This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents The Michael Cutler Moment with Michael Cutler, a former Senior INS Special Agent.
Michael discusses Immigration Failures vs. Americans, unveilinghow law enforcement failures undermine our citizens’ civil rights.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch Anne Marie Waters focus on The Islamic Darkness Descends on Europe, revealing that the horror is here and that now is the time to stand up and reclaim our civilization:
Immigration anarchists have repeatedly drawn false analogies between their efforts to block the enforcement of immigration laws and the heroic action of those whose hard-fought efforts for decades provided black Americans with civil rights, but at great cost.
These anarchists emulate Jimmy Carter, creator of the Orwellian term ‘Undocumented Immigrant’ by referring to advocates for fair and effective immigration law enforcement as being “Anti-Immigrant.” This despicable tactic is now being used to falsely attack Senator Jeff Sessions, the nominee for Attorney General, accuse his support for such effective enforcement of our immigration laws as running contrary to civil rights and being against immigrants.
These anarchists refuse to concede what should be obvious, while aliens illegally present in the United States are entitled to human rights and due process, they are not entitled to broad civil rights protections. It is an outrageous contradiction in concepts to claim that aliens whose mere presence represents a violation of law should be provided with opportunities equal to those provided to American citizens and lawful immigrants.
In reality, immigration anarchists are, themselves, responsible for undermining the civil rights of Americans, particularly American minorities who suffer the greatest harm because of the failures of our government to enforce the immigration laws. Those immigration anarchists also are responsible for undermining the civil rights of lawful immigrants.
For the sake of clarity and to prevent any potential misunderstandings, illegal aliens, not unlike others, are entitled to human rights and are properly entitled to due process when accused of committing crimes. There are two reasons why due process must be devoid of consideration as to the immigration status of the accused. First of all, it is a matter of fairness and justice.
Creating a lower standard for convicting illegal aliens for committing crimes would undermine the judicial system.
Additionally, unscrupulous prosecutors who simply wanted a “quick kill” would be encouraged to seek the conviction of illegal aliens who did not actually commit the crime. This is immoral and unjust. Secondly, under such circumstances, law enforcement authorities would stop looking for the actual criminal who would therefore remain at large and continue to pose a threat.
Civil rights laws were initially enacted to address the wrongs visited upon black Americans beginning with slavery and then segregation.
Today those laws are focused on providing citizens, irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual identity or orientation, with equal protection under our laws and equal opportunities, thereby enabling them to be full participants in the communities where they live and throughout our nation.
BERLIN—The number of asylum seekers entering Germany fell by about two thirds last year but the proportion of rejected applicants who left remained low, the government said Wednesday, raising fears that criminals or extremists may remain in the country.
The influx of migrants from war-torn or poor economic regions has raised security concerns, particularly after last year’s terror attacks in Germany. In December, rejected asylum seeker Anis Amri killed 12 and left scores wounded.
Government data showed that roughly 280,000 people entered Germany last year in search of asylum, down from a record of about 890,000 in 2015. But only 80,000 left Germany either voluntarily or were deported.
“The development of the asylum figures show that the German government’s measures have an effect. We have succeeded in regulating, steering the number of people coming to us,” said Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière. However, the number who left was too low, given the number of rejected asylum claims, he said. “We are in talks with the states to further increase the number of these returnees.”
The number of filed asylum claims, which lags behind the number of newly arrived migrants, rose to 745,545 in 2016 from 476,649 in 2015. The biggest group of applicants came from Syria, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, and more than half received asylum or refugee status.
Mr. de Maizière called on European Union countries to continue with their efforts to establish a harmonized asylum policy as the rate of granting asylum or refugee status differs greatly among member states.
“It’s not too much to ask that countries should agree on how to assess the political situation in Somalia, Nigeria and Pakistan,” he said. “Entry criteria and the length of asylum procedures should be more streamlined in Europe. The level of welfare benefits should also be awarded within a certain range.” CONTINUE AT SITE
This special episode of The Glazov Gang presents The Anni Cyrus Moment with Anny Cyrus, the producer of the show. Anni discusses How I Was Screened as a Refugee and shares why she embraced it.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch Anni focus on Lies About Hijab 101, where she unveils a “seminar” that is setting out to normalize vicious savagery against women:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov
Time and again our elected political “representatives” on all levels of government have acted in ways that failed to truly represent the best interests of America and Americans.
Time and again my articles have focused on my frustration and anger over how all too many politicians have obstructed the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.
I have written extensively about how members of Congress who supported so-called, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” blithely ignored the findings and, indeed, warnings about the 9/11 Commission by concocting legislation that would provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with official identity documents and lawful status even though there would be no way to conduct interviews or field investigations to screen to combat immigration fraud. Visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud were identified as key entry and embedding tactics of international terrorists.
“Sanctuary Cities” created by rogue mayors operate in direct opposition of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), an immigration criminal statute that address harboring, shielding, aiding and abetting, encouraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States illegally and/or remain in the United States illegally after entry.
Today, however, we have cause to be optimistic. Congressman Lou Barletta who truly represents the citizens of his home town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania and, in so doing, all Americans from coast to coast and border to border has, for the third time, introduced legislation that would strip all federal funding from cities that fail to cooperate fully with immigration law enforcement activities.
I am proud that Lou has become a personal friend.
Prior to his election to Congress he was the mayor of Hazleton. He was shocked when his peaceful town was, for lack of a better term, invaded by a violent Dominican narcotics-trafficking gang that engaged in drug dealing and violent crimes including murder.
Although he approached the administration of President George W. Bush and asked for federal assistance in confronting these illegal criminal aliens, the administration refused to help. As a consequence he promulgated the first ordinances that penalized employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens and landlords who would knowingly provide housing to illegal aliens.
He was promptly sued in federal court by advocates for illegal aliens. I was his final witness at the trial that ensued.
Canada’s capital is a small sleepy city of less than a million. Its average annual murder rate is only 10. That’s a weekend in Chicago. But last year something strange happened to Ottawa’s murder rate.
It shot up to 24 homicides.
The last two murders were of Somali Muslim sisters Asma and Nasiba. Their murderer was their brother, Musab A-Noor. Despite the obvious history of Muslim honor killings of women, often carried out by brothers against their sisters, Musab was found “unfit” to stand trial. A director at the Somali Centre for Family Services insisted that Somali settlers in the city need more mental health funding.
Something certainly seems to be needed.
There were an estimated 66,000 Muslim settlers in the Ottawa – Gatineau metropolitan area. Despite forming some 5 percent of the population, they are startlingly overrepresented in Ottawa’s murders.
2016 in Ottawa ended with a Muslim murder in December and it began with a Muslim murder in January. Mohamed Najdi was killed by five other Muslim men. Mohamed had probably been shot in connection with the 2015 shooting of yet another Muslim man by an accused killer named Mohammad.
And we mustn’t confuse Mohamed with Mohammad.
The other Mohammad, a Kuwaiti immigrant, had been a suspect in multiple shootings the previous year and had spent two years in prison for sexual assault.
At January’s end, Marwan Arab, Ottawa’s second homicide victim, was shot, along with his cousin. Both men were members of the Algonquin Muslim Students Association. One of the Arab cousins allegedly had links to a terror suspect. The shooting led to more arrests of Muslims for plotting another attack.
In March, Christina Voelzing became Ottawa’s sixth murder victim. The 24-year-old Algonquin college student was murdered by her ex-boyfriend Behnam Yaali. Yaali, a drug smuggler, was represented by a lawyer who also specializes in refugee law.
Twenty-four hours after almost being allowed to walk free after pleading guilty to robbery, Idris Abdulgani was arrested for murdering Lonnie Leafloor, a 56-yearold former truck driver, by stabbing him in the back of the neck.
And that was Ottawa’s seventh murder.
This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents The Michael Cutler Moment with Michael Cutler, a former Senior INS Special Agent.
Michael discusses President Trump’s Immigration/Jihad Challenge,as he looks forward to the new president putting security back into the Department of Homeland Security.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch Ingrid Carlqvist focus on How Sweden Became Absurdistan, as she shares her fear that her country could become the first Sharia state in Europe:http://jamieglazov.com/2017/01/06/michael-cutler-moment-president-trumps-immigrationjihad-challenge/
If those migrants were all adjusting well to living in Great Britain and embracing British culture, this would not be a problem:
Britain is set to become the most populous European country by 2050 because of migrant numbers, official figures have revealed. Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical office, predicted the British population to increase by at least 13million – from 64.6 million in 2015 to 77.1 million in 2050.
Those numbers collapse completely if migrants aren’t included, which would cause another set of problems. For instance, the welfare state would become unaffordable. Having said that, it’s not necessarily true that high numbers of migrants and their children will prevent that; that’s only true if they put more into the system than they receive. As anybody who has ever walked around in a large European city can tell you, that’s certainly not always the case.
Additionally, as think tank head Alp Mehmet points out, having such high numbers of immigrants (and their children) in any society can cause very serious problems:
This research spells out the very serious consequences for our society if net migration continues at its present scale, with membership of the single market resulting in a relentless increase in our population. In increase of anything like 12 million in just 25 years is, quite simply, unacceptable to the British public and certainly not what they voted for in the referendum.
Most proponents of Brexit aren’t calling for a complete ban on migration. There are very good reasons why some migration should be allowed — eg., Brits marrying foreigners, highly skilled foreigners who are of value to the British economy, real refugees who can’t be protected in their own region. But that is not the same as having an open-borders policy that allows everybody in who wants to get in. Having such an immigration policy is, quite simply, suicidal. CONTINUE AT SITE
On January 20, 2017 President Trump can and likely will end all of Obama’s illegal immigration executive orders, but he needs to do more.
For decades the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was hobbled by lack of resources in general and a particularly devastating failure to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.
For decades the Border Patrol was perceived as the primary enforcement arm of America’s immigration laws and for the Border Patrol this worked out fine. They got the lion’s share of publicity and, far more importantly, the funding while INS special agents and the interior enforcement mission were all but ignored
When the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, the former INS was dismantled and broken into several components of the DHS and mixed in with other agencies, principally the U.S. Customs Service.
Bad as it was for INS agents to operate in the shadow of the Border Patrol, the creation of the DHS was disastrous and caused many of the INS agents nostalgic for “the good old days.”
On May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”
I was one of four witnesses who testified at that hearing. In point of fact, I testified at several hearings that sought to understand the challenges that the creation of the DHS created for the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.
In my testimony I clearly articulated my concerns about the myriad issues created when the DHS was established and the former INS was dismantled.
Consider this excerpt from the testimony of then-Subcommittee Chairman John Hostettler in which he articulated the importance of immigration law enforcement and that was, however, hobbled by the creation of the DHS:
The first two Subcommittee hearings of the year examined in detail how the immigration enforcement agencies have inadequate resources and too few personnel to carry out their mission. The witnesses mentioned the lack of uniforms, badges, detention space, and the inevitable low morale of frontline agents who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming illegal aliens. If this were not enough, these ”immigration enforcement” agencies also face internal confusion resulting from dual or multiple missions in which immigration has all too often taken a back seat. Sadly, contrary to Congress’ expectations, immigration enforcement has not been the primary focus of either of these agencies, and that is the subject of today’s hearing.
The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.
There was a constant tug-of-war between providing good service to law-abiding aliens and enforcing the law against law-breakers. The plain language of the Homeland Security Act, Title D, creates a ”Bureau of Border Security,” and specifically transfers all immigration enforcement functions of INS into it. Yet when it came down to actually creating the two: new agencies, the Administration veered off course. Although the service functions of INS were transferred to USCIS, the enforcement side of INS was split in two, what is now Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to handle interior enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to guard our borders.
ICE was given all Customs agents, investigators, intelligence and analysis-from the Treasury Department, as well as the Federal Protective Service to guard Federal buildings, and the Federal Air Marshals to protect our airplanes, and finally the INS investigators.
CBP was given all Treasury Customs inspectors at the ports-of-entry, Agriculture Inspector from the Department Of Agriculture, and INS inspectors.
At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.
Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.
It is not certain on what basis it was determined that customs and agriculture enforcement should become part of the immigration enforcement agency, except to require Federal agents at the border to have more expertise and more functions.
It is also unknown on what basis the Federal Air Marshals should become part of this agency, especially since it has been revealed that the policy is not to apprehend out-of-immigration status aliens when discovered on flights. If the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the homeland, it cannot effect its mission by compromising or neglecting immigration enforcement for customs enforcement.
The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.
Donald Trump was asked on Wednesday if the Christmas-market truck massacre in Berlin had caused him to reevaluate his various proposals regarding immigration from terror-spawning regions. His answer sent the liberal media into another nervous breakdown: “I’ve been proven to be right,” Trump responded. “One hundred percent correct.”
And so he has. To the New York Times, however, Trump’s words were front-page news. “Trump Suggests Berlin Attack Affirms His Plan to Bar Muslims,” read the headline (even though Trump had not specifically addressed the temporary ban in his response to the reporter’s question). The Times assumes that its readers will be shocked by any suggested connection between Islamic terror attacks and immigration policy. The Times, for its part, treats the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” like the Ebola virus, inoculating itself from any misperception that it would independently pen such scandalous words by the liberal use of scare quotes. “One area where Mr. Trump and his advisers have been unswerving is their repeated denunciation of ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’” writes the Times incredulously.
Despite the Times’ protestation, the problem of Islamic terrorism in the West is, among other things, an immigration issue, whether an attack has been committed by first-generation immigrants or second. But the Berlin massacre does more than vindicate Trump’s planned reassessment of entry protocols. It also vindicates his intention to eliminate local sanctuary policies. The suspected Berlin attacker was, like many previous Islamic terrorists, a thug first, a terrorist second. Anis Amri had been arrested several times in his home country of Tunisia for various street crimes, including petty theft; he was sentenced in absentia to five years in prison for stealing a car. He committed arson in Italy. He assaulted fellow prisoners while jailed in Italy. He sold drugs in a Berlin park.
Such crimes, if committed by an illegal alien in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, or the 300 other sanctuary jurisdictions in the U.S., would induce local jail authorities and police chiefs to hold that alien in order to protect him against any federal effort to deport him. Politicians in sanctuary cities work feverishly to bury this core fact: The sanctuary policies they have rushed to defend in the wake of Trump’s election are designed to shield street criminals and thugs from deportation. Such policies forbid jail authorities from honoring a federal request to hold an illegal-alien criminal beyond his release date so that federal agents can start removal proceedings against him.
On Friday, BBC Radio interviewed Seattle mayor Ed Murray about his city’s recently reaffirmed sanctuary policy. Murray ducked any question that would have clarified the fact that it was criminal law-breakers Seattle was shielding. Instead, Murray waxed self-righteous about his “moral obligation” to defeat immigration enforcement, with not a peep of acknowledgment that Seattle’s defiance of federal authority meant that law-abiding Seattle residents would be forced to pay the costs of illegal-alien crime.
Top Stories @ Fox News