Thursday, October 29, 2015

Profits Supercede Principles Equals Disaster



10/29/2015 - Victor Davis Hanson Townhall.com
Germany's political stability and economic sway have until recently earned Chancellor Angela Merkel unprecedented global influence and power.

Postwar Germany has become the financial powerhouse of Europe and a model nation. Give credit to German hard work and competency for the country's continuing economic miracle.
Less appreciated is how Germany also brilliantly exploited the lucrative in-house trade framework of the European Union market -- along with nearly seven decades of subsidized defense from an American-led NATO.

The result is that Germany alone now determines the fiscal future of the nearly insolvent southern European Union nations on the Mediterranean.
Germany was also the self-appointed broker between Vladimir Putin and the apprehensive EU. Merkel supposedly has watered down Putin's military ambitions by seducing Russia with lucrative German trade.

In addition, Germany positioned itself as the moral voice of Europe. In penance for an aggressive past that had nearly wrecked Europe on three occasions, it became the loudest critic of supposed U.S. imperialism.
By the 21st century, German media, politicians and intellectuals had superseded their French counterparts as America's most vocal European critics -- from the Iraq war to eavesdropping by American intelligence agencies.

In terms of tough leadership, Germany's iron lady, Merkel, had trumped even the reputation of Britain's late former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In world opinion, Merkel was deemed just as decisive as Thatcher, but with a far stronger global hand to play and with a more popular embrace of social justice.
In sum, the new post-Cold War Germany was evolving into the leader of the West, especially during the American recessional from world affairs orchestrated by President Barack Obama.

No more. In just the last six months Germany in general, and Merkel in particular, have imploded.
Merkel's disastrous decision to open the borders of Germany -- and with them Europe's as well -- is proving both selfish and suicidal.

Hordes of migrants are swarming into Europe. Merkel's naivete cannot be dressed up in her professed humanitarianism, given that many of the migrants are young, single men from the Middle East who pour into Europe not as political refuges but as opportunists eager for European social largesse.
Aside from the costs, and the religious and social tensions that hundreds of thousands of young unemployed Muslim males will create in Europe, there are lots of other hypocrisies in the German migrant situation.

Germany was far tougher in its fiscal negotiations with kindred European nation Greece than it has been with Middle Eastern migrants.
Merkel logically lectured Greece that its reckless borrowing could not be allowed to undermine the European Union. But isn't that selfishness similar to what Germany is now doing? With Merkel urging other European nations to take in waves of migrants and thereby inviting a flood of refugees across the borders of its neighbors, Germany's far poorer neighbors will bear much of the cost.

Then we come to the recent scandal of Volkswagen rigging the emissions system of its diesel engines to hide their inordinate pollution levels -- another totem of various German contradictions.
Germany has lectured most of the world about the West's excessive carbon footprint. For a quasi-socialist state, it strangely cared little that by shutting down coal and nuclear power plants, and subsidizing the inefficient generation of wind and solar power, it burdened its own working classes with spiraling energy costs.

Merkel would have done better to get off her green high horse, quit lecturing others and do a better job of auditing Germany's own auto industry, whose exports flood the world.
Germany has bragged of its compassionate capitalism -- a mix of private enterprise and paternalistic statism that supposedly checks the exuberance of cowboy profit-seeking and better redistributes the largesse more equably among the population.

But the Volkswagen cheating reminds us that statist capitalism is more, not less, likely to encourage corporate law-breaking than a supposedly selfish American strain of free-market economics. Competition, a more transparent and independent media, and an adversarial rather than partnered government do a better job of checking corporate outlawry.
Who or what might eventually deter the territorial ambitions of Russian President Vladimir Putin? Germany has become the most powerful of the European nations largely by creating a lucrative Eastern European trade empire. The former nations of the Warsaw Pact and many of the breakaway republics of the former Soviet Union sell resources to the German economic juggernaut. In exchange, they buy German consumer and industrial goods -- and expect German leadership and protection from an aggressive Putin.

But profits can outweigh German principles. Apparently, the only deterrent that may stop Putin from invading more countries is not watered-down German trade sanctions, but American troops flown into Germany's backyard from more than 3,000 miles away.
The Greek-German debacle, the migrant mess, the Volkswagen cheating and the Putin aggression remind us that too often Germany's professed good intentions are eclipsed by German self-interest -- an all too familiar experience.

Monday, October 26, 2015

The End Justifies The Means


 

10/23/2015 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com
"If the Cold War is over, what's the point of being an American?" said Rabbit Angstrom, the protagonist of the John Updike novels.

A haunting remark, since, for 40 years, America was largely united on the proposition that our survival depended upon our victory over communism in the Cold War.
We had a cause then. By and large, we stood together through the crises in the first decades of that Cold War -- the Berlin blockade, Stalin's atom bomb and the fall of China to Mao, the Korean War, the Hungarian revolution, the Cuban missile crisis, and on into Vietnam.

We accepted the conscription of our young men. We accepted wars in Asia, and, if need be, in Europe, to check the Soviet Empire. Vietnam sundered that unity.

By 1967, the Gene McCarthy-Robert Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party had broken with the Cold War consensus. "We have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism," said Jimmy Carter.
The Reagan Republicans and George H. W. Bush would pick up the torch and lead the nation to victory in the last decade of that Cold War that had been a defining cause of the American nation.

But when it was over in 1990, America was suddenly at a loss for a new cause to live for, fight for and, if need be, see its sons die for.
Bush 1, after leading a coalition that drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, declared that America's cause would be the building of a "New World Order." But few Americans bought in.
Sixteen months after his victory parade up Constitution Avenue, after Bush had reached 90 percent approval, 62 percent of his country's electorate voted to replace him with Bill Clinton or Ross Perot.

Clinton pursued liberal interventionism in the Balkans, leading to 78 days of bombing Serbia, and he regretted not intervening in Rwanda to halt the genocide.
George W. Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy. But 9/11 put an end to that. After driving the Taliban from power and Osama Bin Laden out of Afghanistan, he declared that America's new goal was preventing an "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea -- from acquiring nuclear weapons. Then, Bush marched us up to Baghdad.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lasted years longer and cost far more in blood and treasure than Bush had anticipated.

At the peak of his prestige, like Pope Urban II, Bush declared a global crusade for democracy. This ended like many of the crusades. Democratic elections were won by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and, after the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Barack Obama promised to end the Bush wars and bring the troops home. And he was rewarded with two terms by a country that has shown minimal enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East. Obama is now openly mocking the McCainiacs.

"Right now, if I was taking the advice of some of the members of Congress who holler all the time, we'd be in, like, seven wars right now," he told a group of veterans and Gold Star mothers of slain U.S. soldiers.
This reluctance to begin wars or intervene in wars -- be it in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine -- seems to comport with the wishes of the country. And this new reality raises serious questions.

What is America's cause today? What is our mission in the world? For what end, other than defending our citizens, vital interests and crucial allies, would we be willing to send a great army to fight -- as we did in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are all the global causes of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II over?
Where is the coherence, the consistency, of U.S. policy in the Middle East that should cause us to draw red lines, and fight if they are crossed?

If our belief in democracy demands the ouster of the dictator Assad in Damascus, how can we ally with the theocratic monarchy in Riyadh, the Sunni king sitting atop a Shiite majority in Bahrain, and the Egyptian general on his throne in Cairo, who took power in a military coup against a democratically elected Muslim government?
Other than supporting Israel, maintaining access to Gulf oil and resisting ISIS and al-Qaida, upon what do Americans agree?

Henry Kissinger seeks a restoration of the crumbling strategic architecture. Neocons and interventionist liberals want to confront Russia and Iran. Reluctant interventionists like Obama, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders think we should stay out of other wars there.
"When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of its foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interests," wrote Walter Lippmann at the climax of World War II:

"Thus, its course in foreign policy depends, in Hamilton's words, not on reflection and choice but on accident and force."
America is a nation divided, not only upon the means we should use to attain our ends in the world, but upon the ends themselves.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Selective Law Enforcement is Nothing But Lawlessness


 

10/15/2015 - Victor Davis Hanson
There are now 340 sanctuary cities -- and the list is growing. All of them choose to ignore federal immigration law by refusing to report detained undocumented immigrants to federal authorities under most circumstances.
Partly as a result, deportations of those who entered the U.S. illegally are at a 10-year low -- even according to the Obama administration's new rigged redefinition of deportation as also occasionally preventing illegal entry at the border.

Some of the 1,000 undocumented immigrants who go unreported to federal authorities each month and are thereby shielded by sanctuary cities from deportation have been accused of violent crimes. According to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 2,000 of the immigrants released have used their freedom to commit crimes.

Last year, San Francisco alone released from its custody 252 undocumented immigrants whom federal authorities had asked the city to hold, according to the report. Most notoriously, the city protected Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez -- five times previously deported, seven times previously convicted of felonies -- who once free allegedly murdered 32-year old Kathryn Steinle in front of witnesses.
Steinle's tragic fate is not unique. And the Obama administration's record on illegal immigration is little better than that of sanctuary cities. The Department of Homeland Security has told Congress that from 2010 to 2014, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 121 undocumented immigrants who had committed crimes and were later charged with homicide.

In 2013 alone, ICE released more than 36,000 undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions. One thousand of them were charged with committing subsequent crimes, according to the Center for Immigration Studies report.

Why have these sanctuary cities and an agency overseen by the Obama administration chosen to disregard federal law and risk the safety of the public?
First, a Republican-majority Congress is unlikely to repeal present immigration statutes. That means an amnesty agenda must be carried out in defiance of the law by city authorities sympathetic to illegal immigration, with a wink and a nod from the Obama administration.

Second, the Obama administration presumably envisions minorities voting in bloc fashion and hopes the Democratic Party will be so rewarded at election time.
Third, cities are generally more liberal than the country at large. There are no political downsides for high-ranking city officials who choose to disregard law, but lots of advantages in appeasing liberal constituencies.

In the 19th century, the Supreme Court issued a number of rulings prohibiting particular states from ignoring federal laws -- from unpopular tax policies to the establishment of Native American reservations.
The most prominent nullificationist was Sen. John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina states-rights advocate and the spiritual godfather of sanctuary cities. Calhoun declared, for example, that federal tariffs should not apply to his state.

Apparently, sanctuary cities do not understand the illiberal pedigree of federal nullification, which was at the heart of the Confederate secessionist movement of 1861. In the 1960s, segregationists declared that Supreme Court decisions and integration laws did not apply to their states. In some states, local law enforcement refused to cooperate with federal authorities to integrate schools.
What would San Franciscans do if conservative counties and towns followed their lead? Perhaps a rural Wyoming sheriff can now look the other way when he spots a cattleman shooting a federally protected grizzly bear or predatory timber wolf -- or at least shield the cattleman from federal officials. Should public schools in Provo, Utah, start the day with school-wide prayers?

The mayor and sheriff of sanctuary-city San Francisco are kindred spirits with Kentucky county clerks who want to opt out of licensing gay marriages. Following the lead of elected Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, other Kentucky clerks have vowed that they will not issue gay marriage licenses, all too happy to nullify a Supreme Court decision.
Sanctuary cities remind us that the obstacle to supposed comprehensive immigration reform is not opposition from intolerant conservative bogeymen.

Many Americans support a pathway to legal residence for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States -- if the border is first closed to further illegal immigration, if legal immigration is made ethnically blind and predicated on merit such as education and skills, if undocumented immigrants pay a fine and meet residency requirements, if applicants for legal residence are neither on public assistance nor have committed crimes, and if those with criminal records and without work records are sent back to their countries of origin.
In contrast, sanctuary cities refuse even to inform federal authorities about the undocumented immigrants with felony convictions who are residing in their jails.

So where do we go from here?
If immigration law were nullified, almost anyone could enter the United States. Perhaps undocumented immigrants from Asia would soon outnumber those from Mexico and Central America. And if cities can declare supposedly conservative federal immigration law invalid, then some states might do the same, deeming lots of federal statutes too liberal.

I thought the Civil War ended these dangerous ideas for good. Apparently not.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

USA - Land of Welfare, Benefits & Entitlements & Free Childbirth


 

Phyllis Schafly Eagle Forum 10-1-15 Townhall.com
It’s long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care, and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births.
We have tolerated an entire industry called “birth tourism,” offering “birth packages” costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico, advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, “Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?”
The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family. As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has stepped up to this challenge and already has 27 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully-admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.
Rep. King is not trying to amend the Constitution. He is simply using the Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch), the power to enforce the citizenship clause.
In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced similar legislation. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since.
The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the Fourteenth Amendment makes automatic citizens out of “all persons” born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence. It’s not enough to be “born” in the U.S.; you can claim citizenship only if you are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, overruled the Dred Scott decision wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that African Americans could not be citizens. Those who support court-made law should forever be reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s warning that if we accept the supremacy of judges, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
The Fourteenth Amendment denied citizenship to American Indians, even though they obviously were “born” in the U.S., because they were “subject to the jurisdiction” of their tribal governments. Congress did not grant citizenship to American Indians on reservations until 1924, 56 years later.
Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother’s country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States does not officially recognize. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came.
There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . . . so help me God.”
Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents’ country, they should not have U.S. citizenship. Terminating the anchor baby racket is very popular with the American people. A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 65 percent of likely voters oppose the practice, while only 29 percent favor it.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Will This Insanity Ever Stop?

 
Phylis Schafly Eagle Forum 10-1-15

A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”

The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to “birth tourists,” primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called “anchor babies” because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens, and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.
The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there on August 24 by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.

The brief begins by declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,” and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent.” In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.
Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States.” But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t). By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico.

The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says that “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals” and “The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad.” Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.
The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.

Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.
In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents which it has no way to verify.

The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.

The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Misplaced Compassion Leads to Lawlessness = Loss of Sovereignty



7/8/2015 - Michelle Malkin Townhall.com

The random, heartless murder of a young tourist on San Francisco's Pier 14 by a five-time illegal alien deportee who benefited from the "progressive" city's sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

But for decades, feckless government leaders ignored the pleas of families who suffered the bloody consequences of open borders.

For every Kate Steinle who died at the hands of an illegal alien sanctuary beneficiary, there is a Tony, Michael and Matthew Bologna in San Francisco.

A Jamiel Shaw (age 17) or Xinran Ji (age 24) in Los Angeles.

A Martin Kudlis (age 3) in Denver.

An Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, or Natasha Aeriel in Newark.

A Zina Linnik (age 12) in Tacoma.

A Vanessa Pham (age 19) in Fairfax County, Va.

As I've reported time and again, liberal "sanctuary" programs in these metropolitan areas have protected, harbored and enabled criminal illegal aliens who disappeared into the deportation abyss. Both Democrats and Republicans, goaded by Big Government and Big Business interests, collaborated to turn America into a collective sanctuary nation. Non-enforcement is the rule, deportation evasion is the game, and the country is a safe haven -- for law-breakers from around the world.

Yet, even as born-again tough-on-borders grandstanders now race in front of cameras to condemn these dangerous policies, churches across the country are brazenly thumbing their noses at our immigration laws. And political phonies are doing nothing to stop them.

In Northeast Portland, Ore., the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Francisco Aguirre-Velasquez after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation rules.

In Tucson, Ariz., illegal alien Daniel Neyoy Ruiz took open, public refuge at Southside Presbyterian Church and then First Christian Church to avoid deportation. Fellow illegal alien Rosa Robles Loreto has been living at First Christian for nearly a year.

In Austin, Texas, First Unitarian Universalist church is harboring illegal alien Sulma Franco after the feds denied her deportation appeal.

In Denver, illegal alien Arturo Armando Hernandez Garcia has taken up long-term residence at First Unitarian Society of Denver church.

In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status "in the shadows."

The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of the 1960s-era sanctuary movement, with top officials openly promoting immigration anarchy and lawlessness among their flock in the name of "humanity" and "compassion."

As I've long noted, it's one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and asylees, and those abused and mistreated by smugglers. It's quite another to conspire against an orderly immigration and entrance system that imposes common-sense limits, eligibility requirements, criminal background checks, medical screening and a commitment to assimilation. Catholic groups have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to building shelters for illegal aliens from Central America and way stations in southern Mexico.

The unholy alliance between church leaders and the open-borders lobby extends from the Vatican to Rev. Jim Wallis' Faith in Public Life (FPL) network, the Los Angeles-based Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) and the George Soros-tied Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ). It's a web of nearly 100 interfaith committees, campus agitators and "workers centers" steeped in the organizing tactics of Saul Alinsky on behalf of millions of illegal aliens filling the pews and coffers of their abettors.


Capitol Hill's abdication of its duties to protect and defend our borders is bad enough. But if people of faith choose to sit silently as a "new sanctuary movement" of tax-exempt houses of worship defiantly and recklessly undermines our immigration laws, our national sovereignty doesn't have a prayer.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Citizens Suffer Because of Congress In-Action


 

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum June 24, 2015
In his seventh year of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as Barack Obama memorably promised five days before he was elected president, we’re learning new details about thousands of immigrants who were released from custody after being convicted of serious, violent felonies and horrific sex crimes. Instead of doing his duty to keep bad people out of America (or remove them if they manage to sneak in), Obama is bringing us even more diversity by accepting thousands of refugees from terrorist-harboring countries such as Syria and Somalia.
Immigrants who commit a major crime inside the U.S. are supposed to be returned to their home country after completing their prison sentence. But a number of countries are refusing to take back their own criminals, so ICE just turns them loose in U.S. communities, freeing them to return to their criminal lifestyle.
We have a U.S. law that is supposed to deal with this; it requires our State Department to impose visa sanctions on countries that refuse to take back their own citizens. But Obama’s State Department simply ignores this law; that’s called executive discretion.
Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have gotten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to admit the awful truth: “One hundred twenty-one convicted criminals who faced deportation orders between 2010 and 2014 were never removed from the country and now face murder charges for killing Americans.”
Hundreds of other immigrants who were convicted of violent sex crimes, including depraved acts against children, were released into unsuspecting U.S. communities without being registered as sex offenders. The Boston Globe compiled a database of nearly a thousand immigrant sex fiends, a job made more difficult because ICE seems to care less about the safety of Americans than about the “privacy” of foreign criminals who shouldn’t even be here.

The excuse given for these outrageous releases is a Supreme Court decision called  Zadvydas which held that persons awaiting deportation can’t be held indefinitely. That 2001 decision was accepted by the George W. Bush administration, which released hundreds of violent criminal immigrants including the accused perpetrator of the D.C. Mansion murders, Darron Wint.

Here are just a few of the blood-curdling crimes committed by illegal aliens released by the Obama Administration to continue their fun and games at the expense of very young girls.
Felix Rodriguez, a 57-year old sex offender, was convicted of raping children as young as four years old in the 1990s, but was freed to continue his crimes because Cuba refused to take him back. He then fatally shot his girlfriend in Kansas City, pled guilty, and is serving a 10-year sentence in a Missouri prison.
Andrew Rui Stanley, who was convicted in 2000 of many counts of sodomizing a child, was released in the U.S. after Brazil failed to provide a passport to accept him back to his native country. Again on the streets in our country, he viciously abused three St. Louis children, and the U.S. taxpayers are now supporting him in a U.S. prison.
Cuba refused to take back Luis-Leyva Vargas after he served time in a Florida prison for unlawful sex with a teenage girl. After he was released by ICE, he kidnapped an 18-year-old girl in Virginia at knifepoint and raped her. He is now serving a 55-year prison sentence, which U.S. taxpayers (instead of Cuban) are paying for.
Meanwhile, Obama has effectively given up enforcing our immigration laws at the workplace, which was the essential trade-off for the 1986 amnesty that Reagan reluctantly signed. A Washington Times headline revealed, “Obama gives free pass to businesses that hire illegals,” including aliens who should have been deported for violent crimes.
Although Obama used his executive action to give valuable benefits to the Communist rulers of Cuba without any quid pro quo whatsoever that might benefit the United States, Cuba still refuses to take back its citizens who have been convicted of crimes against Americans. Cuba refused to take back 878 criminals last year and has already rejected nearly 400 criminals this year.
Cuba is the biggest offender among the countries that refuse the return of their own citizens who committed crimes in our country, but there are at least a dozen other countries doing the same thing. It’s bad enough that those criminals committed vicious crimes against our girls, but it adds insult to injury when we have to spend U.S. taxpayers’ money to support foreign criminals for years in our institutions.

Republican Members of Congress have proposed several legislative solutions for this lack of cooperation by our so-called friendly neighbors, but to no avail. For starters, Congress should cut off all foreign aid and all other favors to countries that refuse to take back their own criminals.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Selective Law Enforcement - A Fallacy



7/14/2015 - Cal Thomas
According to the Wall Street Journal, the last serious attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws appears to have been made in 1982 by a retired Justice Department official named Ronald Gainer. He failed, but the estimate then was "...50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law." Many more laws have been added since then.

One thing is certain: If you violate federal law you are likely to be punished with a fine, imprisonment or both. These laws are supposed to apply to everyone, unless, it seems, you are an illegal alien living in San Francisco, or any of the other sanctuary cities around the country.
By now, anyone not preoccupied with stories about shark attacks, the Confederate flag or singer Ariana Grande "maliciously licking" donuts she did not buy, has heard about 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle gunned down by an illegal alien while walking on a San Francisco pier with her father. Her accused killer is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a felon from Mexico, who had been deported five times but always managed to sneak back in, choosing San Francisco, he reportedly said, because he knew it was a "sanctuary city" that would not deport him.
The concept of a sanctuary city comes from the Old Testament.
"...if someone deliberately kills another person, then the slayer must be dragged even from my altar and be put to death. (Exodus 21:14). But if it was simply an accident permitted by God, I will appoint a place of refuge where the slayer can run for safety. (Exodus 21:13). These cities will be places of protection from a dead person's relatives who want to avenge the death. The slayer must not be put to death before being tried by the community. (Numbers 35:19) "Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger. ... The congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the blood avenger, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil..." (Numbers 35:24-28).
This ancient concept for a sanctuary city was not to shield a suspect from justice, but to guarantee justice was done. The suspected murderer would be given safe haven only until a trial was held. If he was found guilty, he was executed. If he was acquitted he was set free. But if he left the sanctuary city before the trial, "the avenger of blood" could kill him.
Officials in "sanctuary cities" pervert the concept of sanctuary by helping suspects evade the law. Congress should deny federal funds to these cities as long as they continue to ignore the law. President Obama is unlikely to speak, much less lead on this issue, because the Democratic Party thinks it can win the Hispanic vote in 2016. Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce want cheap immigrant labor, so they will huff and puff but do nothing, hoping the controversy goes away. The public must not let this happen.
According to the Washington Post, there are an estimated 60 sanctuary cities around the country, including major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston, and these cities are unlikely to change their sanctuary policies anytime soon.
In fact, writes International Business Times, "...a number of local leaders in U.S. cities have renewed their efforts to foster welcoming and inclusive communities for illegal aliens. So-called 'sanctuary policies' ... are intended to signal to the undocumented community that it's safe to come out of the shadows without the fear of being reported to federal authorities."
If laws are not enforced, what is the point of having them?
If politicians are so afraid of losing the Hispanic vote that they do nothing in response to the murder of Kathryn Steinle, they should be removed from office. The notion that Hispanics won't vote for a party that stands for justice is racist.