A bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that is intended to stop border separations would prevent federal law enforcement officials from arresting criminals who are parents anywhere inside the U.S. as the bill does not make any distinction between illegal immigrant children at the border and children who are U.S. citizens and who already live in the U.S.
The bill provides that “[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim.
Malor breaks down the four immediate warning signs in the bill:
1. The bill does not limit the scope of its regulation to agencies that are involved with the border crisis as the term “designated agency” is defined as “the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.”
2. The term “agent or officer” is only partially defined to include contractors but otherwise includes every federal employee, meaning that the law would apply to “FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS) in the exercise of their everyday duties.”
3. In the bill,the term “child” is defined as any person under the age of 18 and who does not have a permanent immigration status. Malor explains that this definition “includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18,” noting that “citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise.”
4. When the bill seeks to define the geographic area where it would apply by stating “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border,” it does a very poor job of actually limiting the scope of the area it covers, as Malor writes, “That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States and the vast majority of people living in it,” adding, “Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border.”
Portland’s foundational feminist bookstore, and the inspiration for Portlandia’s famous “feminist bookstore” sketches, announced Monday that it’s going out of business at the end of June because of white supremacy, the Patriarchy, racism, and the decline of modern feminism.
The store, called In Other Words opened in 1993 with a mission to “strengthen resistance against a culture of oppression,” and “to create a safer space where women, people of color, queer, trans, gender variant folks, workers, and those who live at the intersections of these identities can organize for self-determination and build a sustainable movement for liberation.”
They do mention, in passing, that they also sell books, a capitalistic pursuit of which they are no doubt ashamed.
According to their statement, they aren’t closing as a result of fewer books sold, but because, in this woke day and age, they couldn’t exorcise their own interior demons. Confronted with their own white supremacy and regressive ideas of gender, In Other Words announced it could no longer contribute to the Portland community.
They faced an “inability to ‘reform and re-envision’ a space founded on ‘white, cis feminism (read: white supremacy),” they say on their website.
And so, the era must end.
The store is most famous for serving as one of the backdrops for the IFC channel show, Portlandia, starring Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein, who impersonated the store’s humorless, angry feminist-archetype saleswomen for a “feminist bookstore” sketch where the pair, dressed in wigs, operated their own Portland feminist bookstore called “Women and Women First.”
After the staff of In Other Words saw the sketch, which had been filmed in the shop, they railed against Portlandia and accused it of adulterating their precious stacks of women-authored tomes, and lampooning the very serious work of feminist bookstore owners. The show, In Other Words staff said, had “a net negative effect on our neighborhood and the city of Portland as a whole,” (they added plenty of four letter words to drive home their point).
Community members are hoping to raise enough money to keep the bookstore open as a “community center,” which is mostly what it was anyway since profit is evil.
BREAKING: Rep Mark Meadows Unmasks Two Unidentified Trump-Hating FBI Officials Referred For Punishment
by Cristina Laila June 19, 2018
BREAKING NEWS.
Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows unmasked two of the previously unidentified, anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by the Inspector General.
These FBI attorneys do not work in “counterintelligence” as the FBI previously claimed as an excuse to withhold their names from the public.
Rep. Mark Meadows unmasked two of the unidentified FBI officials in the IG report.
One of the FBI lawyers is Sally Moyer, the other is Kevin Kleinsman (sp).
Paul Sperry reported: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) just outed 2 of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG & both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in “counterintelligence” as the FBI claimed as an excuse to w/hold their names
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) just outed 2 of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG & both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in “counterintelligence” as the FBI claimed as an excuse to w/hold their names
Sperry: House Judiciary member Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) unmasked the ID of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG. One is SALLY MOYER who allegedly was having a romantic relationship with a male FBI attorney, mirroring Page & Strzok
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
House Judiciary member Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) unmasked the ID of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by IG. One is SALLY MOYER who allegedly was having a romantic relationship with a male FBI attorney, mirroring Page & Strzok
Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed on Tuesday in a joint hearing with the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees the FBI is refusing to allow Trump-hating agents to be named publicly.
Rep Ted Poe (R-TX) asked Inspector General Horowitz about the unnamed, anti-Trump FBI officials in his review on the bureau’s (mis)handling of the Hillary email investigation.
Horowitz said the FBI is withholding the names from the public “because they work on counterintelligence.”
“So the FBI does not want their names released?” Rep Ted Poe (R-TX) asked Horowitz.
FBI employees were simply referred to as “FBI attorney 2,” or “FBI employee.”
More stonewalling and lies from the FBI!
This is a breaking story…please refresh page for updates.
Comments
As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.
To rephrase that more bluntly and cynically: Is Schumer willing to back Cruz’s bill or is this issue simply too useful to him politically as an unsolved problem?
Read this if you missed it last night for background on Cruz’s bill. The key point is that it *doesn’t* demand all sorts of enforcement concessions from the left. Democrats have complained all week that it’s immoral for Trump to separate kids from their parents and then invite Congress to reunite them by passing legislation that includes all of the things on his immigration wish list — a wall, limits on chain migration, the end of the diversity visa lottery. That would be legislative hostage-taking, essentially ransoming the kids to force Democrats to give him what he wants. Cruz’s bill avoids that. Under his proposal families get reunited, we double the number of immigration judges, and each asylum applicant has their case resolved in 14 days. Why shouldn’t Schumer take it?
When I floated that question on Twitter, Democrats came back with two objections, one decent, one not so much. The not-so-much one: Why should they back Cruz’s bill when Dianne Feinstein floated her own proposal to resolve this issue 10 days ago, one that has the support of every Democrat in the caucus? The short answer to that is “Because they’re in the minority. Why should the majority rubber-stamp their bill instead of crafting one themselves that achieves the core goal of both parties?”
But if you don’t like that response, let me invite you to read Gabe Malor’s assessment of Feinstein’s bill. He’s something of an expert on the subject and he’s concluded that it’s bananas. By applying the “no child separation” rule to basically any federal law enforcement official within 100 miles of any port of entry — which includes every international airport in the U.S. — the Democratic bill would make it so that any person with a child who’s detained by a federal officer for any reason would either have to be jailed with his/her child or let go. It’s not limited to immigration or to the border. Bananas:
The ridiculous consequences of passing the Democrats’ hastily written mess are easily demonstrated. Let’s say FBI agents hear about a drug trafficker and murderer in Buffalo, New York. The agents get a warrant to raid the drug trafficker’s house and arrest him. While they do so, they discover the drug trafficker’s minor daughter is home with him. Feinstein’s bill would prohibit the FBI agents, while arresting a drug trafficker, from separating this child from her father.
This is not a farfetched hypothetical. FBI agents are agents of DOJ (a designated agency) and Buffalo is within 100 miles of the border. So long as the daughter is either a U.S. citizen or an alien without permanent status, the FBI agents would be unable to proceed with normal law enforcement activities. The agents would be forced to choose between booking the drug trafficking murderer into jail with his daughter or not booking him into jail at all.
Panicky lawmaking often produces absurd results, and this one presents law enforcement with the choice between keeping children with their criminal parents while prosecuting them almost anywhere in the United States and for any crime whatsoever, or not prosecuting criminal parents at all. The legislation is not limited to unlawful entry prosecutions, to migrants, or (absent amendment) even to alien children.
It’s a nonstarter as written, but it’s not surprising that it would have glaring errors of this sort. The point of Feinstein’s bill wasn’t to pass and provide workable legislation, it was to lay down a marker for where Democrats stand. She threw something together in 10 minutes that her party could point at as proof that they’re against child separation for illegal families — and every other family, it seems. Oops.
The better objection from Dems to Cruz’s bill is that it too is a nonstarter because of its 14-day framework. That isn’t nearly enough time for asylum applicants to gather facts for their applications, and immigration judges would be under such intense time pressure to cope that they’d have little choice but to give snap judgments. Meritorious asylum applicants would end up being rejected. That’s a fair point; ideally the 14-day timeline could be negotiated out to something more forgiving. But not too forgiving: The reason Cruz proposed a timeline that tight in the first place is to avoid catch-and-release of asylum applicants. Detaining families together for 14 days isn’t much of a hardship. Detaining them for 90 days, say, would be more of a hardship for both the feds and the family itself. That’s where the compromise needs to happen. Republicans will go along with keeping families together if Democrats go along with some as-yet-undetermined extended period of family detention in lieu of catch and release. That’s the starting point for Schumer — if he values keeping families together more than he values using this issue as a midterm bludgeon against Trump.
Because it could be a very heavy bludgeon, particularly against the centrist Republicans in the House who have been scrambling lately to try to get a vote on DACA.
The fire hose of fake news from the establishment media this week on the issue of illegal immigrant families separated at the border is designed to mislead the American people — and to distract from Trump’s recent successes.
Here are the facts — 13 truths the media do not want you to know about President Trump’s legal, humane, and moral handling of adults and children who enter our country illegally.
Trump Is Only Enforcing the Law
The establishment media’s manufactured narrative about the necessary and moral separation of illegal alien parents from their children is designed with the specific purpose of spreading the fake news that, only as a means to be cruel, President Trump is somehow making all of this up as he goes along.
In truth, Trump is only complying with and enforcing the law, which is his constitutional duty and responsibility.
Trump’s Only Choice Is to Separate Illegal Alien Families
When an illegal alien crosses the border into the U.S., he is a lawbreaker, and, like any lawbreaker (including American citizens), he is put into the criminal justice system.
This is the law.
Obviously, when an illegal alien is in custody, he is housed in an adult detention center. For obvious reasons, it would be illegal for Trump to “reunite” this family by allowing children to live in adult detention centers.
Keep in mind that when we are this early in the process, we do not even know if this is a real family unit. It is not uncommon for illegal aliens (including criminals) to pretend the children they are traveling with are their own. They do so in the hope this special family status will result in them being released (this madness is known as “catch and release”) into America with nothing more than a court date — a date many never show for, most especially those with criminal intent.
And so, while the illegal adult is held in an adult detention center, the migrant child is cared for in shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Generally, the adult illegal is processed quickly, sentenced to time served, and the family is quickly reunited during the deportation process.
In other words, in order to keep the family unit together, we can either put children in adult detention centers (unthinkable), put adults in child detention centers (unthinkable), or hold no one, which means “catch and release,” which means letting even more illegal immigrants loose to live in our country illegally.
The only moral and legal option here is to temporarily separate families while the criminal justice system runs its course.
The Left Wants Illegal Aliens to Enjoy Privileges Denied to American Citizens
If an American citizen breaks the law and is funneled into the justice system, he is separated from his family and children. This American citizen is not allowed to keep his family with him in a detention center.
Once again, our media want illegal aliens to enjoy special rights and privileges American citizens do not enjoy.
One more point…
These migrants are guilty of walking minor children through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime (crossing a border illegally).
If you or I walked a child through miles and miles of desert with the intent of committing a crime, child protective services would take our children away (and should).
Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated
If you cross the border illegally and claim asylum, you are still a lawbreaker. Regardless of your intent, crossing the border illegally automatically puts you in the criminal justice system, where you will obviously be separated from family.
These asylum seekers are choosing to break the law, are choosing to be separated from family.
Asylum seekers who respect our laws, by turning themselves in at legal points of entry, are not being separated. Over-crowding due to the abuse of this policy might eventually make this impossible, but it is up to Congress to allocate more funds.
Trump Is Correct About the Loophole
In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.
Trump is wisely choosing to do the latter (for a number of moral reasons I will explain later).
A case involving an illegal border crosser not seeking asylum is usually adjudicated before the 20 days are up, which means the family unit is reunited during deportation and no foster care is needed. This, obviously, is the best case scenario.
Those who cross the border illegally and then claim asylum status (an important distinction from asylum seekers who obey the law) are another story, because the asylum process almost always exceeds the 20 days, and this is the law the Trump administration wants changed.
By speeding up the asylum process, the family unit can be reunited faster, either in the deportation process (if asylum is not granted — and this process is frequently abused) or in the resettlement process (if asylum is granted).
Another option is to end the 20-day limit so foster care does not become necessary. Parent and child can remain in the detention centers until the asylum process is settled.
“Reuniting” Families Would Be a Disaster for Countless Children
Again, the only way to “keep a family together” is to allow illegals to pour into our country.
This policy would be a total disaster, especially for the children.
If word gets out that America automatically allows illegal border crossers with small children loose into America just because they have minor children, this would only further incentivize those who engage in the child abuse of dragging children along on the unbelievably dangerous trek across the border — or, even worse, both exploiting them for catch-and-release and then trafficking them after making it into the country.
No one who truly cares about these children wants to further incentivize that kind of abuse.
Obama and Democrats Incentivized This ‘Family Separation’
Until Obama came along, illegal border crossings primarily involved young, single men. Obama incentivized the idea of dragging minor children along on this dangerous journey (where many children are sexually assaulted) through his policy of “catch and release.”
Once word got out that illegals with small children would be let loose into America, the number of children crossing the border exploded.
Again, the last thing decent people want is for the American government to further incentivize the cruel act of bringing small children along on this brutal trip across the border, which is exactly what Trump is hoping to stop with his zero tolerance policy.
Barack Obama Separated Illegal Alien Families, Media Said Nothing
Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, families were indeed separated. Obama, of course, rarely prosecuted, even though the law calls for it.
Neither Democrats nor the media cared about family separation then, which proves this manufactured and coordinated uproar is only about politics.
Political journalism needs a bit of housecleaning on this child border crisis. I’ll start. It was going on during the Obama years in large numbers. I never wrote about it. Was completely unaware, in large part because few reporters were interested enough to create critical mass.
To my colleagues out there chasing Pulitzers over this: Why didn’t today’s critical mass form when we were looking at unaccompanied minors by the tens of thousands in 2014. Why didn’t those kids matter as much as these? Few of us chased those stories down with any vigor.
The only reason the media suddenly came to care about family separation is as a means to fabricate a controversy, as a tactic to distract voters from three legitimate news stories from last week that benefit Trump: 1) our economy is booming, 2) Trump had a successful summit with North Korea, and 3) the Inspector General report exposed James Comey’s FBI as a swamp of corruption out to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Trump.
IMPORTANT:The ONLY Way to Unite Families Is to Release Them into America
Obviously, we cannot have children living in adult detention centers. Obviously, we cannot have adults living in child detention centers. Therefore, the only way to “reunite” these families is to release these illegals into our country.
The media will not tell you this because the media do not want you to know that flooding America with non-citizens is their true agenda. The rich and powerful love to exploit and abuse these individuals, as they can leverage their immigration status for illegally low wages, and politicians are salivating at the chance to bestow voting rights on them — and thus entrench their power.
But when you hear the media call for these families to be reunited, remember that is coded language that means only one thing: releasing illegal aliens into our country with nothing more than a court summons.
Incentivizing the Act of Bringing Minor Children Across the Border Is Evil
The media do not want to inform Americans of one crucial fact: the dangers inherent in crossing the border from Mexico into America, most especially the dangers faced by minor children. Sadly, these dangers too often involve sexual abuse.
Decent people who truly care about these children, like President Trump, want to do everything in their power to end this abuse — either by building a wall, or through this zero tolerance policy that will hopefully curb this abusive practice.
Evil people want these children dragged across the border, want this abuse incentivized by “keeping the family unit together,” because flooding the country with future indebted voters is more important to them than the safety and well-being of small children.
Those Who Come to America Legally Face ‘Family Separation’
Many people who come to America legally from other countries are separated from family. A big part of America’s LEGAL immigration policy involves family separation when one or two family members come over before the rest are legally or financially able.
And so, once again, we have the media and Democrats demanding special treatment for illegal immigrants that legal immigrants do not enjoy. Once again we are incentivizing lawbreaking and treating the line-jumpers better than those who follow the rules.
“Family Reunification” Is an Invitation to Human Traffickers
Because of “catch and release,” because of this dumb and destructive loophole carved out for families, the number of illegal aliens using children to enter the U.S. increased by 315 percent between October 2017 and February 2018.
Trump understands what is happening and this is why he has moved to a zero tolerance policy.
Anything other than zero tolerance only serves as an incentive for human traffickers and other criminals to use these children as their free pass into America.
Incentivizing such a thing is monstrous:
“If there’s any suspicion that they’re not really truly related to those people, then they will be separated for their own safety,” a chief border agent said of kids who are often recycled by smugglers to get adults into the United States. pic.twitter.com/f3PBT57Q5T
Media Do Not Give a Shit About American Families Separated by Criminal Illegal Aliens
Illegal alien families are choosing to be separated by voluntarily engaging in lawbreaking. These illegal alien families, if they so choose, can stay together, simply by obeying the law.
This is not hard.
Those who do not have a choice in family separation are the legions of American families permanently separated from family members when that family member is killed at the hands of an illegal alien.
As Steve Bannon accurately pointed out over the weekend, “I don’t see the mainstream media and the liberal left embracing the Angel Moms, those people who were permanently separated from their children because of illegal aliens who came over here and committed crimes and killed people. You’re being very selective.”
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
The snub of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council is a long overdue move by the US, but the timing will be less than fortunate. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will jointly announce the withdrawal this afternoon, citing a lack of reform and generally the same issues that led the Bush administration to withdraw more than a decade ago:
The U.S. is expected to announce its withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday and deliver on a long-running threat to leave the organization unless it adopted major reforms.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley were scheduled to hold a joint appearance at the State Department late on Tuesday, a move that diplomats and activists interpreted as a sign an announcement was imminent. The State Department didn’t immediately comment.
Ms. Haley has spoken out frequently against the U.N. Human Rights Council and denounced what she called its “pathological bias” against Israel, a major U.S. ally. The council has issued some 70 resolutions targeting Israel, according to the State Department.
Last year, Ms. Haley threatened to leave over U.S. concerns that the council was “not a good investment of our time, money and national prestige” and presented a list of proposed changes to address its lack of credibility. These included forcing members to vote publicly and a mandate to debate the human-rights situation in Palestinian areas.
Back in the day, the panel was called the UN Human Rights Commission and was routinely led by some of the worst human-rights abusers in the world. It had an obsession with Israel to the exclusion of almost all other issues, especially those involving the countries that formed the commission. George W. Bush pointedly withdrew the US from it and refused to join its replacement, as he saw it as the same in all but name.
Barack Obama decided to have the US rejoin the new UNHRC shortly after taking office. Nine years later, it’s as obsessed with Israel as ever, and includes such paragons of human rights as Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Bush turned out to be prophetic after all.
However, they’re not entirely obsessed with Israel any longer. The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jordan’s Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad, blasted the Trump administration yesterday for child-separation practices in immigration enforcement:
The UNHRC, meanwhile, opened its session on Monday with a blistering attack by Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, on Trump’s immigration policy – calling the policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S. southern border “unconscionable.”
Trump is facing intense criticism – both domestically and on the international stage – over that … policy.
One has to suspect that the UN would have found something to use in order to deflect from decades-long criticism over the composition and activities of their human-rights bodies. At the moment, though, they can grab for the low-hanging fruit to cast this as sour grapes. That’s a nine-day narrative, though; the insistence of the UN in having the worst of the world’s human-rights abusers sit in judgment on others is an ongoing stain on the United Nations. Having Cuba and Venezuela as human-rights judges is the equivalent of putting Harvey Weinstein on a commission to promote female empowerment in the workplace. It’s grotesque, and it’s long past time that the US ceased cooperating with it.
While accepting the Generation Award at Monday’s MTV Movie and TV Awards, actor Chris Pratt told his millennial viewers “God is real,” they have a soul, and they have to take care of it.
Amidst typical MTV fare, such as drag queens, praise for gay sex and digs at Roseanne Barr, Chris Pratt offered a genuinely countercultural message to his mostly young audience, which he condensed into “Nine rules from Chris Pratt.”
“This being the generation award I am going to cut to the chase and speak to you, the next generation. I accept the responsibility as your elder, so listen up,” the Hollywood megastar said, before launching into his advice for today’s youth, much of which was overtly Christian.
Number one: breathe. If you don’t, you’ll suffocate.
Number two: You have a soul. Be careful with it.
Number three: Don’t be a turd. If you’re strong, be a protector and if you’re smart, be a humble influencer. Strength and intelligence can be weapons and do not wield them against the weak. That makes you a bully. Be bigger than that.
Number four: When giving a dog medicine, put the medicine in a little piece of hamburger and they won’t even know they’re eating medicine.
Number five: Doesn’t matter what it is, earn it. A good deed, reach out to someone in pain, be of service, it feels good and it’s good for your soul.
Number six: God is real. God loves you. God wants the best for you. Believe that. I do.
Number seven: If you have to poop at a party, but you’re embarrassed because you’re going to stink up the bathroom, just do what I do. Lock the door. Sit down, get all the pee out first. Okay? Then, when all the pee’s done, poop-flush-boom. You minimize the amount of time that the poop is touching the air because if you poop first, then it takes you longer to pee and you’re peeing on it, stirring it up and the poop particles create a cloud that goes out and then everyone at the party will know that you pooped. Just trust me, it’s science.
Number eight: Learn to pray. It’s easy and it’s so good for your soul.
Number nine: Nobody is perfect. People are going to tell you you’re perfect just the way you are; you’re not! You are imperfect. You always will be, but there’s a powerful force that designed you that way. And if you’re willing to accept that you will have grace and grace is a gift. Like the freedom we enjoy in this country that grace was paid for with somebody else’s blood. Do not forget it. Don’t take it for granted.
A source has told The Daily Caller that some of the “family units” that have been “broken up” after crossing at the southern border aren’t actually families but illegal immigrants posing with children in an attempt to gain asylum in the United States, the website reported Monday night.
One of the things that tipped investigators off is the fact that the children don’t seem terribly familiar with their parents.
“A law enforcement source directly involved in apprehension told The Daily Caller (that) officers are increasingly encountering ‘family units’ of adult males with children of various ages,” The Daily Caller reported.
“When law enforcement attempts to debrief the adult males with children, they often cannot answer even the most basic questions about their supposed children. The children also rarely appear to know details of their apparent ‘fathers.’
“The law enforcement source cast doubt on the asylum claims that many of the illegal immigrants appear to parrot, pointing out that the vast majority of those detained are actively trying to evade authorities. Only upon their detention do they offer the exact same credible fear of returning home, most of whom say the phrase in the exact same scripted way.
“The scripted manner of answer indicates to authorities that these illegal immigrants have been coached by human trafficking organizations.”
This isn’t the first report of such activity that we’ve seen in the media.
In April, Caitlin Dickerson of The New York Times reported that “(s)ome migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.”
“Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.”
Do you think kids are being used as props on the border?
This isn’t something you hear too frequently in the news, particularly when pundits are making Nazi comparisons over hearsay reports that children are being taken away from their parents after they’re taken to shower. Officials have denied these reports.
Perhaps most distressing is that, according to another source, DHS officials don’t keep track of the specific number of adult males using children to pose as parents in order to gain expedited entry.
However, DHS officials did say they’ve been able to figure out that the practice is on the rise by contrasting “46 documented cases of fraud in fiscal year 2017 with 119 cases in fiscal year 2018 alone, which predates the current crisis on the border.”
“From October 2017 to this February, we have seen a staggering 315 percent increase in illegal aliens, fraudulently using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the country,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen reported on Monday.
That’s not an insignificant number. That’s why this issue isn’t going to go away without comprehensive reform.
It’s the only way that America’s dire illegal immigration problem will finally be solved.
The ball’s in your court, Congress.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
The left is outraged that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would dare to cite the New Testament in support of the Trump administration’s policies of enforcing immigration laws at the country’s borders.
Many have responded by citing the Old Testament injunction in Leviticus 19 to welcome the stranger. However, they are misinterpreting the verse. A more accurate interpretation of the passages in Leviticus actually supports the administration’s policy.
Leviticus 19:33-34 reads as follows (Chabad translation):
33. When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not taunt him.
34. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.
Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer and Laura Nasrallah write in the Washington Post that these lines “argue for care for the stranger and the immigrant.”
This is a case, however, where reading the Bible in translation misses some of the original meaning. The Bible uses a Hebrew word used for “stranger,” “גֵר” (“ger”), which is also the word for “convert.”
The implication is that the “stranger” who “sojourns with you” does not merely live among you, but also agrees to obey your God and your laws.
That is how the rabbinical commentators understand the phrase, noting that it is forbidden to remind a “ger” that he used to worship idols and that he had now undertaken the study of the Torah that God had given the Jews.
So, yes — the Bible commands us to “care for the stranger and the immigrant.” But the implication is that they will first agree to obey our laws.
That is the thrust of the Trump administration’s policy: to provide a path for those legal immigrants who agree to honor the laws of the United States, and to prosecute those whose first act is to defy them.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Comments
As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.