Report: Illegal Immigrant Children Strangely Know Very Little About ‘Parents’

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.

TRENDING: Would-Be Robbers Get Plugged With Bullets After Messing With the Wrong Armed Couple

“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.

RELATED: Watch: Reporter Learns It’s a Mistake to Ask Sarah About Children at Border

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.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Pollak: How the Left Misinterprets the Bible to Promote Open Borders

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.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

U.S. Passes Germany as Largest Recipient of New Asylum Requests

The United States has passed Germany to become the largest recipient of new asylum applications worldwide, according to the United Nations.

The U.N. Refugee Agency released a report on Tuesday showing the number of individual asylum applicants fell by 73 percent in Germany between 2016 and 2017, from 722,400 to 198,300, Politico reported.

Meanwhile, the U.S. saw a nearly 27 percent increase in new applications within a year, reaching 331,700 in 2017. This was the first time since 2012 when the U.S. was the largest recipient of new asylum applications.

Germany’s sharp drop in new asylum seekers has been attributed to the closure of a route through the Balkans commonly taken to reach the country at the height of the refugee crisis in 2015, as well as an EU migration deal agreed with Turkey in 2016.

Meanwhile, more people last year from parts of North and Central America "undertook the perilous journey northwards to seek asylum in Mexico and the United States of America," the U.N. report said.

The report said that worldwide forced displacement reached a new high in 2017 for the fifth year in a row. This statistic included 25.4 million refugees and 40 million internally displaced people.

"We are at a watershed, where success in managing forced displacement globally requires a new and far more comprehensive approach so that countries and communities aren’t left dealing with this alone,"said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi.

Regarding refugees in absolute numbers, Turkey continued to host the highest number with 3.5 million people total, mainly Syrians. Relative to its national population, Lebanon had the largest number of refugees, 164 per 1,000 inhabitants.

The post U.S. Passes Germany as Largest Recipient of New Asylum Requests appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Great news: Americans can no longer tell fact from opinion

Ten statements, five factual, five opinion. The task from Pew: Simply identify which is which. You can take their quiz yourself by clicking here. See if you too can reason like a 10-year-old.

Which, apparently, most American adults can’t. Just 26 percent went five for five on factual statements while 35 percent went five for five on opinion statements. If that’s not depressing enough, Pew notes that just 24 percent went four for five on factual statements. Fully half of all Americans couldn’t do better than three for five on a rudimentary gut check about discerning assertions from opinions.

Explaining why is more complicated than blithely insisting that people are stupid, although “people are stupid” is surely in the mix here. There were notable gaps (especially in gauging factual statements) within groups according to certain criteria — those with “high political awareness” versus those with low, those who are “digitally savvy” versus those who aren’t, those who trust the media more versus those who trust it less. All of that may boil down to the idea that people who read more, especially those who read the news, are apt to have a more finely honed sense of fact versus opinion since they’re constantly encountering both — sometimes with one deliberately passed off as the other for political gain.

But personal biases play a part too. Go figure that the more a statement happened to jibe with someone’s political prejudices, the more likely they were to label it fact rather than opinion. Everyone wants to believe they have The Truth on their side. Here’s the list of 10 statements with the partisan numbers on each:

Sourcing also mattered. Democrats and Republicans showed no difference in discerning a statement as fact when presented by the New York Times or USA Today. But when it was presented by Fox News, the share of Republicans willing to describe it as fact ticked up a few points while the share of Democrats willing to describe it as such ticked down. Relatedly:

A lazy take on those numbers would be that distrust of the mainstream media is linked to lower education, which in turn leaves a person less able to tell fact from opinion. A smarter take, I think, is that distrust of the mainstream media is linked to more voracious consumption of partisan news media, whose whole business is questioning the facts and assumptions advanced by the mainstream media. For instance, one of the factual statements offered by Pew is “President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” If you’re an Infowars fan who’s read a hundred articles questioning O’s birth certificate, you might choke on the idea of characterizing that as “fact” even though Pew specifically told people before quizzing them that they shouldn’t base their determination of whether a statement was factual on whether they thought it was accurate.

Or, if you’re reading any sort of right-wing blog, you might pause when confronted with the statement “Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.” After gorging for years on information supporting that belief, you might have a hard time classifying it as an opinion. Which it is. A very smart opinion, one with loads and loads of corroborating evidence, but a bit too sweeping and dismissive to be treated as absolute fact. The point remains, though: As with any other type of diet, one’s news diet will affect how one copes with real-world challenges. Just look at how Democrats did in the first chart above when asked whether a $15 minimum wage is “essential.” By 2020, 75 percent of them will be calling that fact.

The only one of the 10 statements that’s genuinely tricky, I think, is the one about illegals having rights under the Constitution. That has nothing to do with illegals per se; it’s just that debates over law, particularly constitutional law, frequently are proxies for political opinion. Right-wingers would tell you it’s a fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and they’d be correct. Left-wingers would tell you that’s a matter of opinion, albeit one that’s momentarily the law of the land thanks to the Heller opinion. (If Pew really wanted to mess with people, they’d have used “Abortion is a right under the Constitution” instead.) It is in fact true under Supreme Court jurisprudence that illegals enjoy *some* rights under the Constitution; even if it weren’t, the statement would still qualify as fact under Pew’s rules since it’s being offered as an assertion of legal reality. Online readers are so used to seeing opinions couched as “constitutional facts,” though, that I’d give anyone who whiffed on that one a bit of a pass. A 10-year-old would probably choke on it too. Although maybe not an 11-year-old.

The post Great news: Americans can no longer tell fact from opinion appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Clinton Was Not Formally Under FBI Investigation at Any Time in 2015-2016

On Tuesday, Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified in a joint Congressional hearing to the House Oversight and House Judiciary panels about his review of the FBI’s (mis)handling of the Clinton email investigation. 

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) came out swinging Tuesday in a a joint hearing held by the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees.

Gowdy ripped into Comey in his opening statement, stating, “we can’t survive with a justice system we don’t trust.”

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported Horowitz dropped a bombshell in his testimony.

Horowitz revealed the FBI never named a target or even a subject in the Clinton email probe!

Sperry tweeted: BREAKING: IG Horowitz revealed in Senate testimony FBI never named a target or even subject in Clinton probe. Not Mills, Abedin, Combetta or Clinton herself. “Nobody was listed as a subject of this investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising” for a crim probe

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by the FBI at any time in 2015-2016, tweeted Sperry.

IG HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL DURING SENATE TESTIMONY:

“Nobody was listed as a subject of this [Clinton email] investigation at any point in time,” adding this was “surprising”

So neither Hillary nor her top aides were formally under investigation by FBI at any time in 2015-2016!

President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton reacted to this bombshell bias from the FBI.

The entire ‘FBI investigation’ into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server was a complete sham.

No subjects were named, immunity was handed out like candy and Hillary was exonerated before witnesses were interviewed, including Hillary Clinton herself.

Hillary Clinton’s ‘interview’ with the FBI wasn’t even under oath.

Even more egregious, Hillary discussed pregnancy and babies during the majority of the 2.5 hour FBI interview because one of her lawyers was pregnant at the time.

Inspector General Horowitz also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.

The post HOROWITZ DROPS BOMBSHELL: Hillary Clinton Was Not Formally Under FBI Investigation at Any Time in 2015-2016 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

The IG Report: They’re Guilty, but It’s Okay

The IG report is really Comey 2.0.  Comey spent a long time describing how Hillary had broken the law but then concluded that it was okay.  Similarly, the IG report lists example after example of political bias but declares that it had no impact on the Hillary email whitewash.


The IG report on the Clinton email investigation is proof positive that the entire DC justice establishment is corrupt; that they view themselves as rulers not public servants.



First we were told that Comey was a straight shooter whom we could trust. Then we were told the same about Mueller, Rosenstein, and now the IG.  Yet in every case we’ve discovered that they are biased political actors who put the interests of the Deep State and the Democratic Party ahead of their sworn duty to uphold the law.  It’s time for all conservatives to acknowledge that there are few if any honest people at the top levels of the FBI or the DoJ.


Not surprisingly highly biased people will resort to big lies to protect their power and the big government ideology they embrace.


The big lie in the Comey report was that because Hillary supposedly had no intent to mishandle classified data there was no crime.  Yet a Navy seaman who demonstrated no intent to mishandle classified data was sent to prison.  Further, the law says that intent is not a requirement.


There are many laws that can be broken even if the person lacks intent. Take manslaughter — if person A kills person B accidently because person A was very careless, then person A is guilty even though they never intended to kill person B. 


The protection of classified data is important because it can lead to the loss of American lives.  Hence, the law holds people who have access to classified data to a high standard; they can’t do things that could expose that classified data to random people or foreign spies.  Because the damage that is done when classified data is exposed doesn’t depend on intent, just as someone can kill someone else unintentionally, the law doesn’t require proving that someone intended to subvert American security. Yet after describing fact after fact about how Hillary broke the rules on how to protect classified data, Comey said that it was okay.


The big lie in the IG report is that if people who are provably biased make decisions that go against normal investigative procedures in ways that uniformly conform to their biases, there is no reason to believe that their decisions were impacted by their biases.


For example, General Michael Flynn was attacked by Mueller because Flynn supposedly lied to the FBI.  We now know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t think he was lying; having been fooled into an interrogation thinking it was a normal meeting, it’s hardly surprising that he might have honestly misremembered something.  We’re told by leftists that it’s okay for Mueller to go after Flynn, because what Mueller is doing is trying to turn Flynn to get the dirt on Trump.


But thanks to the IG report we know that the FBI agents who interviewed Hillary’s IT guy said that he lied multiple times in his interview — that was not based on their “instinct” but because the guy changed his story multiple times. Still, they concluded that since the investigation didn’t matter, no one would prosecute the IT guy.  If there wasn’t bias involved either by Mueller or the FBI in the Clinton case, why wasn’t the IT guy prosecuted to get him to turn on Hillary?


After all, the IT guy would be a likely person to have heard Clinton saying something that indicated that she knew what she was doing was wrong but she didn’t care, proving intent.


The answer is, of course, that the pervasive bias at the FBI and DoJ couldn’t conceive of holding Hillary to the law but were eager to invoke their “insurance” policy to nullify the 2016 election.


Yet the IG report ignores the obvious.  That’s because the obvious goes against the ideology that apparently permeates the supposedly unbiased IG.


No honest person can read the seemingly unending list of bias by FBI agents and the pervasive contortions that the FBI went through to clear Hillary and not conclude that, intentionally or otherwise, the investigation was clearly biased.  The report admits that the FBI had essentially cleared Hillary before talking to her. This is a huge problem because if the only reason that Hillary was “innocent” was that she had no intent, how could the FBI establish that without talking to her? 


Furthermore, others have pointed out that there is not one example of pro-Trump or anti-Hillary bias.  Not one person said that we can’t afford to have Hillary as president or that we should work to make sure Trump won.  Not one.  Now, that’s good in that we don’t want the FBI/DoJ biased in favor of anyone, but when there is clear evidence of massive bias for Hillary having equally massive bias for Trump could have led to a more honest investigation.


The IG report is clearly written to support the Democratic narrative that any criticism of the investigation into Hillary’s gross negligence is based purely on partisan bias on the part of conservatives.  While all the data in the IG report shows beyond a reasonable doubt that political bias led the FBI to let Hillary get away with compromising national security, the conclusions, which is all the mainstream media will talk about, is that that pervasive one-sided bias can’t be shown to have impacted the investigation.


Imagine a murder case where the prosecution has the murder weapon with only the defendant’s bloody fingerprints on it, has witnesses that place the defendant at the crime scene, and testimony from multiple witnesses saying that the defendant had strong reason to kill the victim, but the prosecutor says since the defendant won’t confess to the murder they will not prosecute.  That’s what the IG report is.  Apparently unless one of the FBI officials admitted that political bias drove actions which were in favor of Hillary, the IG believes that it can’t say that the systematic bias shown in favor of Hillary and against Trump had any impact.


Since the media will work hard to keep the truth from getting out, it’s our responsibility to educate our friends, neighbors, relatives, and coworkers on what is really going on.


Point to the seaman who was imprisoned for some photos he took in a restricted area in a submarine and compare that to Hillary’s putting highly classified data out where foreign spies could find it.


Remind folks that the IG found massive bias on the part of the FBI and ask them if they really believed that all those folks were able to so compartmentalize their thoughts that none of their bias impacted the investigation.


Make sure that they know that Comey and the FBI had decided long before they interviewed Hillary that she wasn’t guilty even though the reason that she supposedly wasn’t guilty was her intent, yet it would have been impossible to know her intent without talking to her — unless of course you were a big fan of hers and couldn’t imagine she’d do anything wrong.


It’s up to us to inform America since the media is nothing more than a Democratic propaganda machine these days.


You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.










The IG report is really Comey 2.0.  Comey spent a long time describing how Hillary had broken the law but then concluded that it was okay.  Similarly, the IG report lists example after example of political bias but declares that it had no impact on the Hillary email whitewash.


The IG report on the Clinton email investigation is proof positive that the entire DC justice establishment is corrupt; that they view themselves as rulers not public servants.


First we were told that Comey was a straight shooter whom we could trust. Then we were told the same about Mueller, Rosenstein, and now the IG.  Yet in every case we’ve discovered that they are biased political actors who put the interests of the Deep State and the Democratic Party ahead of their sworn duty to uphold the law.  It’s time for all conservatives to acknowledge that there are few if any honest people at the top levels of the FBI or the DoJ.


Not surprisingly highly biased people will resort to big lies to protect their power and the big government ideology they embrace.


The big lie in the Comey report was that because Hillary supposedly had no intent to mishandle classified data there was no crime.  Yet a Navy seaman who demonstrated no intent to mishandle classified data was sent to prison.  Further, the law says that intent is not a requirement.


There are many laws that can be broken even if the person lacks intent. Take manslaughter — if person A kills person B accidently because person A was very careless, then person A is guilty even though they never intended to kill person B. 


The protection of classified data is important because it can lead to the loss of American lives.  Hence, the law holds people who have access to classified data to a high standard; they can’t do things that could expose that classified data to random people or foreign spies.  Because the damage that is done when classified data is exposed doesn’t depend on intent, just as someone can kill someone else unintentionally, the law doesn’t require proving that someone intended to subvert American security. Yet after describing fact after fact about how Hillary broke the rules on how to protect classified data, Comey said that it was okay.


The big lie in the IG report is that if people who are provably biased make decisions that go against normal investigative procedures in ways that uniformly conform to their biases, there is no reason to believe that their decisions were impacted by their biases.


For example, General Michael Flynn was attacked by Mueller because Flynn supposedly lied to the FBI.  We now know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn’t think he was lying; having been fooled into an interrogation thinking it was a normal meeting, it’s hardly surprising that he might have honestly misremembered something.  We’re told by leftists that it’s okay for Mueller to go after Flynn, because what Mueller is doing is trying to turn Flynn to get the dirt on Trump.


But thanks to the IG report we know that the FBI agents who interviewed Hillary’s IT guy said that he lied multiple times in his interview — that was not based on their “instinct” but because the guy changed his story multiple times. Still, they concluded that since the investigation didn’t matter, no one would prosecute the IT guy.  If there wasn’t bias involved either by Mueller or the FBI in the Clinton case, why wasn’t the IT guy prosecuted to get him to turn on Hillary?


After all, the IT guy would be a likely person to have heard Clinton saying something that indicated that she knew what she was doing was wrong but she didn’t care, proving intent.


The answer is, of course, that the pervasive bias at the FBI and DoJ couldn’t conceive of holding Hillary to the law but were eager to invoke their “insurance” policy to nullify the 2016 election.


Yet the IG report ignores the obvious.  That’s because the obvious goes against the ideology that apparently permeates the supposedly unbiased IG.


No honest person can read the seemingly unending list of bias by FBI agents and the pervasive contortions that the FBI went through to clear Hillary and not conclude that, intentionally or otherwise, the investigation was clearly biased.  The report admits that the FBI had essentially cleared Hillary before talking to her. This is a huge problem because if the only reason that Hillary was “innocent” was that she had no intent, how could the FBI establish that without talking to her? 


Furthermore, others have pointed out that there is not one example of pro-Trump or anti-Hillary bias.  Not one person said that we can’t afford to have Hillary as president or that we should work to make sure Trump won.  Not one.  Now, that’s good in that we don’t want the FBI/DoJ biased in favor of anyone, but when there is clear evidence of massive bias for Hillary having equally massive bias for Trump could have led to a more honest investigation.


The IG report is clearly written to support the Democratic narrative that any criticism of the investigation into Hillary’s gross negligence is based purely on partisan bias on the part of conservatives.  While all the data in the IG report shows beyond a reasonable doubt that political bias led the FBI to let Hillary get away with compromising national security, the conclusions, which is all the mainstream media will talk about, is that that pervasive one-sided bias can’t be shown to have impacted the investigation.


Imagine a murder case where the prosecution has the murder weapon with only the defendant’s bloody fingerprints on it, has witnesses that place the defendant at the crime scene, and testimony from multiple witnesses saying that the defendant had strong reason to kill the victim, but the prosecutor says since the defendant won’t confess to the murder they will not prosecute.  That’s what the IG report is.  Apparently unless one of the FBI officials admitted that political bias drove actions which were in favor of Hillary, the IG believes that it can’t say that the systematic bias shown in favor of Hillary and against Trump had any impact.


Since the media will work hard to keep the truth from getting out, it’s our responsibility to educate our friends, neighbors, relatives, and coworkers on what is really going on.


Point to the seaman who was imprisoned for some photos he took in a restricted area in a submarine and compare that to Hillary’s putting highly classified data out where foreign spies could find it.


Remind folks that the IG found massive bias on the part of the FBI and ask them if they really believed that all those folks were able to so compartmentalize their thoughts that none of their bias impacted the investigation.


Make sure that they know that Comey and the FBI had decided long before they interviewed Hillary that she wasn’t guilty even though the reason that she supposedly wasn’t guilty was her intent, yet it would have been impossible to know her intent without talking to her — unless of course you were a big fan of hers and couldn’t imagine she’d do anything wrong.


It’s up to us to inform America since the media is nothing more than a Democratic propaganda machine these days.


You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

KARMA/TRUMP EFFECT: “Nasty” San Juan Mayor In Deep Trouble With The FBI

Karma’s a bitch, and so is Mayor Cruz! ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… ………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. …………………… Remember Carmen Yulín Cruz, the […]

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Cotton: Democrats Want ‘Open Borders,’ Give Illegal Immigrants a ‘Get-Out-of-Jail-Free’ Card

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said Tuesday that his Democratic colleagues in Congress want open borders and to give migrants who enter the U.S. illegally a "get-out-of-jail-free card."

"What the Democrats are proposing is their most radical open borders lawless proposal yet," Cotton told radio host Hugh Hewitt. "Forty-nine Democrats have now supported a bill by Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.)  that says children at the border are literally a get-out-of-jail-free card."

Cotton was referencing the Keep Families Together Act, a bill introduced by Feinstein to stop the separation of families apprehended for crossing the border illegally. The legislation would prohibit authorities from separating children from their parents within 100 miles of the U.S. border, except for instances of abuse, neglect, or other circumstances.

The Trump administration has implemented a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal border crossings, charging all individuals who cross the border illegally with unlawful entry. People who claim to seek asylum are also charged with unlawful entry and are taken into custody until their case is processed. Federal law prevents kids from being held in the same detention facility as those charged with unlawful entry, causing border patrol agents to separate children from their families.

The change in policy has triggered bipartisan backlash.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) introduced his own legislation that would keep families together while they are processed by the Department of Homeland Security. Cotton said he has yet to see Cruz’s bill and added that President Donald Trump’s hands are tied.

"The Trump administration’s hands are tied by liberal judges and Democrats who have ruled over the years that children at the border can’t be detained for more than 20 days," he said. "That’s why when their parents bring them to the border, or just as likely, kidnap them or buy them from human traffickers to pose as parents at the border, the parent is taken into custody, the child can’t be detained for more than 20 days, and therefore placed with a relative or placed in a kind of foster care."

Cotton said an amendment to the spending bill would stop the separation of families.

"All we need to do, Hugh, is overturn the so-called Flores Settlement, allow families to be held at the border, provide a little bit of extra money to the military and DHS for family housing units while those claims are adjudicated," Cotton said. "We’re going to offer an amendment this week on the spending bill. It can be done promptly."

Cotton also discussed the Senate passing his amendment to keep the U.S. ban on ZTE. ZTE is a major Chinese telecommunications company that was caught illegally shipping telecommunications gear to Iran and North Korea, making false statements, and obstructing justice. The Chinese company reached a settlement in March 2017 and paid penalties totaling $1.19 billion.

"ZTE, Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies are virtual arms of the Chinese Communist Party, Hugh," Cotton said. "They are grave threats to our national security and our telecommunications infrastructure as well as the privacy of American citizens."

"So I’m very pleased that the Senate adopted the amendment I had with Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) and Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to prohibit the federal government from buying their products, from loaning or granting money to American companies that use those products, as well as put ZTE on the sanctions list," Cotton added.

The post Cotton: Democrats Want ‘Open Borders,’ Give Illegal Immigrants a ‘Get-Out-of-Jail-Free’ Card appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Sarah Sanders Makes Laura Bush Regret Trump Attack: Your Husband Signed the Law

The complicated legal entanglements regarding illegal immigrants who get caught trying to bring their children to the United States have been reduced, more or less, to two separate sets of opinions: either separating children from their mothers while their cases are adjudicated is a human rights violation like never before or we should enforce the law until the problems with it are fixed by Congress.

Part of the great irony with the first argument is that many of the luminaries speaking out against enforcing what they see as unjust laws are associated with the individuals who passed the laws in the first place.

One of these individuals is Laura Bush, who penned a much-ballyhooed op-ed in The Washington Post in which she decried the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

“On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents,” Bush wrote in the piece published Sunday night.

“In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders.

TRENDING: Would-Be Robbers Get Plugged With Bullets After Messing With the Wrong Armed Couple

“I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.”

If it breaks her heart, perhaps she should have been blaming her husband. Late in his second term, former President George W. Bush signed a law that was likely well-intentioned but has added to the problems faced by the Trump administration in enforcing their “zero tolerance” policy without separating parents and children.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted this during her news briefing.

“Frankly, this law was actually signed into effect in 2008 under (Laura Bush’s) husband’s leadership, not under this administration,” Sanders said, according to The Hill.

“We’re not the ones responsible for creating this problem. We’ve inherited it,” she added. “But we’re actually the first administration stepping up and trying to fix it.”

The law she was referring to, assumedly, was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which requires formal deportation hearings for child immigrants who aren’t from Mexico or Canada and don’t have family in the United States.

Do you agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

The intention was that it would stop child sex trafficking, but one of the unintended problems has come now that family units from Central American countries besides Mexico are making up the bulk of new illegal immigrants.

In most cases, as The New York Times noted in one story about a Guatemalan woman who was repatriated to her country of origin without her child, most first-time illegal immigrants who don’t seek asylum plead out their case in an expedited manner and are sentenced to time served, then deported.

However, due to federal law, children can’t go through expedited hearings, instead requiring formal deportation hearings. Thus, while the parent might be repatriated to their home country, the child remains back until their case works their way through clogged courts.

This is just one of a maze of laws and court rulings, some of which are meant to do good but all of which have made it more difficult to actually enforce the law and secure our border.

There are obviously ways to fix this without jeopardizing border security and ensuring that parents aren’t separated from their children for elongated periods of time. Still, those who bear some responsibility for the the maze shouldn’t pretend that this is all on Trump. This is the result of an agglomeration of bad legislation and an unwillingness to touch illegal immigration.

Instead of lamenting it in high-profile op-eds, perhaps they ought to be writing about how to fix it beyond just blaming the president and demanding he stop enforcing the law.

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.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

MA Town Backs Down After Citing Business for ‘Excessive’ American Flag Display

A Massachusetts town will allow a local real estate business to keep up its American flag display on its lawn after the town initially issued the business a citation.

The town manager, Paul Cohen, contacted Laer Realty CEO Stacey Alcorn to inform her there would be “no further enforcement action from the town in this matter” and apologized for causing any inconvenience to those involved, the Lowell Sun reported.

The town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts’s building department initially told Laer Realty to remove its “excessive” display of 200 American flags in place for Memorial Day because of town bylaws prohibiting flags for “commercial promotion.”

Laer Realty employees — along with residents sympathetic to their plight — banded together to fight the town bylaw until the town manager announced the decision to back off.

“In the end, we got what we felt was right,” Alcorn told Fox & Friends Monday. “We just felt that we were going to double down and do even more to honor our local veterans and people who serve.”

The town’s manager will reportedly propose changes to the current statue later in the year.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com