RUTHFULLY YOURS

The April 24, 2018 headline of the New York Times article, U.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules summed up Judge John D. Bates’ outrageous decision to force the Trump administration to continue the DACA program created by the Obama administration.

The judge has given the Trump administration 90 days to substantiate President Trump 90 days to justify his claim that DACA is illegal.

Judge Bates’ ruling ignores the indisputable fact that DACA was created by Obama’s Executive Order and not by legislation. Judge Bates apparently believes that Exeuctive Orders must extend beyond the administration of the president who issued those Executive Orders, even when the new president disagrees with them. Bates’ ruling obstructs President Trump’s ability to implement his policies.

In order to understand the issue we must begin by considering the origins of DACA, an acronym for Deferred Action – Childhood Arrival.

First of all, the action that is being deferred by DACA is the required departure of illegal aliens from the United States.

Prior to the Obama administration’s claim of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to justify the creation of DACA, immigration authorities did use the notion of “deferred action” for humanitarian purposes in a case-by-case basis, to provide nonimmigrant aliens, that is to say aliens who had been admitted into the United States for a temporary period of time, with permission to remain in the United States beyond their authorized periods of admission.

If, for example, a family member of an alien visitor in the United States had fallen seriously ill or became seriously injured, nonimmigrant family members would be allowed to remain in the United States for a finite additional period of time, to tend to their stricken family member.

As an INS special agent I was, on occasion, tasked with interviewing medical professionals to verify the medical condition of such individuals to make certain that fraud was not being perpetrated. Generally doctors were required to provide periodic documentation that reported on the medical status of the ill or injured family member.

Once the situation was resolved, hopefully with that family member making a sufficient recovery, the alien beneficiaries of that temporary deferred action were required to depart from the United States.

While politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties may have differences on some issues, you may be shocked to know that there is clear evidence that the leadership of both parties favor the continuation of the immigration crisis caused by the dysfunctional “broken” immigration system.

Americans have been duped into believing immigration is a “Left” vs “Right” issue when leadership of both parties essentially want the same thing.

Nancy Pelosi outrageously claimed that “DREAMERs are the best of the best of the best during a lengthy tirade. However, on April 17, 2018 Breitbart reported, ‘DREAMers Are Among Our Best and Brightest:’ Koch Brothers to Push Amnesty with Seven-Figure Ad Campaign.

That article began with the following statement:

Pro-mass immigration GOP megadonor billionaires the Koch brothers are set to release a seven-figure ad campaign to push amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in the United States, just months ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

The Koch brothers are hardly they only “Conservative” campaign contributors who take this anti-American position.

As I have noted in previous articles, politicians are not unlike magicians who promise to cut their lovely assistants in half.

The magician knows that if they makes good on that promise, they will go to prison for a long, long time and, even if they are ever let out of jail, no one will ever work with them again.

The invading caravan from Central America finally reached the United States. Some members of the caravan crossed the border illegally and were arrested. Others may have made it through undetected.

Still others openly applied for asylum and had their applications processed at the San Ysidro port of entry at the border. They were selected by the radical anti-American group, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, as the best representatives of their invasion of the United States. Others just headed straight for the hills.

The Goat Canyon area has one of the biggest gaps and is a popular crossing spot for illegal migrants. There’s an 8-foot tall fence in poor condition and a woefully incomplete secondary fence. Fencing in the area dates back to Operation Gatekeeper in the 90s which reduced migrant traffic, but didn’t stop it. After leveling hills and building miles of fencing, the area is still a dangerous illegal alien magnet.

Chemical and sewage dumping from Mexico made parts of the area too hazardous to patrol. It’s so bad that Border Patrol personnel have become ill and an environmental group called off a cleanup because of the high fecal content. One agent experienced chemical burns in his lungs while checking a grate.

Goat Canyon is one of the most compelling arguments for Trump’s wall. And for more than a wall.

Migrant alien males can cross illegally. Families usually turn themselves in to the Border Patrol and are quickly released because there are no local facilities to detain them, turning border patrol personnel into coyotes. But this time the Justice Department decided to send a message to the illegal caravan.

We have all heard the bogus claim that “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” protect the “immigrants” from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and that the mayors of sanctuary cities are being compassionate.

There is no compassion to be found in exploitation

In reality, politicians who create and support sanctuary policies are every bit as disgusting and exploitative of illegal aliens as are human traffickers and unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens and benefit by sanctuary policies and, indeed those human traffickers and employers of illegal aliens are being provided with “sanctuary” and are being shielded from detection by ICE.

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers.

Before we go further, however, it is imperative to lay waste to that the false claim that mayors of sanctuary cities protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement agents.

Lies about sanctuary policies being motivated by “compassion” creates a hostile environment and antipathy for ICE agents and Border Patrol agents that impedes them from locating and arresting aliens who violate our immigration laws, but also makes it far more difficult for ICE and Border Patrol agents to engage with the public to develop actionable intelligence.

This hostility also endangers their safety (reportedly physical attacks on immigration law enforcement personnel have more than doubled in the past couple of years).

Let’s be clear, Immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities.

After a big buildup, the migrant caravan full of Central America’s finest has finally arrived, and as screengrabs from local television broadcasts show, they gave America the bird.

Seriously. Buried in a News 8 broadcast from San Diego was footage of illegal migrants and their supporters on the U.S. side breaching the U.S. fence on the border, waving a big Honduran flag, victory-style, and whipping out a big middle finger at America.

In times past, arriving immigrants used to kiss the earth. Today, they wave the middle finger at us. Look at these photos, both from News 8 and the CBS national report, rough and blurry, admittedly, showing just what that caravan was about in all its anti-American tenor, which frankly, should have been the lede to the story:

For a publicity stunt as staged as the migrant caravan from Central America, one that one might have expected to have been carefully choreographed to advance their narrative of needy people with sob stories needing asylum, what does it say that all we see are military-aged young men, some with tattoos, illegally entering the U.S. under the Honduran banner and angrily flashing the middle finger in what might be their first moments in America?

Here are more photos showing that this crowd (and its cheering section on the other side) is anything but the women and children in peril being promoted by the group’s organizers. Actually, it’s almost all single military-aged young men in small groups, who seem to be angry at our country and us for not letting them in on demand.

Apparently the “caravan” of Central and Middle [oops! — Ed.] Americans that was headed towards our Southern border, still is headed towards our Southern border.

Sure, Mexico has stopped openly lending support, and the lawyers accompanying the merry band have stopped telling them it’s a shoe in, but they’re still coming.

The truth of the matter is that Mexico might not be lending open support to this attempt to test US borders, but they are in fact lending it their support, by not arresting these illegal aliens on their soil (Mexico has much tougher immigration laws than ours) and not offering them asylum there. Instead, they let what must be a significant and large multitude continue towards the US border.

Why are they doing it? The answer is fairly obvious. From the linked article:

The Central Americans, many traveling as families, on Sunday will test the Trump administration’s tough rhetoric criticizing the caravan when the migrants begin seeking asylum by turning themselves into border inspectors at San Diego’s San Ysidro border crossing, the nation’s busiest.

They’re coming to test the “Trump administration’s tough rhetoric”. In effect, they’re coming to test our borders and our decision to uphold their integrity.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it: I am not against immigration. It would be stupid and weird for me to be against immigration, given that I’m an immigrant myself.

I am not, however, a believer in open borders. The whole open borders project is a weird project of intellectual elites who view themselves as the aristocrats of the world and all cultures similarly blighted and in need of their input. It was never realistic, and it is less realistic than ever for the US.

The US, while a nation, possessed of territory, like all nations, is something quite new in the history of the world, as our founding principles are a radical departure from past countries and an effort to create a citizenship of belief.

Because I am quite devoted to our founding principles and the liberty which they secure us, I don’t believe in immigration simply for economic necessity or to escape this or that. While those are valid motives to immigrate anywhere – including here – you should come here with the intention of becoming an American, or as my friend, Dave Freer, himself an immigrant to Australia, puts it, FIFO: Fit in or F**k off.

This “caravan” coming to “test” our borders is the very antithesis of FIFO, and in fact, if we do not find a way to turn it away, and ship these people back where they came from, we might as well consider our borders non-existent. And you know what you call a country with non-existent borders? Not a country. To study the fate of such a land, read up on the tragedy of the commons.

If we are open land whom anyone may come and settle in, first we need to stop the welfare system because pioneers by definition don’t get welfare. And second, we can kiss our culture and our founding principles goodbye, because, in the face of a massive invasion by another culture, there is no way to make anyone acculturate (a painful process at best) or fit in.

I know that many people on the left and right will emphasize the plight of the people in this caravan as “refugees” and bring up both the long tradition of Americans taking refuges from anywhere, when they were in peril of their lives, and the breach of such a policy, such as the turning away of boats full of European Jews fleeing the holocaust. They’ll say that the turning away of these “refugees” is an act of malice and racism.

In fact, it is neither. There might be many reasons to take in refugees, but one of them is not to accept a caravan composed in other countries and passing through many countries on the way here.

Take one of the members of the caravan: Nefi Hernandez, who planned to seek asylum with his wife and infant daughter [who] was born on the journey through Mexico, worried he could be kept in custody away from his daughter. But his spirits lifted when he learned he might be released with an ankle bracelet.

Hernandez, 24, said a gang in his hometown of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, threatened to kill him and his family if he did not sell drugs.

First of all, I beg leave to not believe his dire peril, or at least that the story is somewhat shaded. Sure. Maybe he sold drugs for this gang, then did something they didn’t like and got in trouble, but I don’t believe drug gangs are in the habit of threatening someone to make them join the trade. There is something that doesn’t hang together there.

But in addition to that, a drug gang, no matter how lawless the country, is not a government. Even if they wanted you to sell drugs in this particular village, in this particular province, they’d be unlikely to follow you to the next province or the next village, let alone the next country. Hernandez comes from Honduras. That means to get to Mexico he had to cross another country, probably Guatemala. And to get to the US he had to cross another country, Mexico.

CONTINUE AT SITE

How the Golden State defies immigration law

‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.

The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.

The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum.

At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.