• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Buckwheat Opens Prison Gates

Mike

Well-known member
Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 68,000 foreign nationals who had criminal convictions and charges last year instead of pursuing deportation, according to newly uncovered documents -- a statistic one senator said represents an enforcement "crisis."

The internal documents were obtained and published by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates stricter immigration enforcement. According to the documents and the group's analysis, ICE agents reported encountering 193,000 "criminal aliens" in 2013, but only targeted 125,000 for deportation.

A total of 67,879 were released.

CIS called it a "large-scale abuse of authority."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 68,000 foreign nationals who had criminal convictions and charges last year instead of pursuing deportation, according to newly uncovered documents -- a statistic one senator said represents an enforcement "crisis."

The internal documents were obtained and published by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates stricter immigration enforcement. According to the documents and the group's analysis, ICE agents reported encountering 193,000 "criminal aliens" in 2013, but only targeted 125,000 for deportation.

A total of 67,879 were released.

CIS called it a "large-scale abuse of authority."

Curious what the charges and convictions were for :???: For years and years we would arrest illegals on misdemeanor traffic or criminal offense's- notify Border Patrol- and either before they went to court or after they served their sentence Border Patrol would come pick them up- take them and write them a Notice to Appear before an Immigration Judge... Usually the appearance date was several months down the line... And you can guess how many showed up :???:

The Border Patrol at one time told us that after 6 months into their budget, they had money left to transport only the real bad guys of the illegals- so the rest were on their own to leave the country/appear before the Judge...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Probably playing Hopscotch on a public sidewalk. Or maybe singing in the church choir without a permit? :roll:

Are you serious? REALLY? Now how in the hell would I know what 68,000 people were arrested for or criminals of? :lol: :lol:

Here's your tip for the day: Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates stricter immigration enforcement.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
The ICE documents did not break down the types of criminal activity that those allowed to stay in the country had been convicted of. But a 2012 report by House Republicans tracked 26,000 illegal and criminal immigrants who were re-arrested, and found they were tied to 58,000 crimes and violations -- much of them drunken-driving arrests, but also major criminal offenses like murder and rape.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What's the "Rule of Law" say should be done with illegals?

OT, do you respect the Rule of Law?

I get a kick of people like OT that want what other Countries have, like Canada's health care system, but make excuses for illegal immigrants.

You will continue to call our Country "socialist", all the while, having less taxpayers, pay for those that don't contribute.

Who's Country is more "socialist"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
What's the "Rule of Law" say should be done with illegals?

OT, do you respect the Rule of Law?

I get a kick of people like OT that want what other Countries have, like Canada's health care system, but make excuses for illegal immigrants.

You will continue to call our Country "socialist", all the while, having less taxpayers, pay for those that don't contribute.

Who's Country is more "socialist"

When have I ever made excuses for illegal immigrants? I am not now making excuses for illegals-- I'm just saying this is nothing new...

There hasn't been a President since Eisenhower that really tried to enforce any part of illegal immigration.. Reagan signed the the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which essentially gave amnesty to all illegals here- but made it a crime for anyone to hire them.... Neither he nor any President since has enforced it... Bush crawled in bed with Kennedy and McCain and tried to pass another amnesty- one of the reasons McCain is not President and Obama is...


Just like my forefathers who came from the old country- and my brother in law that came from Norway- I believe they should have to go thru legal channels and pass certain requirements... One of the major requirements should include knowing how to read and speak English- or be able to learn English within a certain time period or be deported..

Altho I admit I have no answer for what to do with all the illegals we have...I believe the number has grown so big- the logistics of deporting them all may be unattainable/unaffordable...
Ikes "operation Wetback" ran into all kinds of tactical and logistical problems (some of which led to public outcrys) and they were dealing with a lot less than the 12 million illegals now believed in the country...
And Ike had the same problem we have now- with farms, business's, and wealthy elites that don't want to lose their cheap house maids, nanny's, gardners and pool cleaners bringing them back in as fast as they were removed...

I still think enforcing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986- and putting some teeth into the penalties for hiring an illegal would take care of the problem faster than anything...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
did you vote for a President that doesn't even think about enforcing the law, but makes it even easier for illegals to enter the Country?

maybe a President that has signed 3 executive orders that make it easier for illegals to gain entry into the "international/global community"

One that respects the "rule of law", for sure, eh?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Obama says the border fence is "now basically complete"
Mostly False
Share this story:

Sections of the fence on the Mexico border, like this one near San Miguel, Ariz., are designed primarily to stop vehicles.

In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, President Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is "now basically complete."

Still, he predicted that many Republican opponents won't be satisfied.

"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."

"They'll want want a higher fence," Obama said. "Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics."

Fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border has long been a thorny political issue, so with Obama declaring mission accomplished, we decided to check it out.

Department of Homeland Security officials told us they have finished 649 out of 652 miles of fencing (99.5 percent), which includes 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence.

But the same day as Obama's speech, Sen. Jim DeMint penned an op-ed for National Review in which he countered that the Obama administration has "not done its job to finish the border fence that is a critical part of keeping Americans safe and stopping illegal immigration."

"Five years ago, legislation was passed to build a 700-mile double-layer border fence along the southwest border," DeMint wrote. "This is a promise that has not been kept. Today, according to staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the double-layer fencing is complete, only 36.3 miles."

So what gives? Is the border fence "now basically complete" or not?

Not to go all Clinton on you, but it largely depends on how you define "fence."

You need to go back to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico. The act specified "at least two layers of reinforced fencing."

But the law was quietly altered in a significant way the following year.

Responding to urging from the Department of Homeland Security -- which argued that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."

In other words, Border Patrol would have the leeway to decide which type of fencing was appropriate in various regions.

The amendment was included in a federal budget bill in late 2007 despite being condemned by legislators such as Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who argued the amendment effectively killed the border fence promised in the 2006 bill.

At the time, Hutchison told the San Antonio Express-News, "Border patrol agents reported that coyotes and drug-runners were altering their routes as fencing was deployed, so the amendment gives our agents discretion to locate the fence where necessary to achieve operational control of our border."

DHS reports there are currently 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing, the kind with enough gap that you can drive a vehicle between the layers. But the majority of the fencing erected has been vehicle barriers, which are designed to stop vehicles rather than people (see here), and single-layer pedestrian fencing (see here). The design specifications vary depending on geography and climate characteristics, but according to the Customs and Border Patrol website, it includes "post on rail" steel set in concrete; steel picket-style fence set in concrete; vehicle bollards similar to those found around federal buildings; "Normandy" vehicle fence consisting of steel beams; and concrete jersey walls with steel mesh.

That's not enough for some opponent of illegal immigration. "They are interpreting the requirements of the Secure Fence Act in a way that is clearly contrary to what Congress intended," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tougher enforcement against illegal immigration.

There may be a role for the vehicle barriers, but "your grandmother could hop over them," he said, and "that's not what Congress thought it was voting for."

Krikorian said, "The president's claim that the job is done is misleading."

A Government Accountability Office report on border security, issued in February 2011, paints a mixed picture. The report acknowledges progress on the fences, as well as hundreds more miles deemed to be under "operational control," but "DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics."

T.J. Bonner, retired president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents all the front-line border patrol agents, said the type of fencing is less important than whether the border is secure.

It is estimated that for every person caught (Border Patrol reported apprehending over 445,000 illegal entrants in 2010) two more get by, Bonner said. "To me, that doesn't seem like border security."

But is it accurate for Obama to claim that "the fence is now basically complete"?

DHS reports that there is now fencing for 649 of the 652 miles described in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. But the vast majority of the requirement was met with vehicle barriers and single-layer pedestrian fence. The original act specifically called for double-layer fencing, and only 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing currently exist. However, the act was later amended to allow Border Security the discretion to determine which type of fencing was appropriate for different areas.

So Obama can make a case that the vehicle barriers and single-layer pedestrian fences meet the amended letter of the law. But we also think Obama misleads, particularly when he mocks Republican opponents, saying that even though the fence has been built, "They'll want want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat." The Border Patrol has not gone "above and beyond" what Republicans requested, as Obama claimed. What they originally requested was a double-layer fence, and they didn't get much of it. And so we rate Obama's statement Barely True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
did you vote for a President that doesn't even think about enforcing the law, but makes it even easier for illegals to enter the Country?

maybe a President that has signed 3 executive orders that make it easier for illegals to gain entry into the "international/global community"

One that respects the "rule of law", for sure, eh?

Immigration was a toss-up between McCain and Obama... Both wanted immigration reform and an amnesty...

The use of "prosecutorial discretion" has been around for as long as I know- and in the case of illegal immigrants and immigration laws not being enforced go back for the same period...
The only difference with Obama now is that he is being transparent and making his actions not to prosecute open/known to the public with public orders... Previous administrations did the same -but issued their orders from backroom meetings...




Reagans Amnesty Didn't Work

1:54 PM 02/06/2014


House Speaker John Boehner says it will be tough to get Republicans to vote for “comprehensive immigration reform” as long as they don’t trust President Obama “to enforce the law the way it was written.”

This comes just a day after Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador said advancing such legislation “should” — not “could” — “cost [Boehner] his speakership.”

Republican distrust of Obama is certainly part of the problem. But House Republicans have been hostile to immigration bills of this type since at least 2006, even when they passed a Republican-controlled Senate.



They trusted George W. Bush even when he began to sound like Baghdad Bob about Iraq and they supported John McCain as their presidential nominee in 2008, but still didn’t like this brand of immigration reform.

To figure out why, you have to go back to 1986, when Obama was still a community organizer in Chicago. That’s when Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty that didn’t work.

Reagan was the last unambiguously successful president this country had. If you don’t believe me, look around for stagflation and the Soviet Union. But the immigration amnesty he signed into law failed, a fact that influences the debate over this issue to this day.

Unlike many of his successors in both parties, Reagan was an honest man. He called legalizing illegal immigrants by the correct name — amnesty — rather than shrouding it in euphemisms and weasel words.


The Gipper also didn’t have the benefit of seeing a similar policy fail before, so his willingness to take a gamble on it is more understandable than Bush or McCain’s. That’s why Pat Buchanan and Pete Wilson were on board.



But we now can see the results. The 1986 amnesty legalized approximately 2.7 million illegal immigrants, a much smaller number than the 11 million estimated today. Washington approved 90 percent of the 1.3 million agricultural workers who sought legal status despite detecting fraud in nearly a third of the applications.

The amnesty was supposed to be balanced with stronger enforcement measures, such as employer sanctions for those who hire illegal immigrants. This remains a major selling point of the “comprehensive” approach to immigration today.

This enforcement turned out to be a bait and switch, like when spending cuts are promised in exchange for tax increases. The amnesty happened and is irreversible. The enforcement has been spotty and in some cases never materialized.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/06/reagans-amnesty-didnt-work/#ixzz2xbBIDJrU
 

Mike

Well-known member
So.......did Reagan or Bush allow 68,000 illegal alien CRIMINALS in any 1 year to go free in the U.S.? :roll:

Enough about the amnesty bullchit. Illegal CRIMINALS have no place here.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
This sounds like a good law...if enforced. Why is obama not enforcing this law?


The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The act[1]

required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;

made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants;

legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;

legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
So.......did Reagan or Bush allow 68,000 illegal alien CRIMINALS in any 1 year to go free in the U.S.? :roll:

Enough about the amnesty bullchit. Illegal CRIMINALS have no place here.

Well illegals that had been arrested/convicted of crimes during the 70's, 80's, and 90's were released - I know... Because that was the time period when I was involved in arresting illegals for criminal acts, detaining them for the Border Patrol- who then often wrote them tickets, and turned them loose to appear before the Immigration Judge... It depended upon the seriousness of the crime on whether they would transport or give an NTA and release...

Lets see- that takes in Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW, and Clinton... Since I retired in 98, I couldn't tell you what Bush did...

The Border Patrol used to also advise us to prosecute the illegals and get a conviction if possible so they had the conviction on their records when/if they showed up before the Immigration Judge... They said that would play stronger toward them being deported...

I don't even think Montana had an Immigration Judge back then- I think they were wrote in to appear before one in Colorado- and sometimes the appearance date was months away, so we sometimes had contact with the same person after we turned them over to the Border Patrol..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
So.......did Reagan or Bush allow 68,000 illegal alien CRIMINALS in any 1 year to go free in the U.S.? :roll:

Enough about the amnesty bullchit. Illegal CRIMINALS have no place here.

Well illegals that had been arrested/convicted of crimes during the 70's, 80's, and 90's were released - I know... Because that was the time period when I was involved in arresting illegals for criminal acts, detaining them for the Border Patrol- who then often wrote them tickets, and turned them loose to appear before the Immigration Judge... It depended upon the seriousness of the crime on whether they would transport or give an NTA and release...

Lets see- that takes in Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW, and Clinton... Since I retired in 98, I couldn't tell you what Bush did...

The Border Patrol used to also advise us to prosecute the illegals and get a conviction if possible so they had the conviction on their records when/if they showed up before the Immigration Judge... They said that would play stronger toward them being deported...

I don't even think Montana had an Immigration Judge back then- I think they were wrote in to appear before one in Colorado- and sometimes the appearance date was months away, so we sometimes had contact with the same person after we turned them over to the Border Patrol..

Nobody wants to hear your BullChit and lies. Was is over 68,000? Or not? :lol: You don't have to answer with a lie. I already know. :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Missouri has no illegal's; go figure...shouldn't the other states do the same?


Missouri 's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona . Does the White House appreciate what Missouri has done? So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention? Answer: There are no illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.

The "Show Me" state has again shown us how it should be done. There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri has done. Please pass this around.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri . In November, 2008, nearly 90% voted in favor! Thus, English became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri . No individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement officers receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.-----In Missouri, illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps or health care through Missouri Health NET.

In 2009, a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States.

In Missouri all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.


So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember, Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.


Taken from: "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial
 
Top