Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

McAllen Federal Judge Sentences Illegal Alien to Two Years in … – The Texan

Austin, TX, 25 seconds ago Federal prosecutors announced a 39-year-old Mexican illegal immigrant residing in Edinburg received a two-year prison sentence after her conviction on a charge of harboring aliens.

In a news release, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said the felon was an indispensable link in the chain of events that resulted in another illegal immigrants death. Federal Judge Randy Crane handed down the sentence on Thursday.

Prosecutors say Sanjuana Garcia-Salazar, who is in custody after pleading guilty in November, admitted to keeping as many as 60 illegal aliens in a house each week for pecuniary gain. Police found her in the home with 21 illegal immigrants after finding a dead Guatemalan man in Edna in September 2022, the DOJ said.

She further acknowledged knowing about the Guatemalan male whom she had harbored at her residence. She noted he had a really bad cough before being transported away from her residence, the news release said.

The government added Garcia-Salazar is likely to be placed in removal proceedings upon the completion of her prison sentence.

U.S. Attorney Alamdar Hamdani commented on the gravity of the conviction.

Leaving a migrants dead body on the side of the road is a growing and common tragedy along the southern border and shows the callousness of human smugglers, Hamdani said. Todays sentence is a message that our office will aggressively prosecute those who smuggle migrants and harbor migrants, treating them as chattel and endangering their lives solely for profit.

The DOJ credited federal border patrol agents and Jackson County law enforcement for the investigation into Garcia-Salazar.

Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) placed a bill on his priority list this session to create a state border protection unit and declare Texas is under invasion from drug trafficking and other criminal activity that accompanies illegal immigration.

View post:
McAllen Federal Judge Sentences Illegal Alien to Two Years in ... - The Texan

Biden to Expand Taxpayer-Funded Health Care Access to Illegal … – Federation for American Immigration Reform

FAIR Take | April2023

On April 13, the Biden Administration announced that participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will soon be able to apply for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act and some Medicaid programs. This announcement comes on the heels of FAIRs release of the 2023 cost study of illegal immigration, which found illegal immigration already has a net cost to taxpayers of about $151 billion per year. This move by the Biden Administration is not only counter to the immigration laws and an affront to Americans, but it will also exacerbate the cost totaxpayers.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) rendered those with lawful presence eligible for benefits. The ACA implementing regulation defined lawful presence by incorporating the definition used in a 2010 guidance letter from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the eligibility of certain Medicaidprograms.

The CMS guidance letter provided that a wide range of aliens are deemed to have lawful presence, including, in some cases, illegal aliens. These include green card holders, asylees, refugees, parolees (with exceptions), aliens granted withholding of removal, aliens on valid nonimmigrant visas who had not violated their terms of status, aliens with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or TPS applicants granted work authorization, and aliens with pending applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, among others. The 2010 regulation and CMS letter also included aliens currently in deferred action status, which would include DACA recipients. At the time, however, DACA did notexist.

DACA was created by a memorandum from then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. At the time, the current Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, was the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that manages the program. The DACA memo provided for exercising prosecutorial discretion when considering enforcement actions against alienswho:

Almost immediately, it became clear that illegal aliens granted DACA would become aliens currently in deferred action status, and thus eligible for ACA exchanges and, in some cases, Medicaid. On August 30, 2012, however, the Obama Administration published a brief amendment to earlier implementing regulations clarifying that DACA recipients were not, in fact, eligible for ACA exchanges. Below is the language published in the FederalRegister:

This amendment, and the other definitions in the referenced paragraphs 1-7, are also used in the definition of lawfully residing for certain Medicaidprograms.

President Bidens announcement on April 13, 2023, indicates that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will soon propose a rule to amend these regulations, remove the DACA exception, and therefore render DACA recipients lawfully present for purposes of obtaining benefits under the ACA and certain Medicaidprograms.

Under the original definition of lawful presence, FAIR estimated that between 500,000 and 1 million aliens who entered the U.S. illegally nevertheless were eligible for benefits under the ACA and certain Medicaid programs. Bidens actions this week will add another 580,000 DACA recipients (calculated as of 2022) to thistotal.

DACA is still being challenged in the court system. This litigation has led USCIS to stop processing new DACA applications pending a final outcome. The DACA litigation will likely ultimately reach the SupremeCourt.

FAIR will be watching for issuance of the full HHS rule later this month, and will use every opportunity to let the Biden Administration know how they are again failing to protect hardworking Americantaxpayers.

See the original post here:
Biden to Expand Taxpayer-Funded Health Care Access to Illegal ... - Federation for American Immigration Reform

FAIR Calls for Swift Passage of House Immigration Bill that Would Deter Mass Illegal Immigration and End Asylum Abuse – Yahoo Finance

WASHINGTON, April 17, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- The House Republican majority today made good on their campaign pledge to address the wholesale abuse of our political asylum laws that has led the raging migration crisis. The comprehensive Border Security and Enforcement Act is slated for a mark up by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Additional legislation is expected to be introduced by the House Homeland Security Committee later this week.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization of concerned citizens who share a common belief that our nation's immigration policies must be reformed to serve the national interest. Visit FAIR's website at http://www.fairus.org . (PRNewsFoto/FAIR)

"In little more than two years since President Biden took office, some 6 million people have entered the United States illegally, many of them making frivolous claims for asylum. The result has been an unprecedented crisis at our southern border, crushing burdens on states and localities where the migrants are settling, and boon to Mexican criminal cartels that control human smuggling and trafficking, and the influx of lethal narcotics into the United States. This bill would reassert control of our borders," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Among the key provisions of the bill:

Requires illegal aliens to make asylum claims at official ports of entry.

Ends catch-and-release policies, particularly relating to minors and family units, freeing the government of the judicial overreach of the Flores decision.

Reins in the Biden administration's abuse of parole to allow inadmissible aliens to gain entry to the U.S.

Makes use of E-Verify mandatory in order to deter economic migrants who are seeking jobs in the U.S.

"FAIR has worked closely with members of Congress on many key provisions of the Border Security and Enforcement Act and urges the committee to approve the measure and send it to the full House for a final vote as quickly as possible. The crisis that is being felt in almost every state and community across the country will only get worse as the administration ends Title 42 next month and immediate passage of this legislation is essential," concluded Stein.

Story continues

Contact: Ron Kovach, 202-328-7004 or rkovach@fairus.org.

ABOUT FAIR

Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country's largest immigration reform group. With over 3 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

Cision

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fair-calls-for-swift-passage-of-house-immigration-bill-that-would-deter-mass-illegal-immigration-and-end-asylum-abuse-301799466.html

SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Follow this link:
FAIR Calls for Swift Passage of House Immigration Bill that Would Deter Mass Illegal Immigration and End Asylum Abuse - Yahoo Finance

Why Europe Should Be More Worried About Illegal Immigration … – European Eye on Radicalization

Article author: Giovanni Giacalone

Giovanni Giacalone, a senior analyst for the Italian Team for Security, Terroristic Issues and Managing Emergencies/Catholic University of Milan, and for the Britain-based think-tank Islamic Theology of Counter-Terrorism. He is the team coordinator for the Latin America Group of the International Institute for the Study of Security.

On January 31, 2023, Italian authorities detained two Tunisian citizens identified as Nabil Gharsellaoui, 51, and Nabil Baazaoui, 28, following an investigation by the DIA of Ancona in coordination with the Macerata Public Prosecutors Office and conducted by the DIGOS of Rome and Macerata. A third Tunisian citizen wanted by the authorities is still at large.

The operation called Wet Shoes led to 44 searches of 18 suspects for various crimes and 26 other people found to be linked in various capacities to the criminal organization. The arrested individuals are accused of criminal association aimed at facilitating illegal immigration.

According to investigators, the three suspects, thanks to a robust network of accomplices (which includes business owners and public officials both foreign and domestic), had formed a criminal association involved in the illegal immigration of foreigners mainly North Africans landing on the Sicilian coasts. The network provided the necessary logistical support and cover to obtain the required documentation to facilitate their movement throughout the Schengen area.

The investigation comes after a previous operation launched in 2018 named Mosaico conducted by the Digos of Rome in the aftermath of the December 19 2016 terrorist attack in Berlin carried out by the Tunisian terrorist Anis Amri. At the time, Italian authorities had arrested four other Tunisian citizens who also belonged to the Baazaoui family clan all of which were accused of forging IDs to facilitate illegal immigration into Europe, including the ones that were used by Anis Amri.

Interestingly enough, court documents related to the Wet Shoes operation show that the names of five other members of the Baazaoui clan, all residing in Italy, came up during the investigation.

It is also important to recall that the central Italian provinces of Ancona and Macerata had already been the subject of jihadist-related investigations. For example, Tunisian citizen Nourreddine Chouchane, a member of Ansar al-Sharia who had helped plan the shooting at Sousse beach and the attack on the Bardo museum in 2015, lived in the Ancona province between 2011 and 2012 before obtaining a residency permit and moving to the north of the country.

During that time, investigators followed Chouchane to Porto Recanati in the Macerata province, where he stayed at the Hotel House a dilapidated building (also called the vertical ghetto) already known to authorities for having hosted individuals involved in jihadist activity. Chouchane was killed in February 2016 in a US airstrike on a Tunisian jihadist training camp in Sabratha, Libya.

Jihadist Infiltration

Many other jihadists managed to enter Europe by exploiting the flow of illegal immigrants traveling from the coasts of Tunisia and Libya to Italy. For example, Brahim Aouissaoui, the Tunisian terrorist who, on October 29, 2020, killed three people (beheading one) in Nice, had arrived on the Sicilian island of Lampedusa on a vessel one month before and then spent 14 days on board the Covid quarantine ship Rhapsody before being released at the port of Bari on October 9, 2020.

Prior to release, Italian authorities took a mugshot of Aouissaoui and handed him an exit slip requiring him to leave Italy within seven days. French authorities revealed that Aouissaoui did not have any identity papers on him when he was shot but was carrying a document with his name issued by the Italian Red Cross. Another Tunisian, Marouan Elkroumi, was deported from Italy over links with terrorist cells after arriving in Lampedusa by boat.

Other individuals detained for terrorism, such as Gambian citizens Sillah Ousman and Alagie Touray (who had taken part in military training in a jihadist mobile camp in Libya and were ready to carry out attacks in Europe), Mohsin Omar Ibrahim aka Anass Khalil (arrested in Bari in December 2018 while planning to blow up churches during Christmas) and Zaheer Hassan Mahmoud, a Pakistani who injured four people outside the building of the old Charlie Hebdo headquarters on September 25, 2020, all passed through Italy after reaching its territory illegally.

Additionally, on August 13, 2018, Tunisian authorities had stopped a group of nine jihadists who were embarking on a rubber dinghy together with a dozen other immigrants, all headed for the Sicilian coast. Two months later, a 25-year-old Tunisian who arrived in Lampedusa in July and was a guest of a local hotspot, was recognized by a fellow countryman who reported him to the authorities as a former ISIS fighter in Syria.

Ignored Warnings

Three years before, in May 2015, Libyan authorities had warned that ISIS used the illegal flow of immigrants from North African coasts to smuggle jihadists into Europe as the police wouldnt be able to distinguish a terrorist from a refugee. The Minister of Information of the Tobruk government, Omar al-Gawari, had warned that Italy would experience the arrival, not only of refugees from Africa but also of terrorists.

Just a few days after these declarations, former Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni had claimed that the Italian Intelligence had underestimated the risk of jihadist infiltration through illegal boats, stating that authorities in Libya (Tripoli and Tobruk) were exploiting the illegal immigration phenomenon to pressure Europe. Unfortunately, Libyan authorities were correct, and a significant number of jihadists managed to infiltrate Europe through the flow of illegals.

Strangely enough, despite all the jihadist networks that used Italy as a hub and despite the country often being targeted by jihadist organizations due to the Vatican representing the center of Catholicism, it was never targeted like the attacks that occurred in Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria and the UK.

According to some analysts, this is due, in part, to the fact that Italy is used as a bridge between Africa and Europe, which means that carrying out attacks on Italian soil would jeopardize this critical passageway. While the same rule should be applied to Spain as well, it was attacked, nonetheless.

The absence of terror attacks on Italian soil is not an indication of a superior preventative strategy by the security services. No matter how effective they may be, there is always a chance of something slipping through. Those who work in the counterterrorism field know this extremely well. Take Israel as an example. Despite the small size of the country and its strong and comprehensive security apparatus, terrorists still manage to carry out attacks. Therefore, Italys unique situation deserves further study.

New Strategies Needed

Immediately after the October 29, 2020 attack in Nice, The Guardian published an article indicating how Europol had stated in a report published earlier that year that there were no signs of systematic use of irregular migration by terrorist organizations.

However, such statements do not seem to reflect reality. What does systematic mean? According to a fixed plan or system? Methodical? If yes, how many cases are required to classify the phenomenon as systematic? Havent there been enough cases of jihadists illegally reaching Europe and carrying out attacks to label the phenomenon a serious risk to security?

Terrorism has changed. Its a dynamic phenomenon that adapts to new situations and environments and the advent of ISIS clearly showed this. In early January, Christian Rics Sevilla, a Spanish specialist in insurgence and jihadist organizations, brilliantly explained how terrorist organizations exploit the vulnerability of African immigrants, either by recruiting individuals in Africa and facilitating their entry into Europe, or by radicalizing those who are already on European soil. The article was republished by the Jerusalem Post.

Italy and Spain are indeed on the frontline, and they are the first bastions of defense for Europe from jihadist infiltration. On March 4, 2023 ISPI President Giampiero Massolo issued an alert regarding the infiltration of jihadists from Tunisia through the flow of illegals: Tunisia is increasingly perceived as a point of weakness and, therefore, both human trafficking and the possible phenomena of jihadist terrorism are channeled from there. And this is unacceptable to us because it has a direct impact on the security of our country and not just our country.

In the last few months, the flow of illegals from the African coasts towards Italy drastically increased and, so far, the newly-elected Italian government led by Giorgia Meloni has done little to curb the crisis. When she was still an opposition leader, Meloni often called for a naval blockade of African coasts, but such strong measures have yet to be adopted. Illegal migrants continue to get through, giving terrorists more opportunities to slip into Europe. The growing presence of jihadists in Sub-Saharan Africa only exacerbates concerns. Additionally, there are no reliable statistics on just how many jihadists have already entered Europe.

European Eye on Radicalization aims to publish a diversity of perspectives and as such does not endorse the opinions expressed by contributors. The views expressed in this article represent the author alone.

The rest is here:
Why Europe Should Be More Worried About Illegal Immigration ... - European Eye on Radicalization

What Is the New Illegal Migration Bill 2023? – Lexology

On 08 March 2023, the government proposed the new Illegal Migration Bill in an attempt to stop people coming to the UK unlawfully by unsafe and illegal routes such as on small boats crossing the channel. This article will provide an overview of the Illegal Migration Bills purpose, its main provisions and its legality.

What Is the Purpose of the Illegal Migration Bill?

The Illegal Migration Bill, or the Stop the Boats Bill, is one of the governments latest measures to reduce unlawful migration to the UK, following the introduction of the Rwanda policy, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the prime ministers statement on illegal migration and the recent introduction of the Streamlined Asylum Questionnaire.

The Illegal Migration Bill is a proposal for a new law which aims to deter unlawful migration by irregular or unsafe and illegal routes: the bill aims to prevent people coming to the UK for example in the back of lorries or on small boats without having leave to enter the UK before or upon arrival.

This bill proposes to prevent those entering the UK in this way from being able to claim asylum or other forms of leave in the UK. Instead, the Secretary of State would have a duty to remove such people to their home country or a safe third country, such as Rwanda, and could detain them in the process. The bill would ban such people from having permission to enter or remain in the UK or obtaining British citizenship in the future.

The bill is currently at the report stage in the House of Commons and is not yet law. It may still be amended before being enacted. If enacted, it will apply retrospectively. As will be addressed below, much like the Rwanda policy, the legality of the Illegal Migration Bill is likely to be challenged in the courts.

What Are the Illegal Migration Bills Main Provisions?

The current version of the Illegal Migration Bill makes provision for and/or about:

Each of these will be dealt with in turn below.

Removal of Persons who Have Entered or Arrived in Breach of Immigration Control

The Illegal Migration Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of people who enter the UK in breach of immigration control as soon as is reasonably practicable after their entry, subject to limited exceptions.

This duty automatically applies where a person meets the following four conditions:

This duty does not automatically apply to unaccompanied children, some victims of slavery and human trafficking or where other exceptions apply. See below.

A person may be removed to a country and/or territory:

A national from a country defined by the bill as a safe third country cannot be removed to that country where they have made an asylum and/or human rights claim in relation to that country under exceptional circumstances. Nationals from other countries cannot be removed to their home countries; they can only be removed to safe third countries.

A person will be given notice of their removal and of the country to which they will be removed, prior to their removal. They can only be removed after their time to challenge their removal has expired.

This removal duty could also apply to their dependent family members who do not have leave to enter or remain in the UK, are not a British or Irish citizen and do not have the right of abode in the UK.

Detention for Immigration Purposes

A person may be detained where:

A person of any age could be detained anywhere as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State, for a period which the Secretary of State deems reasonably necessary to enable a decision to be made on their case or their removal to be carried out. Family members subject to the removal duty may also be detained. There are limitations on the detention of children and pregnant women.

The bill allows applications for immigration bail after 28 days.

Unaccompanied Children

Although the removal duty does not automatically apply to unaccompanied children, the Secretary of State may make arrangements for their removal. The removal duty applies as soon as a person ceases to be an unaccompanied child, for example when they turn 18.

Victims of Slavery or Human Trafficking

This bill proposes to disapply protections and entitlements to assistance and support which are available to victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. This includes the prohibition on removing or requiring such people to leave the UK.

Leave to Enter or Remain, Settlement and Citizenship

The Illegal Migration Bill effectively bans people who have ever met the four conditions for removal, and in some cases their family members, from ever being granted entry clearance, leave to enter, leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

People who have met these conditions may only be granted such leave if necessary to comply with the Secretary of States obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or other international treaty to which the UK is a party, or in compelling circumstances, if appropriate.

Similarly, people who have ever met the four conditions for removal are not entitled to British citizenship. No exceptions apply. Their children could also be prevented from obtaining British citizenship if born in the UK on or after 07 March 2023.

Inadmissibility of Certain Protection and Human Rights Claims

The removal duty applies regardless of whether a person has made an asylum or protection, human rights, victim of slavery or human trafficking claim or an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the UK under this act. In such circumstances, their asylum or protection and/or human rights claim would be deemed inadmissible and could not be considered under the immigration rules. No right of appeal would arise from an inadmissibility decision.

Maximum Number of Persons Entering the UK Annually Using Safe and Legal Routes

The Illegal Migration Bills provides for the introduction of a cap on the number of persons who may enter the UK annually using safe and legal routes. These would be the only routes open to those seeking asylum in the UK.

Challenges to Decisions Made Pursuant to the Illegal Migration Bill

Removal can be challenged on the basis of exceptional circumstances, as addressed above. Refusals of challenges made on this basis cannot be appealed but could be challenged by judicial review. The removal duty continues to apply throughout such challenges.

Alternatively, removal can be challenged on the basis of serious irreversible harm, within 7 days of being given notice of removal. A decision will need to be made on such a challenge within 3 days. The duty to remove is suspended during this process. If successful, the duty will resume but removal will not be carried out. A change in circumstances may restart this process. An unsuccessful decision could be challenged, however the bill restricts the ways in which this could be done. Removal can also be challenged on the grounds of a factual mistake.

The Illegal Migration Bill severely limits challenges to detention, including by way of judicial review.

Is the Illegal Migration Bill Legal?

Pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998, all legislation in the UK must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Illegal Migration Bill contains a clause which disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and indicates that the bill may not be compatible with this convention.

Further, the bill creates challenges such as the fact that people will need to claim asylum from outside the UK, many people to whom the removal duty will apply will not be able to be removed due to a lack of safe third countries willing to receive them and through the introduction of a cap on such migration. Much like the Rwanda policy, it is likely that this bill will be challenged in the courts.

Continue reading here:
What Is the New Illegal Migration Bill 2023? - Lexology