RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274129/obama-judge-invents-sanctuary-courthouses-matthew-vadum

All courthouses in Massachusetts have become ICE-free zones because a zealous left-wing Obama judge took it upon herself to forbid immigration officers from detaining suspected illegal aliens on judicial soil.

This lawless order is reportedly the first judicial fiat in the United States to block immigration arrests across an entire state, according to The Epoch Times. Massachusetts happens to be the home of state Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, who was charged earlier this year under federal law for helping an illegal alien evade an ICE agent in her courthouse.

Although police have been arresting suspects in courthouses ever since courthouses were invented –it is a great deal safer for police than raiding a factory or a home— labor lawyer Indira Talwani, now a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, granted a preliminary injunction barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “from civilly arresting parties, witnesses, and others attending Massachusetts courthouses on official business while they are going to, attending, or leaving the courthouse.” The order specifies that it “does not limit ICE’s criminal arrests of such individuals or its civil arrests of individuals who are brought to Massachusetts courthouses while in state or federal custody.”

President Barack Hussein Obama nominated Talwani Sept. 24, 2013. The U.S. Senate confirmed Talwani on May 8, 2014.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-what-now-for-those-who-denied-a-crisis-at-the-border

Congress is debating emergency humanitarian aid to care for migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border. The need is obvious. With virtually no barrier to stop them, thousands of migrants are crossing illegally into the United States every day. More than a million will come this year. U.S. law prevents border officials from quickly returning them. While they are being processed, some of the migrants, including children, are being kept temporarily in terrible conditions. American officials have an obligation to take care of them before those with no valid claim to be in the United States are returned to their home countries.

Capitol Hill Democrats are reportedly torn about an emergency aid measure. On one hand, they want to care for the migrants. On the other hand, they fear approving aid would empower President Trump to carry out a plan to deport illegal immigrants whose cases have received full legal due process and who have been ordered deported. Such deportations used to be relatively uncontroversial but are now, apparently, unacceptable to some Democrats.

This moment might be a time for introspection for those who have consistently downplayed the urgency of the situation on the border. Earlier this year, with the number of illegal crossings rising; with the nature of the crossers changing — more families and more children than in earlier years; with the testimony of border officials that they were unable to handle the situation — with all that happening, many Democrats and their supporters in the media forcefully denied that there was a crisis on the southern border. Here are a few — actually, more than a few — examples:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/what-the-viral-border-patrol-video-leaves-out/

News outlets seized on the video as evidence of the Trump administration’s cruelty, but they omitted the crucial context.

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes “sanitary conditions.” The majority of the shares were of a version put out by NowThis News, which claimed that the video shows a Trump administration official arguing that “children don’t need soap, toothbrushes, or beds to be ‘safe and sanitary’ while in Border Patrol custody.” The claim has led to several days of outrage, and has been used repeatedly as evidence that the current administration is being intentionally cruel to migrant children. Countless journalists, along with clickbait outlets such as The Hill and the Huffington Post, have highlighted the video inside this framing.

Unsurprisingly, it is not that simple. Indeed, the hearing in the video was related not to actions taken by the Trump administration, but to a challenge of a 2017 ruling that the CBP under the Obama administration had violated the Flores Settlement agreement with its treatment of children in custody. The judge in that case cited specific infractions that she felt were in violation of the “safe and sanitary” requirement under the Flores agreement and recommended a special monitor be appointed to ensure these facilities were complying with the original standard. The DOJ attorney in the video, Sarah Fabian, was not arguing that the United States should decline to provide those items to children, but rather that the Flores Settlement agreement didn’t specifically require those items. The notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit judges disagreed with this argument, preferring to read Flores narrowly. Fabian has been arguing similar cases on behalf of the Justice Department for years; that is her job. Some of her legal arguments have upset immigration advocates before. But they have never led to this type of media coverage, or to the claim that her fulfilling her legal role is indicative of a moral shortcoming.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/now_the_cartel_members_are_asking_for_asylum.html

If there’s any proof the asylum system is a mess, take a look at who’s getting in on ‘credible fear’ reasons from the Center or Immigration Studies:

KVOA News 4, the Tucson NBC affiliate, has reported on a June 10, 2019, gun battle that took place across the border from Douglas, Ariz., in Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico. That gun battle apparently involved an internal dispute among members of the Sinaloa drug cartel and, by the end, almost 12 people had died. A gun battle directly across the border from the United States in which almost a dozen people were killed would be shocking enough.

One passage in that report, however, underscores the biggest difficulty the United States faces in securing its Southwest border: “Sources told News 4 Tucson four cartel members showed up at the port of entry asking for asylum and claimed ‘credible fear’.”

Given the low standard, the regrettable thing is that those cartel members likely were found to have a credible fear of persecution and/or torture.
So now it’s not just welfare seekers getting in on the credible fear argument, it’s the cartels they pay to get them in. And once those brutal thugs get into fights among themselves, whether it’s over alien-smuggling profits, drug routes, or cheap little whores, the losing party has rights to enter the U.S. to seek asylum as a consolation prize, citing perfectly logically the credible fear of torture, beheading, being dropped into acid pots, being run over alive over and over by semi-trucks, being fed to pigs and buried in the desert, or being strung up naked by one foot from the local bridges. Technically, they would likely have more credible fear than anyone else applying for asylum, and by leftist logic, that would put them at the front of the queue.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/florida_sets_an_important_precedent.html

As reported in the Miami Herald News, on Friday 14 June, 2019 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Federal Immigration Enforcement bill, SB 168, keeping a promise he had made during his campaign for governor.

Here is a summary of the bill’s provisions shown on the Florida Senate website:

Prohibits a state entity, local governmental entity, or law enforcement agency from having a sanctuary policy, which is a law, policy, practice, procedure, or custom that restricts a law enforcement agency’s ability to communicate or exchange information with a federal immigration agency on immigration enforcement matters or from complying with immigration detainers.
Provides procedures for a court to follow to reduce a defendant’s sentence by up to 12 days and thereby permit a law enforcement agency to transfer the defendant to a federal facility and complete the remaining 12 days of the sentence.
Requires a law enforcement agency that has custody of someone who is subject to an immigration detainer to notify the judge of the detainer, record in the person’s file the existence of the detainer, and comply with the detainer.
Requires a county correctional facility to enter into an agreement with a federal immigration agency for the payment of costs associated with housing and detaining defendants.
Provides that the Governor, in an exercise of his or her constitutional duties, may initiate judicial proceedings against any executive or administrative state, county, or municipal officer to enforce compliance with duties under the act or restrain unauthorized actions contrary to the act.
Permits the Attorney General to institute an action for a violation of this law or to prevent a violation of the law.
Requires any sanctuary policies currently in effect be repealed within 90 days after the effective date of the act.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whats-wrong-with-asking-about-citizenship-on-the-census/

A donnybrook has broken out over how the administration decided to add a citizenship question to the census. We’ll presumably learn more one way or the other, but it’s worth asking why it is considered such a scandal to ask about citizenship, which is a question on other government surveys and isn’t new on the census. Here is the Census Bureau itself describing what it asks as part of the very important, ongoing American Community Survey and why:

We ask questions about a person’s place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry into the United States to create data about citizens, noncitizens, and the foreign-born population.

Agencies and policymakers use our published statistics to set and evaluate immigration policies and laws, understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.

And explaining the origins of these questions:

Citizenship originated with the 1820 Census, place of birth originated with the 1850 Census, and year of entry originated with the 1890 Census. They transferred to the ACS in 2005 when it replaced the decennial census long form.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273975/politicians-must-face-consequences-crimes-they-michael-cutler

The phrase, Failure is Not An Option served as the title of the book written by Gene Kranz, Flight Director for NASA who helped create the U.S. manned space program and was instrumental in successfully returning the crew of Apollo 13 to the earth after their spacecraft suffered a catastrophic explosion half-way to the moon.

In most professions, especially where lives are on the line, failure to do the job is not an option.  This is particularly true where law enforcement and the military are concerned.  

Politicians, not unlike members of the military and law enforcement officers, take oaths of office where they swear (affirm) that they will enforce our laws and defend the Constitution.  While law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces may face dire consequences for violating their oaths of office, politicians generally do not.

Their oaths of office do not provide an “escape clause” whereby they may opt to ignore any of the laws that are not to their liking.

Unlike the entries on the menu of a restaurant where the patrons order the food that they find palatable or where they may substitute one item on the menu for another, their oaths of office demand that those who take that oath agree to enforce all laws and honor and defend all of the provisions of our Constitution.

Dereliction of duty is a serious offense for members of the armed forces and for law enforcement officers and one that carries significant consequences.

On June 4, 2019 ABC News reported, Police arrest ex-deputy who ‘did absolutely nothing to mitigate’ Parkland school massacre.

We will not delve in the specifics of this ongoing case, but it is important to note that the deputy sheriff in this case has been charged with multiple crimes, some of which are felonies, all emanating from his alleged failures to act to protect the children who were killed in that school.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/george-will-demands-open-borders-im-for-as-much-immigration-as-the-economy-can-take/

The sesquipedalian (using long words, long-winded) Will was once a great journalist, but he has clearly lost his footing but retained his pomposity …..rsk

Establishment Conservative columnist and author George Will told Hill.TV yesterday morning that he supports as much immigration “as the economy can take.” According to Will, America needs mass immigration because of an aging workforce and millions of “unfilled jobs.”

Will was on the show because he has written a new book, The Conservative Sensibility. In this book, he argues that conservatives “made a wrong turn,” and he advocates a “return” to the principles of “small government.”

However, with “small government” Will doesn’t actually mean small government. What he does mean is cheap labor for Big Business. You see, according to Will, the entire system of entitlements is “here to stay.” The problem is “how to pay for them.” To do so, America needs a “dynamic” economic system, by which he means the capitalist free market system… and mass immigration.

“I believe immigration is an inherently entrepreneurial act,” Will said (much to the surprise of European watchers who see many ‘entrepreneurial immigrants’ from Syria come to Europa, after which they prefer to cash in welfare checks rather than get to work). “It’s people uprooting themselves, taking a risk for themselves and their families.”

“I think in a country in which baby boomers are retiring, where we have an aging workforce, where we have seven million unfilled jobs at the moment, and we have people clamoring to get into our country, to get to work, I’m for as much immigration as the economy can handle. The economy needs immigration just as much as the immigrants need the American economy.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/a-win-at-the-border/

“The New York Times had a report over the weekend throwing cold water on the deal, saying its component parts had already been agreed to months ago. It’s no secret that the U.S. has been pushing Mexico in this direction for a while (indeed, prior talks that the Times calls “secret” were publicly announced). It’s still an accomplishment to get Mexico to commit openly to fuller, more urgent cooperation with the U.S.”

President Trump evidently knows something about the art of the tariff threat. His unorthodox Twitter diplomacy has gotten Mexico to make potentially important public commitments on immigration enforcement.

Trump said he was going to slap steadily escalating tariffs on Mexico unless it did more to help with the border crisis, a threat with huge downside risks. If implemented, the tariffs would have been disruptive at a time when U.S. growth is perhaps slowing, been an economic gut-punch to an allied country whose stability is important to us, and probably precipitated a congressional revolt against the policy. Instead, Trump has a win that is likely more than a mere PR victory.

Mexico is devoting 6,000 troops to attempting to better police its own border with Guatemala. It’s unclear what this will produce, although it can’t hurt. More important is the extension of the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), or the “remain in Mexico” policy. Under this arrangement, we can return asylum-seekers to Mexico while their claims — almost always ultimately rejected — are adjudicated. This avoids one of the biggest problems of our current policy, which allows asylum-seekers into the country, never to be removed, even if their claims are rejected and they are ordered deported.

Mexico wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about MPP and limited the number of asylum-seekers it would accept to a trickle. Now it is saying it will accept them with no restrictions. That’s a big deal, although our capacity to process the migrants for return is limited, and it remains to be seen how much Mexico will do to follow through on its commitment. The deal at least makes it possible, though, for us to prevent Central American family units from automatically gaining entry into the country, and thus it significantly reduces the incentive for a future flow of migrants.