to make sure that we protect our Constitution because it may be the Fourth and the Tenth this time, but it sets precedent. In four years, it could be the Second Amendment and I treasure that one as well.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat and NGA chairman, criticized ICE for making arrests in Fairfax, Virginia, and is meeting with Kelly on Sunday.
We cant have people driven underground. We do have basic civil liberties we need to protect, McAuliffe told Newsmax. We do not want to see people just randomly stopped without any due cause or due process.
NGA Republican vice chairman, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, is treading carefully in his state with a high immigrant population, even reviewing a Washington state policy barring state agencies from arresting illegal immigrants for no other reason than entering the country illegally.
I can speak for all of the governors, Sandoval told Newsmax. We are paying close attention to what the president is doing with regard to his immigration policies. Weve had a chance to meet with the secretary of homeland security and I know there is ongoing discussion, particularly with Mexico but across the world.
2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
See the article here:
Mississippi Governor Says He Will Assist Trump in Illegal Immigration Crackdown - Newsmax
MANKATO Business groups' push for immigration reform and welcoming immigrants (see related story) comes against a backdrop of immigration protests in the U.S. and fear and uncertainty in other countries.
James Dimock, a communications professor at Minnesota State University, has for years led student trips to Columbia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Mexico. The most recent 10-day trip was in Mexico last month at the time President Trump's travel ban was announced.
"Generally the feeling was they were very, very concerned about what was going to happen."
He doesn't believe the flow of illegal immigrants will be slowed by deportations or a border wall.
"There's a myth about why people migrate. They're leaving friends, family, food, their comfort zone to go to a placed they'll often be treated hostilely. But they're doing it because of the need they have for their family," he said.
"A wall will make it more difficult but it will just make corruption more potent, it won't slow that flow of people. If someone can be bribed to lift a crossing gate they will be bribed to find another way across. It's not a physical barrier we're fighting but financial and corruption. If they can't support their families they will keep coming."
Dimock said that with 40 percent or more of the Mexican population in poverty, the ability of family members to work in the U.S. and send money (remittances) home is their lifeline. Mexican families take in $25 billion annually in remittances.
"Remittances are in the top three sources of revenue for the states and country. If they were to lose or inhibit that remittance money they'd be devastated. The government has no mechanism to address poverty," he said. Cutting into those remittances, he said, will only make people more desperate to get into the U.S. illegally. "It's a rational decision they're making."
He said the Mexicans he meets, mostly farmers, miners, activists and rural village residents, are hostile to NAFTA. The agreement, he said, flooded Mexico with cheap U.S. corn, decimating some 2 million farmers there who left their land but often found no other living, sending many of them to the U.S.
He said those people would welcome a renegotiated NAFTA, but he thinks if NAFTA is radically altered with no good replacement, corn exports from the U.S. would dry up. "There would be starvation."
He said Mexicans also despise NAFTA because American farmers and agribusiness are heavily subsidized by the government, allowing for the cheaper grain and other farm products to be sold to Mexico, while Mexican farmers receive little or no support.
Finally, he said a portion of the NAFTA agreement, called the Mrida Initiative, aimed at combating drug production and smuggling from Mexico, has harmed many Mexicans with no drug connections. The initiative, launched during the Bush administration, was funded with a $2.5 billion appropriation from Congress. American companies, Dimock said, thought it would bring a level of law and order in Mexico, allowing them to do business there more easily.
"There's been no decline in drugs flowing across the border from Mexico since it went into effect. Heroin and coke has increased since then and the quality of it has increased."
He said the funding prompted the militarization of police forces all over Mexico, forces that he said often turn on Mexicans who protest or take on local governments or businesses.
"A lot of Mexicans have just disappeared. They're last seen with someone from the government and then they're never heard from again."
Follow Tim Krohn on Twitter @TimKrohn
Continued here:
MSU prof says wall won't slow illegal immigration - Mankato Free Press
Among those who oppose a border wall/fence/barrier, one argument is that it would be too expensive.
I would guess that some of these people arent normally concerned about the government spending money, but in the defense of the illegal invasion, any argument will do.
To counter this argument, the Center for Immigration Studies now has a useful study available on its website. Its entitled The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration. Its by CIS numbers man Steven A. Camarota (February 2017) and it successfully deals with the expense argument.
Camarotas argument is that, economically, illegal aliens are a net lifetime drain on the U.S. government budget. Therefore, any wall or barrier, even if it stopped only about 10% of them, would already pay for itself!
This goes against the conventional wisdom that illegal aliens are a great boon to our economy and that we couldnt make it without them. But Camarota, using data from the (NAS) National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine demonstrates that the numbers dont show that.
Heres how the article begins:
The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as net present values, which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures. Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall.
So illegal aliens, though touted to be great economic contributors, are actual net economic drains, because of their lower levels of education. Here are the basic calculations Camarota uses to prove his point:
In his usual thoroughgoing way, Camarota goes though various ways to crunch the data, with both higher and lower estimates. But the calculations always arrive to the same conclusion illegal aliens are an economic drain to the budget and thus even a partially successful border wall would be worth the money.
Its important to know this, and to point out as part of the debate that 1) Illegal immigration is a net drain to our economy, and 2)Even a not-very-successful wall would be an improvement and pay for itself.
Just imagine what a very successful wall coupled with better internal enforcement would do!
Excerpt from:
CIS: If A Border Wall Could Cut Illegal Immigration By Only 10%, It Would Pay For Itself - VDARE.com
You may have seen an Amber Alert on Fridaydetailing that a 6-year-old girl had been abducted by her fatherfrom her home inBridgeport, Connecticut and her mother had been stabbed and killed, while another woman suffered injuries. Police chased down the subject and caught him onInterstate 99 in Benner Township, Pennsylvania.The little girl suffered minor injuries in the pursuit.The suspect, Oscar Hernandez,is an illegal immigrant. Worse, he had been previously deported.
Federal immigration officials said Hernandez is a citizen of El Salvador and had been previously deported on Nov. 27, 2013. He has prior felony convictions including assault and threatening. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on him, an agency spokesman said in a statement.
Despite such horrid crimes, several cities (and nowstates) are seeking sanctuary status to harbor illegal immigrants like Hernandez.
Last week, during an immigration town hall hosted by Fox News' "First One Hundred Days", "Angel Mom" Laura Wilkerson explained how her son had been brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant. In heremotional account, she demanded sanctuary cities be abolished because "no one gets sanctuary from the law."
Perez Tells Trump He's Going to Be His 'Worst Nightmare'...Even Democrats Snicker
Suspect in Custody in New Orleans Parade Crash
See the original post here:
Illegal Immigrant Is Suspect Behind Connecticut Amber Alert - Townhall