Jump to content
kscarbel2

Trump and Immigration (Illegal Immigrants in the US)

Recommended Posts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-immigrant-children-detention-hhs-cuts-funds-programs-like-cancer-research-230259583.html

Yahoo News  /  September 19, 2018

The Department of Health and Human Services is diverting millions of dollars in funding from a number of [U.S. citizen] programs, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, to pay for housing for the growing population of detained [illegal] immigrant children.

In a letter sent to Sen. Patty Murray, D.-Wash., and obtained by Yahoo News, HHS Secretary Alex Azar outlined his plan to reallocate up to $266 million in funding for the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) program in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

Nearly $80 million of that money will come from other refugee support programs within ORR, which have seen their needs significantly diminished as the Trump administration makes drastic cuts to the annual refugee numbers. The rest is being taken from other programs, including $16.7 million from Head Start, $5.7 million from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and $13.3 million from the National Cancer Institute. Money is also being diverted from programs dedicated to mental and maternal health, women’s shelters and substance abuse. 

According to data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement obtained by Yahoo News, there were 13,312 immigrant children in federal custody as of Wednesday, Sept. 19, with ORR’s existing facilities at 92 percent capacity.

The latest figures demonstrate the continued growth of this population just one week after the New York Times reported that the number of detained immigrant children in the U.S. has soared to record highs over the last year, from 2,400 children in May of 2017 to 12,800 earlier this month. Last week, HHS confirmed its plan to extend use of an emergency shelter in Tornillo, Texas, for the third time since it opened in June, and expand capacity at the “tent city” from 400 to 3,800 beds. The estimated cost of operating such emergency facilities is $750 per child per day — approximately three times the cost of a regular ORR shelter.

“We support making sure ORR gets all the resources they need to help kids,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and one of 19 Democratic senators who wrote Azar in July expressing concern over “a troubling pattern of chaotic, ideologically driven and opaque policymaking” in ORR’s unaccompanied child program.

Van Hollen told Yahoo News Wednesday that the notification of the reallocation of funds to the Unaccompanied Alien Children program leaves key questions unanswered.

Van Hollen said he was questioning “the reasons for need for additional money and how much of it is because you have more UACs coming across the border and how much is due to the Trump administration’s family separation policy?” He urged the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies call Azar and other administration officials to a hearing on how the money would be used in the UAC program, and the impacts on the programs being cut.

“The American public is entitled to facts behind the policies here,” he said.

This is hardly the first time HHS has had to move money around to accommodate an influx of unaccompanied immigrant children in its care. But although the number of unaccompanied immigrant children apprehended along the border U.S. in fiscal year 2018 is on track to surpass that of the previous year, the rate is still well below those seen in 2014, when the flow of unaccompanied children across the border reached crisis-level proportions, or during the subsequent peak in 2016. And while the family separation policy has contributed to the demand for additional beds, the main reason is that children are spending more time in custody before they are released to a sponsor or returned home.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they are "refugees" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Immigration is not a human right’: Hungary slams ‘pro-migrant’ UN officials for ‘spreading lies’

RT  /  September 19, 2018

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused the UN human rights watchdog of “spreading lies” about his country, saying that immigration was not a “fundamental human right.”

The official took aim at the “independent experts” with the UN Human Rights Council, stating they “should not be independent from the truth.”

“Recently, unfortunately, some UN officials started to spread lies against and about my country,” Szijjarto told the UN body’s meeting on Wednesday.

Such officials would like to “force on us impossible things,” namely allowing illegal migrants into the country, Szijjarto stated.

“They say that migration is a fundamental human right, which is a lie,” he stressed.

The harsh statement of the foreign minister came as a response to criticism against Hungarian anti-immigration policies. Last week, the UN rights body blasted the so-called ‘Stop Soros’ law, adopted by the country’s government back in July. The UN paper said Hungary “attacks against civil society, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers” with the law, adding that it’s against the international human rights law and poses a threat to the “values” of the whole European Union.

It added that it targets the critical “civil society” and fuels “hostility, xenophobia and … discrimination against migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and all those trying to provide them support.”

The ‘Stop Soros’ law has imposed restrictions on foreign NGOs, which work with migrants, obliging them to seek licenses from the government. It also criminalized aiding migrants, namely “providing financial or property benefit” to them or simply informing them about the asylum-seeking procedures. Those who do so could now face 12 months in jail.

The controversial law is named after Hungarian-born billionaire, globalist and strong supporter of open-border policies George Soros. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has repeatedly accused him of conspiring to stir unrest in his native country and to undermine Europe’s stability with mass-migration waves.

A strong anti-immigration stance has also put Budapest at odds with the EU. Last week, the EU parliament greenlighted a move to trigger Article 7 of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon against Hungary. The provision is designed to be applied when there is “a clear risk of a serious breach” of EU values by one of its member states and is often referred to as the ‘nuclear option’ of the bloc. If fully implemented, Budapest would be deprived ofvoting rights in the EU.

Budapest, in turn, accused Brussels of wishing to turn Hungary into a “country of migrants,” calling the EU parliament vote a “petty revenge” of the pro-immigration crowd. Other countries, who are at odds with the EU over immigration policies, namely Poland and Czech Republic, rushed to support Budapest after voting on Article 7. Last year, Poland itself became the target for the same Article 7 proceedings, over its judicial reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

Go Hungary!  Glad to hear everyone in Europe isn't buying this pc immigration bullsh*t that most everyone is trying to sell us. Countries have borders which protect the citizens with in it who finance the country through some form of taxes paid. I can't believe this world is so flipping backwards that a great portion of it can't even rationalize if you break a law (illegally cross the border) steal (taking what is not yours, i.e. Social benefits available only to citizens) you are a criminal that needs deported. Your not the sad sap that deserves to be here simply because you broke the law. 

Eastern Europe isn't buying it. The balance of Europe has allowed it and now is trying to undo  the damage same as the Swiss. Course Trump, Szijjarto and  Andrzej Duda of Poland  (who told the EU to stuff their "migrant quotas) all want legal immigration and tight borders and not be part of the U.N.  One World  rules.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s good to hear Paul. The UN and NATO need to go away in my opinion anyway.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're so-called "economic migrants". Most don't want to adopt the culture of the European country they're in.....they only want to make money there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 78 Attempted Terror Attacks, France Proposes Making Guns Mandatory for Local Police

By: Teresa Mull

In the past five years (Oct. 2013-March 2018), France has endured 78 attempted terror attacks, and the country’s security forces are reportedly “overwhelmed.”

To find the best way to relieve the country’s stressed-out and fatigued police, France’s interior minister launched a “parliamentary commission” earlier this year.

“The members of parliament in charge of the commission, Jean-Michel Fauvergue and Alice Thourot, released a report yesterday with more than 70 recommendations, of which the most eye-catching is to make firearms mandatory for all municipal police officers,” Quartz reports.

“The proposal to arm all local cops is a significant departure for France,” the Quartz article continues. “The law currently states that municipal police shouldn’t carry guns unless a mayor specifically requests it. According to Le Figaro, just under half of municipal cops currently carry a handgun, up from a quarter just 10 years ago.”

Quartz points to a connection between “the increasing militarization of law enforcement” and civilian deaths in the United States, reporting that “the proliferation of lethal weapons in the hands of local police officers has some observers worried.”

Quartz also reports France has a “relatively high rate of gun ownership,” though there are only 19.6 guns per 100 civilians in the country, compared to 120.5 in the U.S. In 2015, The Washington Post proclaimed and wondered, “France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?”

History Repeats Itself
This is not the first time France has faced the issue of arming its people against terrifying threats.

Second Amendment lawyer Stephen Halbrook’s new book, “Gun Control in Nazi Occupied-France: Tyranny and Resistance,” details how France almost had its own Second Amendment of sorts included in its Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1789.

“…The book drives home the important lessons that gun control is a key element of the oppressor’s toolkit, that guns are incredibly useful for those resisting oppression, and that even the most draconian gun-control measures are far from perfectly effective,” Robert Verbruggen writes in a review of Halbrook’s book for National Review.

“[The book] cannot prove, of course — and doesn’t purport to — that a stronger French tradition of gun rights could have radically altered history, or that America’s more libertarian gun policies strike the right balance among all the relevant priorities,” Verbruggen writes. “What it does do is force readers to entertain a simple question: When a hostile and brutal power takes over, do you want your countrymen to have guns at hand, or not? Certainly, this question weighed heavily upon the minds of the American Founders, and certainly its answer counts for something.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reuters  /  September 22, 2018

The Trump administration on Saturday said it would propose making it harder for foreigners to come to the United States or remain there if they have received or are likely to receive public benefits such as food aid, public housing or Medicaid.

The proposed regulation from the Department of Homeland Security would expand immigration officers’ ability to deny visas or legal permanent residency to aspiring immigrants if they have received a range of taxpayer-funded benefits to which they are legally entitled, such as Medicaid, the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy, Section 8 housing vouchers and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is commonly known as food stamps.

U.S. immigration law has long required officials to exclude a person likely to become a “public charge” from permanent residence. But U.S. guidelines in place for nearly two decades narrowly define “public charge” to be a person “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,” either through direct cash assistance or government-funded long-term care.

The Trump administration’s proposal is a sharp departure from current guidelines, which have been in place since 1999 and specifically bar authorities from considering such non-cash benefits in deciding a person’s eligibility to immigrate to the United States or stay in the country.

The changes would apply to those seeking visas or legal permanent residency but not people applying for U.S. citizenship.

“Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement to Reuters. “This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”

If a foreigner is receiving one or more of the public benefits laid out in the proposal when they apply for a visa or residency, that would be a heavily weighed negative factor in their determining their eligibility to come to or remain in the United States.

If an immigrant is deemed inadmissible because of the new rule, they might be eligible to post a bond, no less than $10,000, to come into the United States.

The overhaul is part of President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit both legal and illegal immigration, an issue he highlighted during the 2016 presidential campaign and that has become an important topic in the 2018 congressional elections. Trump has advocated ending a visa lottery program and some kinds of family-based immigration but many of his desired changes would require congressional action.

The proposed regulation, which does not need to be approved by Congress, will be published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks, officials said, the first step toward final adoption. The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal and the agency must consider all submitted comments and could change the regulation before the final version is adopted, likely not for at least several months.

The proposal would affect more than 382,000 people per year who obtain permanent residence while already in the United States, DHS said. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people living abroad obtain U.S. permanent residence each year through the State Department, which would likely change its own regulations to match those of DHS when the proposal becomes final.

Immigrant advocates have criticized the administration’s plan, which was first reported by Reuters in February when it was in an early draft form, saying that it is an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law. They also believe the rule could negatively affect public health by dissuading immigrants from using health or food aid to which they or their children are entitled.

Even the proposal published on Saturday anticipates some of those impacts. If immigrants forego enrolling in public benefits because of the new regulation, it could lead to “increased rates of poverty and housing instability” and “worse health outcomes,” the proposal states.

Although the administration’s proposal would be a major change, the version released on Saturday is narrower in scope than previous leaked drafts. It will not penalize immigrants for using home heating aid; the widely used earned-income tax credit; WIC, a federal program that feeds poor pregnant or nursing women and their children; and Head Start, which provides early education to low-income children. Previous versions of the rule would have penalized immigrants for using those benefits.

The regulation also would consider only the use of certain benefits by the individual applicant, and not their dependents, including U.S. citizen children. Previous versions of the regulation would have taken into account the use of benefits by an applicant’s children, even those born in the United States, which immigrant advocates said would force people to pull their children out of needed health and food programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, someone with proven finances must sign an Affidavit of Support before a "legal immigrant" is issued an immigration visa to enter the country, assuring that the country will not have to bear any financial burden.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Breitbart news
September 21, 2018

Congress Takes BIG Steps Against Illegals

House Republicans will be voting on laws to curb sanctuary cities. Breitbart reports:

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote next week on a resolution offered by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy that admonishes U.S. cities for allowing illegal aliens to vote in local elections, as has been confirmed to Breitbart News exclusively.

The measure, which Democrats are expected to oppose, in two pages states that it is the position of the House of Representatives that allowing illegal aliens the right to vote disenfranchises American citizens.

 

The House resolution text introduced by McCarthy says:

“Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy; Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age; Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting; Whereas the Constitution allows States and localities to grant non-citizens the right to vote in non-Federal elections; Whereas the cities of San Francisco, California, Boston Massachusetts and New York City, New York   are allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in elections; and Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it  Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote in any election, devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of  United States citizens.”

This is an important step to secure elections in the face of foreign influence.

Edited by 41chevy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump moves to deny asylum to most migrants who cross border illegally

The Wall Street Journal  /  November 8, 2018

The Trump administration is moving ahead with a plan to limit when and where foreign nationals can apply for asylum at the U.S. border with Mexico.

The administration will publish a new rule aimed at pushing asylum seekers to already crowded  border crossings and deny the opportunity to apply for asylum to nearly all immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.

President Donald Trump is expected to sign a presidential proclamation that blocks illegal border crossers from the asylum process.

Administration officials said the president has the authority to limit asylum for some foreigners under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The rule change and expected proclamation — which could be signed as early as Friday and effectively changes U.S. immigration law — is aimed at reducing the volume of immigrants crossing the border illegally to seek asylum in the U.S. It comes as part of a focus by the president on a group of thousands of mostly Central American migrants making their way to the U.S. in multiple caravans traveling through Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Red Horse said:

No doubt.  And if not him, who? When I logged into AOL today the screen shot that comes up is this woman tugging two little kids along.  The kids are wearing skimpy sandals-and their cloths looked relatively clean-considering these "refugees" marched how many thousand miles in the last month????

Open Society Foundations (soros ) from NYC   Monetary support and planning

Pueblo Sin Fronteras from California      organizes and sponsors and fund raises for caravans

Open Borders     logistical support for caravans

Christians for No Borders    Clothes, food transportation and medical aid

American Immigrant Representation Project       free legal representation

International Law Group for Migrant Rights     Legal aid, housing and protection from ICE

Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project      works to prevent the deportation of asylum-seeking families fleeing violence

The CARA Project       recruiting attorneys, law students and paralegals with experience in asylum work

Catholic Charities      Housing and medical for un documented

Diocesian Migrant and Refugee Services     legal aid and shelter

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service       provides immigrant families with children shelter and beds, medical services, counseling for jobs

Comfort Cases      raises money and goods to provide backpacks, shoes, clothing and food for the immigrants trip to the U.S. Border

Justice for Our Neighbors      provides free  legal services to illegal immigrant individuals seeking asylum

Clinton Global Health Initiative      Medicine, Vitamins and Sanitation Services

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...