Monday, 18 March 2019
Do States Have a Say in the Refugee Resettlement Program?
clear

The State of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the federal government in March 2017 claiming that the refugee resettlement program was an imposition by Washington over which the state had no control.1 The lawsuit is pending, but it highlights a deep problem with how the refugee resettlement program has evolved since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980.

This Backgrounder traces the history of the federal-state relationship regarding refugees, identifies flaws, and proposes solutions. Among the findings:

  • Repealing regulation 45 CFR 400.301 could have the immediate effect of allowing states to withdraw from the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) and end initial resettlement activities in the state.2
  • Today, states that withdraw from the program find the program continues in the state with the potential to operate on a larger scale than before withdrawal and with no state participation.
  • As implemented, states have a limited and ill-defined role in the federal USRAP.
  • Congress has shirked its responsibility to fully fund the refugee resettlement program.
  • The federal government has shifted much of the fiscal burden of refugee resettlement to states. Three years of reimbursement for the state portion of welfare programs used by refugees in the state, such as Medicaid, TANF and SSI, was authorized by the 1980 Refugee Act. This support was ended entirely.
  • The Act authorized Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) and Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) for three years for refugees who do not qualify for cash welfare and Medicaid. This support was gradually scaled back; today RCA and RMA are available for only eight months.
  • This cost shift to the states means the federal government is, in effect, using state funds to operate a federal program. In cases where a state asks to withdraw from the program, continuation of the program means the state has lost its ability to control its own budget and is deprived of its sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
  • Consultation among "stakeholders" about where refugees are to be settled is ill-defined in the USRAP. At times there is no meaningful consultation with state authorities.
  • The federal government uses a legally questionable regulation (45 CFR 400.301) rather than statutory law to allow private non-profits to operate in a state where the state has asked to withdraw from the program.
  • By one reading of the law, prior to 45 CFR 400.301, there was no authority to resettle refugees in states that chose to withdraw from the program. In other words, prior to 1994 when 45 CFR 400.301 was introduced, the states were — knowingly or not — participating in and paying for a voluntary program from which they had every right to withdraw at any time with the expectation that no refugees would be resettled in the state.

Introduction

According to the House Judiciary Committee press release introducing the "Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act" (H.R. 2826), the bill "prevents the resettlement of refugees in any state or locality that takes legislative or executive action disapproving resettlement within their jurisdiction."3 The press release notes that, "Currently, states or localities that do not want refugees resettled within their communities have no recourse."

In contrast to this concern over the lack of a state voice in refugee resettlement, official State Department policy affirms that "PRM [Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration] carefully considers all input received when approving placement plans in each proposed location, and accommodates the input received from the states to the extent feasible. In the overwhelming number of cases, PRM grants states' requests to reduce or hold steady the number of refugees to be resettled in a given community," according to a department spokesperson. Also, "Both reductions and increases as a result of state input to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program process happen regularly as a part of our ongoing consultative process," according to the spokesperson.4

So, which is it?

A brief history of the federal refugee program vis a vis states' rights and obligations will show that concern about the impact of the program upon states was paramount from the inception of the 1980 Refugee Act. Subsequent legislation, regulation, and congressional appropriations nullified initial promises of support and cut off any means the states may have once had of escaping the fiscal burden that the federal government has shifted to them.

The Refugee Act of 1980

In his paper recounting the conference committee process involving the Refugee Act, Senate sponsor Edward Kennedy noted:

Because the admission of refugees is a federal decision and lies outside normal immigration procedures, the federal government has a clear responsibility to assist communities in resettling refugees and helping them to become self-supporting. The basic issues here were the length of time of federal responsibility and the method of its administration. State and local agencies were insistent that federal assistance must continue long enough to assure that local citizens will not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible.5

Further, he wrote that the program would "assure full and adequate federal support for refugee resettlement programs by authorizing permanent funding for state, local and volunteer agency projects." (Emphasis added.)

The Refugee Act intended to insulate states from refugee costs. Unlike other legal immigrants, refugees are eligible for all federal welfare programs on the same basis as citizens upon arrival. (This is a lifetime entitlement for refugees who become citizens.) The Act authorized three years of federal medical support and cash support for those refugees who do not qualify for cash welfare or Medicaid. Additionally, the Act authorized federal reimbursement to the states for three years of the state's portion of Medicaid, TANF, SSI, etc. paid on behalf of each refugee resettled in the state. The ongoing cost for support of refugees on public assistance is, by far, the biggest portion of the overall cost of the program and is not accounted for in any official cost estimates.

The Act's three years of federal support was understood to be inadequate. The 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy seemed to well understand the fiscal issue for a federal program that passed its costs to state and local governments, finding that "Areas with high concentrations of refugees are adversely affected by increased pressures on schools, hospitals and other community services. Although the federal government provides 100 percent reimbursement for cash and medical assistance for three years, it does not provide sufficient aid to minimize the impact of refugees on community services."6

Even this admittedly inadequate federal support was to be drastically cut over the years.

The three-year time frame for federal reimbursement to states for the state contribution to federal welfare programs used by refugees was gradually shortened and halted completely by 1991, resulting in a significant cost shift to the states. For example, today about half of all refugees arriving in the last five years are in Medicaid. About a third of those who have been in the country for five years are in Medicaid — about twice the national average.7 Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and states, with the state share, on average, about 37 percent of total program costs. Denial of the authorized three years of Medicaid support means a cost shift to states that runs into the billions annually for Medicaid alone.8 (Public education, Medicaid, and ELL are likely the largest individual program costs that have fallen to states from refugee resettlement. Other state-funded welfare programs available, depending upon the state, include state general assistance, a state cost component for TANF and SSI, and other smaller state poverty programs.)

At the same time that federal support to the states for those refugees on welfare was trailing off, direct federal support to refugees who are not eligible for welfare was gradually reduced from the authorized three years. By 1991, this support, known as RMA (Refugee Medical Assistance) and RCA (Refugee Cash Assistance), was reduced to eight months — another significant cost shift to states and local communities.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/18/2019 9:03 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Monday, 18 March 2019
State of Tennessee Appeals Federal Judge’s Dismissal of Refugee Resettlement Lawsuit
clear

On Thursday, Tennessee appealed a federal judge’s ruling in March that dismissed the state’s lawsuit against the federal government’s resettlement of refugees in the state on 10th amendment grounds.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan representing the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and Tennessee legislators State Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver (R-Lancaster) and State Sen. John Stevens (R-Huntingdon) at no cost in the litigation, announced “it has filed an appeal of the federal district court decision which dismissed its case,” in a statement released on Thursday:

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens, challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program as a violation of the principles of State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The Notice of Appeal was filed this morning with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The appeal will be heard by a panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit.

“We are grateful to the designated representatives of the General Assembly, State Representatives Terri Lynn Weaver and William Lamberth and State Senator John Stevens, for authorizing us to continue this significant legal battle. This case involves critical constitutional issues regarding the appropriate balance between the powers of the federal government and the states. The district court decision dismissing this case conflicts with several U.S. Supreme Court opinions upholding State sovereignty against overreach by the federal government,” Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said in the statement.

The statement noted that the litigation was “[i]nformed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ observation that, ‘The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.’ ”

“Tennessee has authorized the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) to appeal the dismissal of its lawsuit which challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. Although Tennessee officially withdrew from this federal program in 2007, the federal government continues, to this day, to commandeer state tax dollars to fund it,” the statement continued.

You can read the rest of the statement here.

clear
Posted on 03/18/2019 9:02 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Monday, 18 March 2019
Renowned Appellate Lawyer To Argue Tennessee Refugee Resettlement Case For The Thomas More Law Center
clear

ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 13, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The Thomas More Law Center ("TMLC"), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that nationally prominent appellate lawyer John Bursch will represent the state of Tennessee and its General Assembly on March 19 before a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  

The Thomas More Law Center was retained by the Tennessee General Assembly in March 2017 to file a first-of-its-kind Tenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The federal government has violated state sovereignty by forcing Tennessee to continue paying for the program after Tennesseeopted out and exercised its right not to participate.  TMLC is appealing after a federal district court judge dismissed the case. The Law Center is representing Tennessee without charge.

Mr. Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general and past chair of the American Bar Association's Council of Appellate Lawyers, has an impressive client list ranging from Fortune 500 companies and foreign and domestic governments, to top public officials and industry associations in high-profile cases. His cases frequently involve pressing political and social issues, and five had at least $1 billion at stake.   

He has argued 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases and obtained summary reversal on three more, compiling a Supreme Court merits record of 10-2-2.  He has also argued 30 cases in state supreme courts, and dozens more in federal and state appellate courts across the country. A recent study included John on its "veritable who's who of Supreme Court litigators" list.

Although Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program in 2007, the federal government continues to commandeer state tax dollars to fund the federal program.

Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.  In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates on the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented:  "John's integrity, outstanding litigation skills, and impressive record on appeals prompted me to ask him to join our fight.  I can't think of anyone more qualified to represent Tennessee and the constitutional principles involved in this case."

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/18/2019 9:00 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Friday, 15 March 2019
Responding to The 74 Jumping on the Social-Emotional Learning Bandwagon
clear

An education news organization called The 74 (heavily funded by the Gates Foundation) recently jumped on the bandwagon for so-called social-emotional learning (SEL). This supposedly objective news source found little reason for skepticism about implementing SEL, as long as teachers are given sufficient resources and guidance. But such cheerleading masks deep concerns about whether schools should be manipulating students’ personalities via SEL. 

A brief response to The 74:

  • The 74 defines SEL as “teaching students skills such as self-regulation, persistence, empathy, self-awareness, and mindfulness” but admits that different research and mediaentities define SEL differently. This disagreement complicates SEL implementation and research/assessment, as evidenced in contradictory statements by The 74 and many other SEL proponents. As one researcher for CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) stated in a 2017 meta-analysis, “We know these skills are essential for children…” Yet in the same sentence, she said, “but there’s still a lot we don’t know about ways to enhance them.”
  • However SEL is defined, The 74 thinks this is what schools should be doing. But parents rightly object that the school (which means the government) has no business analyzing and trying to change a child’s psychological makeup. It’s one thing to enforce discipline in a classroom and encourage individual students to do their best; good teachers have always done that. It’s quite another to assess students on their compliance with highly subjective behavioral standards that may measure personality and individual or family beliefs more than objective shortcomings in performance. The school exists to assist parents in educating their children, not to replace them in that role. 
  • The 74 traces the concept of SEL back to the 1995 book Emotional Intelligence (which the news outlet apparently takes seriously)In fact, “emotional intelligence” has been debunkedas “a fraudulent concept, a fad, a convenient bandwagon, a corporate marketing scheme.” SEL first entered the federal education lexicon in 1994 as part of the Goals 2000 legislationsigned by President Clinton. These goals were “voluntary” as long as states were willing to give up their share of federal Title I money for not implementing them. This is analogous to recession-racked states’ “voluntarily” adopting the Common Core standards to qualify for federal money. 

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/15/2019 9:11 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Friday, 15 March 2019
Social-Emotional Learning: The Dark Side
clear

 BY 

Why would parents and teachers, tired of high-stakes testing in their public schools, wish to sign onto more assessment that tests, tracks, and profiles their child’s behavior online?

Good teachers have always built social skills into their classes. Helping children behave and work with each other is second nature to teaching. One can find nice social-emotional learning (SEL) activities.

But now states are setting up SEL standards about what children should think and feel. How does one standardize such things?

I originally noted that @SEL4MA has lovely activities for children. They do. As I look at Twitter now, I see terrific book titles for children and a lovely quote from Mister Rogers, whose upcoming movie I noted on Twitter yesterday.

But I have been informed that they have a dark side of their own. Their websitedescribes their endorsement of Social Impact Bonds and Pay for Success. One teacher told me they are “like stalkers” with many for-profit partners and enablers. This is troubling. It is also deceptive. It’s easy to see how one can be sucked into the nice activities for children, without realizing what this organization is truly advocating.

Just look at all these groups! Here’s the link.

Here are the concerns about SEL in general.

SEL is ill-defined, unproven and still connected to Common Core.

There’s a mish-mash of psycho-social, neuroscience talk, and programs are not always well-explained to parents, or well-understood. SEL covers so much.

“Core” is used often, because SEL is connected to Common Core. 

Where’s the research? The reliance of support is on a 2011 Meta-analysis of eight studies showing students do better academically with SEL activities, but there’s nothing to support the pervasive dominance of SEL assessment in schools.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/15/2019 9:09 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Friday, 15 March 2019
New Study Finds Multiple Problems with Push for Social-Emotional Learning in K-12 Education
clear

BOSTON – Social-emotional learning (SEL) has been billed as a transformational tool that will propel students to greater academic achievement and personal fulfillment.  Unfortunately, as a new Pioneer Institute study makes clear, the research evidence to back up these claims is thin and unpersuasive. Moreover, the risks SEL poses to student privacy and health are significant.

Proponents of SEL call for focusing less on academic content and knowledge in schools, and more on student attributes, mindsets, values, and behaviors.  Not only are the goals of SEL ill-defined, but they also raise significant, unanswered questions about what attitudes should be promoted.

“It’s one thing to direct your own moral, ethical, and emotional development or that of your children,” said Jane Robbins, co-author of “Social-Emotional Learning: K-12 Education as New-Age Nanny State.”  “But having a government vendor or unqualified public school officials implement an SEL curriculum based on coffee-table psychology is quite another.”

Educational software developers purport to have created products that can determine a number of sensitive personality traits through students’ interaction with digital platforms.  Much of this monitoring occurs without the consent of children or their parents. Some software — especially for video gaming — goes beyond assessing traits, and aims to encourage the production of students who are well suited for a workforce development-centered education.

“This technology, when coupled with SEL, will further spread the recent wave of amateur, unqualified psychoanalysis in schools,” said Dr. Karen Effrem, M.D., who co-authored the study with Robbins. “Given the uncertainty around diagnosis and treatment of mental or emotional problems, even by highly trained physicians, the SEL movement runs the risk of further increasing the trend toward dangerous over-diagnosis and over-medication of American schoolchildren.”

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/15/2019 9:08 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 14 March 2019
Renowned Appellate Lawyer To Argue Tennessee Refugee Resettlement Case For The Thomas More Law Center
clear

 

 

 

NOTE: I cannot begin to tell you how important this is nor how long we have been working on this issue.  Please pray for favor and success!!

March 13, 2019

   ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that nationally prominent appellate lawyer John Bursch will represent the state of Tennessee and its General Assembly on March 19 before a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 The Thomas More Law Center was retained by the Tennessee General Assembly in March 2017 to file a first-of-its-kind Tenth Amendment lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The federal government has violated state sovereignty by forcing Tennessee to continue paying for the program after Tennessee opted out and exercised its right not to participate. TMLC is appealing after a federal district court judge dismissed the case. The Law Center is representing Tennessee without charge.

   Mr. Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, has an impressive client list ranging from Fortune 500 companies and foreign and domestic governments, to top public officials and industry associations in high-profile cases. His cases frequently involve pressing political and social issues, and five had at least $1 billion at stake.   

   He has argued 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases and obtained summary reversal on three more, compiling a Supreme Court merits record of 10-2-2.  He has also argued 30 cases in state supreme courts, and dozens more in federal and state appellate courts across the country. A recent study included John on its “veritable who’s who of Supreme Court litigators” list.

   Although Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program in 2007, the federal government continues to commandeer state tax dollars to fund the federal program.

   Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty.  In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates on the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

   Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel, commented: “John’s integrity, outstanding litigation skills, and impressive record on appeals prompted me to ask him to join our fight.  I can’t think of anyone more qualified to represent Tennessee and the constitutional principles involved in this case.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

 

https://www.thomasmore.org/press-releases/renowned-appellate-lawyer-to-argue-tennessee-refugee-resettlement-case-for-the-thomas-more-law-center/?fbclid=IwAR0HLI2C0N3mlC3IL9FyaTAAshl6VpyVl5tthh0tkTEKig3RYtjfoFuGYQw

clear
Posted on 03/14/2019 5:51 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
Ilhan Omar Knows Exactly What She Is Doing
clear

There’s an old joke about upper-class British anti-Semitism: It means someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary. Ilhan Omar, the freshman representative from Minnesota, more than meets the progressive American version of that standard.

Like many self-described progressives, Omar does not like Israel. That’s a shame, not least because Israel is the only country in its region that embraces the sorts of values the Democratic Party claims to champion. When was the last time there was a gay-pride parade in Ramallah, a women’s rights march in Gaza, or an opposition press in Tehran? In what Middle Eastern country other than Israel can an attorney general indict a popular and powerful prime minister on corruption charges?

But America is a free country, and Omar is within her rights to think what she will about Israel or any other state. Contrary to a self-serving myth among Israel’s detractors, there’s rarely a social or reputational penalty for publicly criticizing Israeli policies today. It’s ubiquitous on college campuses and commonplace in editorial pagesAnd contrary to some recent comments from Senator Elizabeth Warren, no serious person claims criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitic. My last column called on Benjamin Netanyahu to resign. Last I checked, the Anti-Defamation League has not denounced me.

Omar, however, isn’t just a critic of Israel. As the joke has it, her objections to the Jewish state go well beyond what’s strictly necessary.

“Israel has hypnotized the world,” she tweeted in 2012. “May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” Last month, she wrote that U.S. support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby.” A few weeks after that, she told an audience in D.C. that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Confronted with criticism about the remark from her fellow Democrat Nita Lowey, she replied: “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”

Under intense pressure, Omar recanted those first two tweets. But she’s standing her ground on her more recent comments. It’s a case study in the ease with which strident criticism of Israel shades into anti-Semitism.

For those who don’t get it, claims that Israel “hypnotizes” the world, or that it uses money to bend others to its will, or that its American supporters “push for allegiance to a foreign country,” repackage falsehoods commonly used against Jews for centuries. People can debate the case for Israel on the merits, but those who support the state should not have to face allegations that their sympathies have been purchased, or their brains hijacked, or their loyalties divided.

It’s also a case study in the insidious cunning and latent power of anti-Jewish bigotry— proof that anti-Semitism is not, after all, merely the socialism of fools. Omar, I suspect, knows exactly what she is doing. She pleads ignorance when it suits her, saying she was unaware that her references to hypnosis and “Benjamins” might be considered offensive. Or she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress “Israeli-occupied” territory. Or she invokes free speech, telling Lowey “our democracy is built on debate” — as if the debate she wants to force is as innocuous as a dispute over a spending bill.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/13/2019 8:33 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
The Left’s Long-Simmering Anti-Semitism Problem
clear

The last week or so has seen the Democrat party in the USA racked by controversy by the anti-semitic statements from two new members of Congress: Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan.

Perhaps even more shocking than the statements that these two women made has been the leadership of the Democrat party’s ineptitude in dealing with them.

Everything seemed lined up for the House Democrat Caucus to condemn their statements and demand an apology, but that effort fell apart at the 11th hour, apparently because the Democrat members of the House couldn’t agree on the matter of anti-Semitism.

While shocking to some, this came as no surprise to me.

Why?

Because of my years of experience working at the Center for Security Policy.

From 2006 until about 2011, my primary responsibility at the Center for Security Policy was leading our Divest Terror Initiative. That initiative was chiefly focused on getting states to stop investing their taxpayer-supported pension systems in foreign companies that were doing business in and with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That initiative was very successful and resulted in some 26 states divesting their pension systems from Iran. The initiative was unfortunately derailed when President Obama struck the infamous deal with Iran over its nuclear program, substantially curtailing international sanctions against Iran, which were a key basis for the divestment movement.

Throughout the years I worked on the Divest Terror Initiative, I worked closely with outstanding organizations and talented individuals dedicated to the security of America’s ally, Israel.

This was a truly bipartisan effort, with state legislators from both parties sponsoring and supporting Iran divestment for a variety of reasons.

There was one aspect that I found troubling however.

During my work on the Initiative, I was exposed to a disturbing level of anti-semitism from young staffers across America who seemed to constantly throw out slurs in conversations about some of the allied organizations with which I worked.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/13/2019 8:32 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
Jeffress: Don't expect Dems to tone down their anti-Semitism
clear

Leaders of two Christian ministries are sounding off on the anti-Semitic resolution that almost was, saying the version that ultimately made it to the floor of the House reflects not only the cowardice of Democratic leaders but also the "godlessness" that's taking over the party.

On Thursday evening, the House overwhelmingly passed what started out as a resolution to call out Representative Ilhan Omar and her anti-Semitic comments – but it ended up being something completely different. What began as a resolution of condemnation of Omar and her remarks morphed into a condemnation of "white supremacy" as the cause of all manner of hate. Omar's name was nowhere in the measure.

In the two months-plus that Omar has been in Congress, the Minnesota Democrat has managed to throw out several anti-Semitic statements that were offensive enough to convince some of her Democratic colleagues in the House that they needed to speak out against her. But Dr. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas tells OneNewsNow the watered-down resolutionwas a cowardly retreat by Democrats' leadership.

"They don't want to deal with anti-Semitism in their own ranks. I think it's a sign, certainly, of the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party," says the Southern Baptist pastor.

Omar's young freshmen colleagues – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) among them – led the revolt to give cover to anti-Semitism and basically hijacked the resolution. Jeffress argues it is clear the House leadership was afraid to stand up to the young radicals, who many are calling the new leaders of the Democratic Party.

"I also think it's a sign of the godlessness of the Democratic Party," Jeffress continues. "This is the party that was trying to take [the phrase] 'So help me God' out of an oath recently for committee hearings; it tried to remove God from the [party] platform a few years ago; it supports the killing of children in the womb and now even infanticide."

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/13/2019 8:30 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
Pelosi: Ilhan Omar Did Not "Understand The Full Weight Of The Words She Used"
clear

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi answered questions about the controversial anti-Semitic comments from freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar at her weekly press briefing Thursday morning. 

Pelosi said "she may need to explain" what she meant but "I feel confident that her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude."

"She didn't have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people where these words have a history and a cultural impact that might have been unknown to her," Pelosi said about Omar.

REPORTER: Do you think that Ilhan Omar understands why her comments were problematic? And what happens if this happens again?

SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: First of all, thank you for the question. I don't think the congresswoman is -- perhaps appreciated the full weight of how it's heard by other people. I don't believe it was intended in an anti-Semitic way. 

But the fact is that's how it was interpreted. We have to remove all doubt, as we have done over and over again. We're working now on a resolution on the floor that will, again, speak out against anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-white supremacy and all the forms it takes, that our country has no place for this. 

We voted on a resolution on anti-Semitism just recently. 

When I was -- a week and a half ago or so in -- at the Munich conference and then in Brussels at the NATO meeting, in every meeting, at every level, at the highest levels, our delegation impressed upon our European allies the importance of fighting anti-Semitism in our countries. 

This is well before the Ilhan statement that emerged this weekend. 

But when it did, it was important for me to speak to the member first before we would proceed. She was in Africa. After I spoke to her, members had different tacks they wanted to take. Some wanted to make individual statements, some thinking we should have a resolution. I thought the resolution should enlarge the issue to anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-white supremacy -- and it should not mention her name, and that's what we're working on, something that is one resolution addressing all those forms of hatred and not mentioning her name. Because it's not about her. It's about these forms of hatred. 

REPORTER: She hasn't apologized? Does she need to apologize?

PELOSI: She may need to explain that she did not -- It's up to her to explain. But I do not believe she understood the full weight of the words. When you're a congressman --when you are an advocate out there, as I was. I appreciate all the enthusiasm that comes into Congress. I told you that before. That was me pushing a stroller and carrying those signs. I understand how advocates come in with their enthusiasms. 

But when you cross that threshold in the Congress, your words weigh much more than when you're shouting at somebody outside. And I feel confident that her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude. But that she didn't have a full appreciation of how they landed on other people where these words have a history and a cultural impact that might have been unknown to her.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/13/2019 8:28 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
The fear in Nancy Pelosi’s eyes is what I’ll always remember about the Ilhan Omar Affair
clear

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t turn away from a fight, but turned away from a fight with Omar. That tells you how serious the situation is.

The repeated antisemitic comments from Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar, while condemnable, are all too familiar to those of us who have closely followed the anti-Israel movement.

Charges of dual loyalty or disloyalty lodged against Jews predate the creation of the State of Israel by many centuries. Those charges are a core accusation of the oldest hate.

 

The dual and disloyalty cards are prominent features of the current anti-Israel movement, including by anti-Zionist leftist Jews. The nefarious “Israel Lobby” has been a prominent theme, as has the term “Israel Firster.” So when Omar makes similar accusations, consider me not the least bit surprised.

Yet the Omar comments and the Democrat and media reactions have shaken the mainstream mostly-liberal Jewish community, which still overwhelmingly supports Israel.

There have been some very good takes on the Omar Affair, and its impact. Here are three good takes, among dozens:

Russ Douthat — This is what the left seems to want in the Omar controversy, and what I suspect it will eventually get: a left-of-center politics that remembers the Holocaust as one great historical tragedy among many, that judges Israel primarily on its conservative and nationalist political orientation, rather than on its status as a Jewish sanctuary, and that regards the success of American Jews as a reason for them to join white Gentiles in check-your-privilege self-criticism, ceding moral authority to minority groups who are more immediately oppressed. (This last shift was helpfully distilled by James Clyburn, the Democratic House whip, who defended Omar last week by basically saying that the Holocaust was a long time ago and her personal experience as a refugee and Muslim immigrant was more immediate and relevant.)

Michael Walzer — … Omar is entitled to her falsehoods; it is, as we say, a free country. But the falsehoods have to be given their proper name. If Jewish Democrats don’t get tough about this, they will soon find themselves unable to be tough about anything. They will be pushed out of the Democratic Party just as Jews are being pushed out of the Labour Party in the U.K. Long ago, August Bebel gave a name to left-wing anti-Semitism: “the socialism of fools.” Now the fools are in Congress.

Roger Simon — Now we are living in another world of rising anti-Semitism, which some, for their own convenience or perhaps a misbegotten nostalgia, like to ascribe equally or even disproportionally to the right, when it is clear the new anti-Semitism, from our college campuses to the streets of Paris, is coming largely from Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers augmented and multiplied by the left. It is further enhanced by social and ethnic groups enraged — with the encouragement of the Democratic Party — by identity politics. In the world of intersectionality, someone must be the low man or woman on the totem pole of blame and evil.

It was a shock to the faith that it can’t happen here to watch the toughest Democratic Party politicians run scared of the anti-Israel far-left base of the party employing centuries-old antisemitic tropes.

The focus on antisemitism, which sparked the need for a House resolution, ended up buried in an avalanche of criticisms of numerous other hates in order to appease the intersectional left and to protect Omar.

I’m no fan of Nancy Pelosi, as anyone who has read my writings for the past decade would know. But whatever else she was or is, she’s tough and takes no prisoners. Except when it came to Ilhan Omar.

For me, I keep coming back to watching the fear in Pelosi’s eyes as she tried to explain away Omar’s words as being the product of someone who didn’t know what she was saying, as if Omar were a child.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/13/2019 8:25 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Tuesday, 12 March 2019
Exclusive poll: Young Americans are embracing socialism
clear

Generation Z has a more positive view of the word "socialism" than previous generations, and — along with millennials — are more likely to embrace socialistic policies and principles than past generations, according to a new Harris Poll given exclusively to Axios.

Why it matters: The word "socialism" does not carry the same stigma it did in the past, now that it has been resurrected by celebrity politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Young people's political views often change as they grow older, but their support for socialistic policies is a sign that the old rules of politics are changing fast.

Gen Z and millennials are projected to make up 37% of the electorate in 2020, and what they're looking for in a presidential candidate is shifting.

  • The top three voting issues for Gen Z, according to the Harris poll, are mass shootings, racial equality, and immigration policy and treatment of immigrants.
  • Millennials' top issues are access to health care, global warming/climate change and mass shootings.
  • Gen X's top issues are: access to health care, terrorism/national security and the national debt — the same top issues for boomers and older.

Go deeper:

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/12/2019 8:26 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Monday, 11 March 2019
Green New Deal Reveals The Naked Truth Of Agenda 21
clear

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action –  just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington PostEsquire magazine, Wingnut WatchMother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/11/2019 8:39 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Saturday, 9 March 2019
Are Democrats OK with the party's leftward march? | Opinion
clear

 

Mark Green, Guest ColumnistPublished 7:00 p.m. CT March 4, 2019

New Congressman Mark Green questions why the Democratic Party embraces the Green New Deal, Medicare for All and no border wall

A question for Democrats reading this message. Do you know and approve of what top members in your party are pushing?

Let’s begin with infanticide. Are Democrats truly accepting killing babies outside the womb now? A Democrat head of a state, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, last month casually defended it.

He explained to radio listeners that an infant already delivered “would be kept comfortable” while a mother and doctor discussed letting the child die. When pressed for clarification, he explained that the scenario he envisioned involved a baby with deformities.

Assuming he meant Down syndrome or something similar – this is an outrageous claim. If you go and ask people with Down syndrome – they think they’re life is worth living.

Green New Deal and Medicare for All would be costly for America

How about the newly-unveiled Green New Deal? This massive overhaul of the entire U.S. economy was reportedly drafted over a single weekend by a bunch of new staffers and environmental activists. The visionaries behind this massive bill are hoping to eliminate air travel, gut and rebuild every building in America, eliminate 99 percent of cars, eliminate nuclear energy and ban affordable energies like natural gas. 

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the authors of the Green New Deal, laments that "we aren’t sure we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows" fast enough to get down to zero carbon emissions. But do not worry, the authors tell us – if passed into law, the government will guarantee each and every one of us a high-paying job, free education for life, a house, free money and healthy food for all Americans.

Or how about the various proposals to give free healthcare to everyone? The most popular one of these plans – Medicare for all – was introduced by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders and has received the enthusiastic endorsement of 2020 Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Cautious estimates of the cost of Sanders’ plan start at $32.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Even if we implement the most aggressive tax plan to seize and redistribute wealth from the top 1 percent we only raise $720 billion over 10 years, or 2 percent of what Medicare for All costs. And, keep in mind our revenue over that same period will only be approximately $40 trillion – unless, of course, this bill is passed and we tailspin towards a second Great Depression.

We should not incentivize immigrants to cross the U.S. border illegally

Democrat officials are offering homes, voting rights, welfare and taxpayer-funded education to anyone and everyone who is able to sneak into the interior of the United States.

It’s been estimated that each illegal border-crosser is a net fiscal burden of $74,722 to the United States, and that’s before all the goodies above are added. We have one primary agency in charge of identifying and apprehending illegal immigrants – Immigration and Customs Enforcement – and Democrat officials are demanding we eliminate it.

Instead, they tell us to give everyone amnesty – something one researcher estimated to cost $2 trillion.

With all the free programs and sympathy available to illegal aliens, it’s no wonder they are flooding over our southern border. According to government figures, nearly 400,000 migrants were apprehended attempting to illegally enter the U.S. in fiscal year 2018 alone. But, along the way, one in three women are sexually assaulted on their trip north. They also have to pass through something called the ‘route of death.’

Do we really want to incentivize people to make this trek?

A wall and a crackdown on illegal immigration would surely disincentivize migrants from coming here. But the Democratic speaker of the House slammed the idea as ‘immoral.’

It hasn’t always been this way. Democrats, up until very recently, were a lot closer to the middle. John F. Kennedy argued in favor of supply-side economics and fought for tax cuts. Bill Clinton described Democrats’ policy outlook on abortion as "safe, legal and rare." Bill Clinton and Dianne Feinstein are recorded decrying rampant illegal immigration. Barack Obama attacked companies for hiring illegal immigrants.

Now the Democrat Party is marked by a radical shift to the left. The question I pose to you now, dear Democrat reader, is are you okay with that?

U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Clarksville, represents Tennessee’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2019/03/05/mark-green-democratic-party-kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/3016010002/?fbclid=IwAR2LXnQ10xyLVVGzqsqOEg1RaLw71ziuysYqIKOyJilqZJFXbv4qW0UNLpM

 

clear
Posted on 03/09/2019 6:53 PM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 7 March 2019
Nearly 200 people test positive for mumps at immigration detention facility in Texas
clear

Some 186 people, including staff, have exhibited symptoms of mumps at immigration facilities in Texas, the Texas Tribune reported. During the entirety of 2016, there were 191 cases in the state.

Here's what we know

According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, symptoms of mumps include fever, headache, muscle aches, tiredness, loss of appetite, and swollen and tender salivary glands. Most people who come down with this sickness "recover completely in a few weeks."

The disease is spread through saliva or mucus, when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or touches something with the infection on their hands. Symptoms can appear anywhere from 12 to 25 days after someone is infected, the CDC said. Because of the long gestation period for mumps, it can slip past the mandatory health screenings that take place when someone is booked at one of these facilities.

It is not clear how many detainees entered the facility infected, and how many contracted the infection while they were in custody. At least some of the infected people were employees who worked at the facility, the Tribune reported.

While cases of mumps still happen in the United States, preventative vaccines for the disease are commonly administered to children. This has greatly decreased the prevalence of the disease.

A spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services told the Tribune that those infected were anywhere between 13 and 66 years old.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/07/2019 8:49 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 7 March 2019
The Cost of Providing Health Care to Illegal Aliens
clear

The most objective piece of writing on illegal immigration to emerge from the legacy media last week appeared under the title, “If We Want to End the Border Crisis, It’s Time to Give Trump His Wall.” It was penned by Andrew Sullivan, of all people, yet he admitted something few progressives have really accepted: “He won the election. He is owed this.” Sullivan’s regular readers will reflexively disagree, but his reasoning is irrefutable. So, most will have to revert to the “prohibitive cost” canard. In reality, the wall will easily pay for itself in savings to our health care system.

The cost of the border wall has been projected by numerous entities, and the estimates vary wildly. The Trump administration and the GOP congressional leadership have estimated its cost at $12 billion to $15 billion. Senate Democrats claim that the price tag would be $67 billion. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has projected the cost at $21.6 billion. Going with the Trump administration figure, the savings to our health care system should pay for the thing in a decade. Using the DHS figure, it will take far less time than a typical mortgage. Specifically, about 20 years.

This depends on what we pay for the health care we provide to illegal immigrants and how many will be stopped by the wall. Neither of these figures is easy to calculate, but it’s clear that most estimates we see in the media understate both. To hit the payoff goals noted above we would need to stop 500,000 people per year from illegally entering the country and eliminate an equal number from the Medicaid and Obamacare rolls. That would save $1.3 billion annually in medical costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, we spend nearly twice that on illegal aliens for emergency Medicaid alone:

Federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants.

Most of this money pays for delivering babies when patients materialize in emergency rooms in active labor. Pursuant to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), all hospitals must provide emergency medical treatment to all comers regardless of ability to pay or any other consideration. It is common for women of obviously foreign descent and no English to appear in ERs just as they are about to give birth. Hospitals cannot turn them away (and wouldn’t do so if they could). Medicaid retroactively covers them and pays some of the treatment costs.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/07/2019 8:48 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 7 March 2019
Border Patrol Apprehends 7,000 Illegal Aliens in One Week, in One Sector
clear

Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector continues to apprehend large numbers of illegal aliens, averaging nearly 1000 per day.

RGV Sector leads the nation in illegal alien apprehensions, the sector now accounts for nearly 50% of all arrest along the entire Southwest border.

Yesterday, RGV Sector agents arrested more than 1,300 subjects, which marks the second time in two weeks this number has been reached.

A majority of these arrests are family units and unaccompanied children from Central and South America, which greatly impact the number of agents available to carry out the border security mission within the RGV Sector.

At the current rate, the Rio Grande Valley Sector is on pace to reach 240,000 apprehensions for this fiscal year.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/07/2019 8:47 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 7 March 2019
2019 ON TRACK TO EXPERIENCE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN A DECADE
clear

Unusually high illegal immigration in January and February at the U.S.-Mexico border has put fiscal year 2019 on pace to experience the highest levels of unauthorized migration in a decade.

Roughly 58,000 migrants were detained at the U.S. southern border in January. Preliminary figures show the rate is only climbing, with over 70,000 recorded migrant apprehensions in February. In fact, one day in February made history as being the largest number of “family unit apprehensions” ever recorded on a single day. The Department of Homeland Security is expecting even larger numbers for March and April, putting 2019 in position to witness record levels of illegal immigration.

“The numbers are staggering, and we’re incredibly worried that we will see another huge increase in March,” a Homeland Security Official said to The Washington Post.

Critics of President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration for the southern border point out that these numbers, while they are rising, are still historically lower than the levels of illegal immigration seen in the early 1990s and 2000s. However, it’s the type of illegal immigration, border patrol officials say, that is causing the crisis.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/07/2019 8:46 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 7 March 2019
Nielsen declares migration crisis 'spiraling out of control,' warns it will get 'even worse'
clear

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued a dire assessment Wednesday of the migration crisis on the southern border, telling a House committee that illegal immigration is “spiraling out of control” and predicting that crisis will “get even worse” in the coming months.

And in a startling revelation, she said Customs and Border Protection is on track to apprehend almost 1 million illegal immigrants at the border this year.

“In February, we saw a 30 percent jump over the previous month, with agents apprehending or encountering nearly 75,000 aliens,” Nielsen told the House Committee on Homeland Security. “This is an 80 percent increase over the same time last year. And I can report today that CBP is forecasting the problem will get even worse this spring as the weather warms up.”

SOUTHERN BORDER AT 'BREAKING POINT' AFTER MORE THAN 76,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TRIED CROSSING IN FEBRUARY, OFFICIALS SAY

“We want to strengthen legal immigration and welcome more individuals through a merit-based system that enhances our economic vitality and the vibrancy of our diverse nation. We also will continue to uphold our humanitarian ideals,” she said. “But illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of control and threatening public safety and national security.”

Nielsen’s testimony came a day after the Trump administration released figures showing that more than 2,000 migrants are apprehended each day, a total of 268,000 since the beginning of the fiscal year. DHS reports that the Border Patrol is apprehending illegal immigrants at the highest rate since 2007.

“We face a crisis -- a real, serious, and sustained crisis at our borders. We have tens of thousands of illegal aliens arriving at our doorstep every month. We have drugs, criminals, and violence spilling into our country every week,” she said.

Nielsen raised concerns not only about the sheer number of crossings but the specific rise in families and unaccompanied children.

HOUSE REJECTS TRUMP EMERGENCY DECLARATION, SETTING UP POTENTIAL VETO SHUTDOWN

“Over 60 percent of the current flow are family units and unaccompanied alien children, and 60 percent are non-Mexican,” she said.

Figures released by DHS on Tuesday said that apprehensions of family unit aliens and unaccompanied children surged by 338 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

Nielsen predicted disaster if migrant flows escalate: “Our capacity is already severely strained, but these increases will overwhelm the system entirely.”

“This is not a ‘manufactured’ crisis. This is truly an emergency,” she said.

Click here to read full article.

clear
Posted on 03/07/2019 8:43 AM by Bobbie Patray
clear
clear
Showing 21-41 of 50 [Previous 20] [Next 20]