Immigration

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Broke: Human Trafficking is bad

Woke: They are just trying to make a few bucks.

Bespoke: They are giving helpless refugees a shot at the American dream.

Joke: Thank god all the money is enriching the cartels so they can continue to provide more job opportunities to those in MX, and product to those in the US.


Looks like they caught Chinese nationals coming across in Laredo. Chinese nationals were a huge problem in Belize when I was there for a few years. They had "ghost" flights of Chinese that would land at night at the BZ airport. The BZ airport is not open at night...
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,599
Reaction score
20,064
Joke: Thank god all the money is enriching the cartels so they can continue to provide more job opportunities to those in MX, and product to those in the US.


Looks like they caught Chinese nationals coming across in Laredo. Chinese nationals were a huge problem in Belize when I was there for a few years. They had "ghost" flights of Chinese that would land at night at the BZ airport. The BZ airport is not open at night...

Apparently it is. lol
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
US wants 2 years to ID migrant kids separated from families

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Trump administration wants up to two years to find potentially thousands of children who were separated from their families at the border before a judge halted the practice last year, a task that it says is more laborious than previous efforts because the children are no longer in government custody.

The Justice Department said in a court filing late Friday that it will take at least a year to review about 47,000 cases of unaccompanied children taken into government custody between July 1, 2017 and June 25, 2018 — the day before U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw halted the general practice of splitting families. The administration would begin by sifting through names for traits most likely to signal separation — for example, children under 5...

If you can't locate them, how are they going to show up for immigration court?
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
The immigration hard-liners are seen as taking over immigration policy, which will once again be a signature piece in Trump's election bid. Unfortunately, it's The Wall that dominate their message. That plays quite well in some parts of the country. So, with the elections looming and the retrenching of immigration policies, there will be no compromises on immigration policies unless Trump is re-elected and both House and Senate are solidly Republican. Courts have enforced the laws. Congress is immobilized. Our current immigration situation will be maintained for the foreseeable future - unless Dems sweep the Presidency and both branches of Congress. We'll then look back and attribute their changes to the inability of multiple Congresses and Presidents to reach a deal.

Some insightful articles on the dynamics behind Nielsen's resignation:
Nielsen out at Homeland Security as Trump focuses on border (AP)

Stephen Miller pressuring Trump officials amid immigration shakeups (Politico)
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Trump’s DHS purge floors Republicans
Even GOP allies of the president are distressed by the chaos unleashed on federal immigration policy. (Politico)

“Strikes me as just a frustration of not being able to solve a problem. Honestly, it wasn’t Secretary Nielsen’s fault. It wasn’t for lack of effort on her part. I don’t know if there’s anybody who’s going to be able to do more,” said (Sen. John) Cornyn, R-Texas who spoke to Nielsen on Monday and planned to speak to her interim replacement, Kevin McAleenan, later in the day.

Cornyn said he has no idea what Miller’s “agenda” is in determining immigration policy because he isn’t Senate-confirmed and doesn’t correspond with the Hill.

“I thought that Nielsen was doing a fantastic job,” added Joni Ernst of Iowa, the No. 5 Senate GOP leader. “I would love to see some continuity. I think that’s important.”

Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the most senior GOP senator, is trying to head off even more dismissals as Trump tries to reshape DHS into a “tougher” mold.

In an interview, Grassley expressed concern that Trump may soon boot U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Francis Cissna and Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, who heads the office of policy and strategy at USCIS.

“I heard that they are on the list to be fired,” Grassley said. “They are doing in an intellectual-like way what the president wants to accomplish. So no, they should not go.”

“Nielsen was doing the best she can. She can’t make Congress get off its ice-cold, lazy butt and fix the asylum laws. She can’t build a wall by herself. She can’t make the Central American countries work with us. … Only the president can do that,” Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) said. “If someone resigns and then the White House staff cuts ‘em to pieces, I just think that’s classless.”

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) admitted the obvious in a written statement: "I am concerned with a growing leadership void" at DHS.

From Sen Grassley:
“Without names, there’s people in the White House that speak about immigration. They haven’t accomplished a whole lot, so they need to find some other way to make themselves look important.”

Officials said they expect to see the departures of L. Francis Cissna, the head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, one of his top deputies; and John Mitnick, the department’s general counsel and a senior member of Ms. Nielsen’s leadership team. All of them were said to be viewed by Mr. Miller as obstacles to implementing the president’s policies.

“There’s no doubt that Cissna has proved his competence, in a lot of things he’s doing — things that the president is for,” Mr. Grassley said. Referring to Mr. Cissna and Ms. Kovarik, both of whom once worked on his staff, Mr. Grassley said, “If he gets rid of these two, it’s self-defeating because I don’t know anyone else in the department or at least in immigration” who could do better.

The latest departures, along with previous vacancies, will leave the Department of Homeland Security without a permanent secretary, deputy secretary, two under secretaries, Secret Service director, Federal Emergency Management Agency director, ICE director, general counsel, citizenship and immigration services director, inspector general, chief financial officer, chief privacy officer and, once Mr. McAleenan moves, Customs and Border Protection commissioner.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
DHS acting deputy secretary resigns


Claire Grady, acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), offered President Trump her resignation Tuesday as the agency finds its upper ranks thinned after a string of departures.


Kris Kobach rumor,

‘We can’t confirm him,’ Pat Roberts warns of potential Kobach nomination for DHS

One of the GOP senators from Kris Kobach’s home state said Tuesday that the Senate would not be able to confirm the Kansas Republican if President Donald Trump taps him for a cabinet post.

Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state, has been mentioned as a potential candidate for an array of immigration-related positions since President Donald Trump pulled his nominee for the director of Immigration Customs Enforcement and announced the departure of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen.

But Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said he doesn’t believe the Republican-controlled Senate could confirm his fellow Kansan, who has gained national notoriety for championing stronger restrictions on immigration.

“Don’t go there. We can’t confirm him,” Roberts whispered to The Kansas City Star when asked about Kobach Tuesday on his way into a Senate vote.

Trump has expressed his comfort with "acting" cabinet and department heads.
“I like acting. It gives me more flexibility,” Trump told reporters in January as he headed to Camp David. “Do you understand that? I like acting. So we have a few that are acting. We have a great, great Cabinet.”

Under the Vacancies Act, an acting secretary can serve 210 days from when the position was made vacant (or 300 days if it’s the administration’s first year). If the nomination of a permanent official fails, the acting secretary can serve an additional 210 days. Should a second nomination process fail, the acting secretary can serve a final 210 days more.

So even if Kobach or someone else cannot be confirmed by the Senate, he has at least seven months and can then be replaced by another acting head. Who needs the Senate to advise and consent?
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Another top immigration official to leave Friday
(Politico, 04/10/2019 03:34 PM EDT)

Top immigration official Ronald Vitiello will leave his post Friday amid President Donald Trump’s homeland staff shakeup, an agency spokesperson confirmed to POLITICO.

Vitiello is a former long-term Border Patrol official who's been acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June. Whether Vitiello will remain in government remains unclear, and ICE declined to comment further. The agency has not announced a replacement, although Matthew Albence, acting deputy director, would be next in line...

As acting director of ICE since June, Vitiello could only serve 210 days (see Vacancy Act above), which would have been up this month. He had been nominated in August, 2018 and was yet to be confirmed.

Matthew Albence, next-in-line for acting director - unless he is fired or asked to resign - now has 210 days. Mitch McConnell has requested that the White House not send nominations to the Senate who cannot be confirmed. Does he really think Trump cares if his "acting" nominees are confirmed?
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Catch and release by any other name....

Migrants dropped off in New Mexico; city asks for donations (AP)

LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) — Border Patrol agents dropped off asylum-seeking migrants in New Mexico’s second most populous city for the second day in a row Saturday, prompting Las Cruces city officials to appeal for donations of food and personal hygiene items and a state medical program to seek volunteers to provide health assessments of migrants.

The migrants were being temporarily housed at a homeless shelter in Las Cruces, a city recreation center and a campus of social service agencies, city officials said in a statement.

The statement said 83 migrants arrived Saturday, following about 95 who were dropped off by the Border Patrol on Friday at the Gospel Rescue Mission homeless shelter and the Community of Hope campus.

The Las Cruces Sun-News reported Las Cruces churches for months have been providing temporary shelter to migrants released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention but that Friday was the first time that the Border Patrol vans dropped off migrants at the homeless shelter.

City spokesman Udell Vigil said Saturday that migrants could be arriving “for the next several days.”

Las Cruces is not a sanctuary city that rebuffs federal officials carrying out deportation orders.

Some migrants were taken to Meerscheidt Recreation Center, which the statement said was closed to the public because of its use as temporary housing for migrants. The closing forced cancellation of a T-ball on-site registration event that was scheduled Saturday.

The statement said needed items included utensils, napkins, paper plates, sanitary napkins, shampoo, clothing, towels, blankets, canned food, bottled water, foam padding for bedding and stuffed toys.

The Border Patrol announced Thursday it would release migrants in southern New Mexico and in El Paso, Texas, pending their future court hearings because of Immigration and Customs “capacity issues.”

In another development, the state Department of Health in Santa Fe on Saturday appealed for health care professionals such as pediatricians, nurses and EMTs to join a state-run volunteer registry involved “in the humanitarian mission by providing medical screening support services to migrants in New Mexico.”

Bobbie MacKenzie, volunteer coordinator for the New Mexico Medical Reserve Corps , said the appeal made Saturday was aimed at augmenting the current ranks of volunteers so they don’t get burned out.

“We need more. This is going to be an ongoing event,” MacKenzie told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “We’re trying to not to inundate and overwhelm the volunteers.”

Most of the current volunteers helping provide health assessments of migrants in Las Cruces are from that area but some are from as far away as Albuquerque, she said.

Albuquerque, New Mexico’s most populous city, is 192 miles (308 kilometers) north of Las Cruces.

Border Patrol migrant drop-offs in Las Cruces accelerate with no end in sight (Las Cruces Sun, April 13)

A snapshot of where migrants go after release into the United States (Wash Post)

J2VH3NMSSVFHROKKNFKRCO5VKE.jpg


The U.S. government has not released information on the whereabouts or U.S. destinations of recent migrants. But The Washington Post has obtained exclusive data on the nationality and U.S. destination of one small sample: 1,545 migrants who passed through a shelter run by the El Paso nonprofit Annunciation House in February, about 2 percent of the total number of migrants who crossed into the country that month.

Annunciation House arranges with U.S. authorities to take those released from custody into local shelters and then help them arrange travel to their destinations in the U.S. interior.

The Annunciation House data reviewed by The Post — travelers’ country of origin and their destination city after release from immigration custody — shows that migrants headed for cities and towns in 42 states, including many places that are not considered sanctuary cities. Many migrants went to the Southeast and Midwest, regions that were not major immigrant destinations a generation ago.

As migrant surge continues, El Paso's safety net is feeling the strain
Federal agencies have redirected agents to deal with a growing wave of migrants, and the president is threatening to close the border. Meanwhile, local shelters face a daily dilemma: 500 to 600 new arrivals who need somewhere to go. (Texas Tribune)

It’s the humanitarian component of the situation that convinced Talamantes to volunteer at the shelter about three months ago. He describes himself as a patriot who's concerned about the country's direction and said he’s growing more frustrated with “misinformation” about immigrants and why they are leaving their countries.

“There’s a lot of fear on their faces” when they arrive, Talamantes said. “We try to welcome them as much as possible. But my personal take is that I don’t see this stopping for quite some time. The situations [in those countries] are just so bad.”
The surge has had volunteers and shelter directors scrambling for weeks to ensure that migrants have places to go once they are released from custody. Ruben Garcia, the director of the Annunciation House, which operates a network of migrant shelters across the city, said his organization has spent about $1 million in five months just on hotel space to make sure migrants don’t sleep on the streets. Garcia only needs the hotels when the roughly two dozen shelters are at capacity. The vast majority of migrants don't spend much time in El Paso before they leave for other destinations around the U.S.

US expands ‘catch and release’ amid surge in migrants (AP, April 2, 2019)

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as “catch and release.”

With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration is busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities like Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle...

No cities in Arizona nor Texas are sanctuary cities. Only Bernalillo County in N.M., which includes Albuquerque, has a sanctuary city.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006
We were told there is no problem at the border and illegal immigrants make America better. Why would there be any strain?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,599
Reaction score
20,064
Catch and release by any other name....

I'm failing to see the problem. They're in the U.S. like they wanted. What's the difference between these groups at NM and the illegals that sneak across and aren't caught? Nothing except these groups are getting shelter and fed as opposed to those that don't get caught. It's not the requirement of the government to find work, and shelter for anyone who wants to move here.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,390
We were told there is no problem at the border and illegal immigrants make America better. Why would there be any strain?

Would be interesting to see what Buster has to say about immigration today. Reminds me of when Romney was asked who our #1 geopolitical is. He responded with Russia, and the Democrats chortled.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I'm failing to see the problem. They're in the U.S. like they wanted. What's the difference between these groups at NM and the illegals that sneak across and aren't caught? Nothing except these groups are getting shelter and fed as opposed to those that don't get caught. It's not the requirement of the government to find work, and shelter for anyone who wants to move here.

but but but, it's the US's responsibility to provide welfare to the world.

we've basically put out an alert to the world that if you don't like the country you're in, don't stay and change it for the better, find your way here because we're to incompetent uphold our laws.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I'm failing to see the problem. They're in the U.S. like they wanted. What's the difference between these groups at NM and the illegals that sneak across and aren't caught? Nothing except these groups are getting shelter and fed as opposed to those that don't get caught. It's not the requirement of the government to find work, and shelter for anyone who wants to move here.

Consider it more of a status report. Those are the illegals/refugees that have come across the border and surrendered to Border Patrol. They are comprised of an increasing number of people caught at the US-Mexico border have fallen into categories that get particular legal protections: They’re children or teenagers traveling alone from Central America, or they’re families traveling together, and/or they want to seek asylum to flee deadly peril in their home countries.

Obama in 2014 tried to expand detention for families due to the "border crisis" but the resulting lawsuit and agreement (Flores Settlement) restricted detention of families (children with accompanying parents) to no more than 20 days. So Trump has run up against the same situation which he labeled "catch and release" and which is continuing under his Admin, resulting in what was described above.

ICE maintains about 50,000 adults in detention beds run by private companies and is overspending its budget. They are capped at 42,580 beds but can borrow from other sources for up to 58,000 beds for detention, which was last taken from FEMA funds. ICE spends about $3 billion annually for private contractor detention beds.

As opposed to the privately run detention facilities, which cost the government $135 per day per person, releasing the families to Catholic, other religious and humanitarian organizations for food, clothing and medical assessment costs the federal government nothing. As the articles indicated, though, local and state citizens volunteer, give donations, and city and state government allocate money for assistance. The Las Cruces (NM) council recently approved $75,000 to those groups. El Paso groups and government are similarly allocating money. The cities don't keep them indefinitely and can't afford to, especially since this is expected to continue. I included the map to indicate where these migrants go.

Outside of those groups with special protections, adults who meet criteria for expedited removals are undocumented migrants found within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the country. Expedited removals do not have the long wait for immigration court hearings. Obama was the Deporter-in-Chief, deporting more illegals that way - 2.5 million.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Leader of militia detaining migrants at gunpoint arrested on weapons charge (Santa Fe Mexican)

The head of a militia group that reportedly has been detaining scores of migrant families at gunpoint as they crossed New Mexico’s southern border was arrested Saturday by the FBI on charges of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins, 69, who lives in the tiny village of Flora Vista in San Juan County, was arrested in Sunland Park, a border town near El Paso, the FBI said in a statement.

It wasn’t Hopkins’ first arrest on a weapons charge. He faced a similar count in Oregon in 2006. Though, Hopkins’ original felony conviction was not immediately clear. The FBI said in the statement that it would not release further information until after his first court appearance, scheduled Monday in U.S. District Court in Las Cruces.

Online New Mexico court records did not show any charges for Hopkins, who also has used the names Johnny Horton Jr. and Scott Alan Curtiss.

Hopkins, who has said in court documents that he runs an entertainment business and is a musician and recording artist, is the leader of the United Constitutional Patriots, a group of “Americans that believe in the constitution and the rights of every American that will stand up for there[sic] rights in unity and help keep America safe,” according to a Facebook group page.

Last week, the militia detained about 200 migrants, most of them Central Americans who had just crossed the U.S. border with Mexico near Sunland Park, seeking asylum, according to the New York Times.

Militias have been operating along the border for years to try to curb the flow of undocumented migrants into the U.S., but the recent targeting of families — which are allowed by law to request asylum and typically surrender to Border Patrol agents — is raising the ire of human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Times reported.

Allegra Love, executive director of the Santa Fe Dreamers Project, which provides free legal services to immigrants, expressed outrage Saturday over the militia’s activities.

“We don’t need citizens confronting them at gunpoint,” she said, referring to the men, women and children who have been making the arduous trek to the U.S. border in droves from nations such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The Facebook page for Hopkins’ group shows a video of masked men pointing guns at families with young children as they sit on the ground, awaiting Border Patrol officers.

“They’re already fleeing violence in their home countries,” Love said. “It’s an incredibly difficult journey, morale is low, only to be assaulted by citizens of this country? We can meet these folks with compassion.”

Political leaders in New Mexico also have condemned the armed groups.

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said of Hopkins in a statement issued Saturday. “Today’s arrest by the FBI indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a Twitter message a day before Hopkins’ arrest, “We are actively working with @NewMexicoAOG as well as local and state police. Menacing or threatening migrant families and asylum-seekers is absolutely unacceptable and must cease.”

But state Sen. Joseph Cervantes, who ran against Lujan Grisham in the Democratic primary race for governor last year, said Balderas must do more.

“NM Attny Gen. must arrest, charge and prosecute those kidnapping and pulling guns on immigrants in my Senate District/Sunland Park. Scolding them won’t cut it,” Cervantes tweeted Saturday.

Even Gavin Clarkson — a New Mexico Republican running for U.S. Senate who met with members of Hopkins’ militia in March, according to a video posted on Facebook — decried their efforts Saturday. He said on Twitter that “masked militiamen are the antithesis of what a free republic looks like. I absolutely condemn their lawless activities.”

It wasn’t clear Saturday how Hopkins’ arrest would affect the activities of United Constitutional Patriots at the border. One member, though, appeared to warn supporters on Facebook that the group was under siege.

Chuck Davis, who identified himself as the head of intelligence and chaplain of United Constitutional Patriots, said in a post Saturday, in all capital letters, “We have an emergency. The commander was arrested by the FBI at base camp. It was a set up.”...
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Good move.

Yuma mayor declares emergency, warns of 'imminent threat' from release of migrant families . (AzCentral)

Yuma Mayor Doug Nicholls issued a proclamation of emergency, saying the continued mass release of migrants directly into his border community had become an "imminent threat" to life and property in the area.

The city lacks the resources it needs to handle the migrants, he said.

Yuma is the first border city in the U.S. to declare a state of emergency as part of its response to the latest surge in the number of migrant families reaching the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum.

"Today is a day that we had talked about three weeks ago, hoping never to get to," Nicholls said at a news conference on Tuesday.

With a "heavy heart," the mayor said he signed the document as a means to seek resources and to protect residents and vulnerable migrants.

"... the mass release of migrant families from federal detention facilities into the City of Yuma without provisions for adequate food, water, shelter and medical care threatens to cause injury, damage and suffering to persons and property located in the City of Yuma, Yuma County, Arizona as well as causing a humanitarian crisis," the proclamation read.

The emergency proclamation was a plea for federal and state assistance.

City hoping for FEMA response
In signing the declaration, Nicholls said he hopes to draw national attention to the plight of local communities struggling with a federal issue, adding that he's talking to officials in other border cities and calling on them to issue similar emergency declarations.

The mayor added that he talked to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who signaled his support for the declaration.

We will review any declaration once we receive it," according to a statement Tuesday night from Patrick Ptak, a Ducey spokesman. "Ultimately, this humanitarian crisis is the result of Congress' failure to act. It will only be solved by Congress actually doing something, and the governor has vocally urged Congress to quit playing politics and take action.

"In the wake of their inaction, our office is working with local governments, non-profits and our federal partners to maximize available resources and ensure proper coordination between ICE officials and groups providing temporary services to migrants."

Nicholls said he hopes to "avert the threat of hundreds of people roaming streets looking to satisfy their basic human needs" by securing additional funding to care for migrant families.

The mayor said he hoped for one of two solutions to the problem: a more "efficient" and "coordinated" transportation system to move migrant families out of Yuma more quickly, or for an emergency response from the federal government.

He said the second option, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to take over the operation, would be the "best solution."

"This isn't a natural disaster," Nicholls said. "But it is a disaster."

"... the local emergency exceeds control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City of Yuma and requires the combined efforts, cooperation, and resources of the Yuma community including local and non-profit agencies such as the Red Cross, Catholic Community Services, The Salvation Army, Yuma Community Food Bank, churches, the County of Yuma, the State of Arizona, and the United States of America," the statement said. ...

Emergency declaration is included in the article. The President has declared it a national emergency. FEMA funding should be made available rather than have the burden shifted to the states. Trump is using FEMA funds for ICE and other agencies involved in combatting this.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Above and beyond the costs the federal government is racking up with current immigration policies, here's how the states are paying for them.

Report: Slowdowns at border ports of entry could cost Texas billions
The state stands to lose more than $32 billion in gross domestic product in just over three months as the federal government shifts personnel away from international bridges to deal with a surge of migrants, according to a newly-released study. . (Texas Tribune)

Increased wait times at Texas’ ports of entry could cost the state more than $32 billion in gross domestic product in just over three months, according to a report released Thursday.

The report, conducted by the Waco-based Perryman Group, says that the border region alone could take a hit of nearly $2 billion, while the state could lose about 292,000 jobs over the next year as a result of the federal government's decision to divert customs officers from the state's international bridges to help the U.S. Border Patrol handle a surge of migrants.

“As a major exporting and importing state with an extended southern border, Texas is particularly hard hit by the border slowdown. In fact, the state is responsible for about 35% of all trade with Mexico,” the report states. The study was commissioned by IBC Bank in conjunction with the Texas Association of Business, Texas Border Coalition, Texas Business Leadership Council and the Border Trade Alliance.

The the economic losses laid out in the study would represent the loss of one-third of the country’s total trade trade with Mexico over a three-month period.

Arizona Businesses Say Border Resource Shift Is Hurting Them
"We are experiencing a slowdown," AZ Chamber of Commerce CEO Glenn Hamer says. "This is something we are feeling on the ground today." (Patch)

"It's not just the threat of a shutdown," said Arizona Chamber of Commerce Glenn Hamer, on the Monday conference call. "It's that right now, we are experiencing a slowdown, and we are experiencing a shutdown in certain services. This isn't something that is a year out, this is something we are feeling on the ground today."

Hamer and others on the call said the shutdown comes at a particularly bad time, as Easter season typically sees a lot of cross-border business. They said they understand the problems at the border, but that trade does not have to be sacrificed for security.

"We can have very strong and economically prosperous for all trade while we deal with these very serious immigration issues," Hamer said. "It's not an either or."

Hamer said the importance of trade with Mexico "can't be overstated": Northbound traffic alone accounts for 740 trains, 400,000 trucks, 13,000 buses, 17.8 million cars and 25 million people crossing the Arizona border. He said those people spend $7.5 million every day in Arizona, where some border communities get up to 70% of sales taxes from Mexican visitors.


But the effect of problems at the border will be felt far beyond border communities, Hamer said.

"For all those who enjoy fresh delicious produce from Mexico, particularly the very yummy tomatoes and the nutritious avocados … our consumers across the country are going to feel the pain in terms of higher prices and less produce," he said

Paola Avila, vice president of international business affairs at the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, said Monday that San Diego has seen its wait times double since the redeployment of personnel.

"These wait times are very significant, and it's real," Avila said, noting that the redeployment is set for 30 days. "Thirty days of this doubling of wait time is hugely detrimental. We don't need to run numbers to figure out what the impact might have, we already know what that impact has had in our border regions."

Saenz said the solution is simple: Let CBP agents continue doing their everyday jobs.

"For us, the quick fix is bring the CBP officers back, open those lanes and allow trade to proceed," Saenz said.

In spite of the slowdown at the border, Mexico has now become our largest trading partner.

(from link above)
Mexico has long been Arizona’s top trade partner. Now, for the first time, our southern neighbor is also the No. 1 trade partner with the United States.

In January and February of this year, trade between Mexico and the U.S. accounted for $97.4 billion in imports and exports. That’s about 15 percent of all U.S. trade worldwide, surpassing both China and Canada for the first time.

McSally: Cross-border commerce critical to AZ economy (Scottsdale Independent)
Cross-border commerce is vital to Arizona’s economy and families.

Between 2015 and 2017, Arizona exported on average, $10.5 billion annually in goods to our neighbors to the north and south. More than 228,000 Arizona jobs exist today because of trade with Mexico and Canada, and there is significant potential for our economy and jobs to grow even more.

One area of cross-border trade that benefits Arizona workers and families is the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Much of this fresh produce is distributed throughout the U.S. by logistical companies based in Nogales that employ about one-quarter of wage-earners in Santa Cruz County. This type of commerce allows families to enjoy affordable fresh fruits and vegetables year-round with fair rules designed not to hurt farmers in the U.S.

Back in 1990s, Mexico was “dumping” tomatoes into the U.S. market at unfairly low prices, so the Clinton administration negotiated something called the “Tomato Suspension Agreement” to prohibit that practice and protect U.S. farmers.

For the last 23 years, this agreement has been working and was good for Arizona, supporting logistical jobs here while keeping tomatoes affordable year-round.

Unfortunately, the Department of Commerce recently announced a decision to terminate the Tomato Suspension Agreement and it is set to expire on May 7. At that point, they intend to apply steep tariffs on all Mexican tomatoes that end up in our grocery stores and on our dinner tables.

Without this Tomato Suspension Agreement, Arizona’s economy, jobs, and tomato prices are at risk.

Once the tariffs kick in, the cost of tomatoes for consumers could be raised 40 to 85 percent or more, according to a recent Arizona State University study.

I strongly oppose the Administration’s move to end the Tomato Suspension Agreement and have clearly expressed my opposition to the Secretary of Commerce.

The price of tomatoes for families at the grocery store will increase — perhaps as much as $4.50 a pound for tomatoes on the vine, according to the ASU analysis.

Having lost the Senatorial race in 2018 but been appointed by the Gov to serve the remainder of John McCain's seat, McSally, Rep and who is up for re-election in 2020 is acutely aware of the political implications of damage to the Arizona economy that Trump policies could have on her re-election. Trump did not appear at rallies for her in 2018, with one of the reasons being that his preferred candidate lost to McSally in the primaries. But both Sen Sinema and McSally have sent letters to Trump on these impacts to Arizona, to taxpayers, to consumers and potential job losses in their state. Trump chooses to own it.
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,006

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,599
Reaction score
20,064
Who says they are in less danger waiting in the U.S. versus waiting in Mexico?
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Who says they are in less danger waiting in the U.S. versus waiting in Mexico?

Crime statisticians.

But I thought Mexican border towns were all harmless, and we should rip down all the walls built this far? So not dangerous enough to build a wall to keep crime out, but too dangerous for people to wait there for a court date. check.

Saw a figure that 65ish % of asylum seekers are rejected out of the gate. And those are the ones (small overall %) that don't disappear in to the US.

They even have youtube vids out on what to say when caught so you increase your chances... Other reports that cartels are coaching scripts.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Originally Posted by Irish#1 View Post
Who says they are in less danger waiting in the U.S. versus waiting in Mexico?

Crime statisticians.

The President. In his justification for building The Wall - as well as some on the Board who have pointed out the dangers of the drug wars and cartels. Stats are roughly four homicides a day in Ciudad Juarez (see below) since the beginning of the year.

From: Appeals court lets Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy for asylum seekers stand (Texas Tribune)

In Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso, there were more than 150 reported homicides in April and a more than 470 since January. The monthly total is the highest since the tail-end of the drug war that claimed thousands of lives from 2008 to 2011.

Linda Rivas, the managing attorney at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center who represents some of the migrant families, said last week one of her clients was kidnaped in Ciudad Juárez recently.

“’You all come to steal our jobs’ was one of the statements that was made while he was held captive,” she told reporters. “Another [client was told] 'If I ever see you cross here again I am going to kill you.’”

May is also off to a violent start as the killings in Ciudad Juárez have included three Honduran migrants, Mexican media reported earlier this week.

Migrants on border face confusion and fear under "remain in Mexico" policy (Texas Tribune)
(First paragraphs)
EL PASO — Minutes before being sent back into the federal government's custody Thursday afternoon — and most likely back to Ciudad Juárez while his asylum case remains pending — Misael Acosta wanted to tell an immigration judge one last thing.

Acosta said he was in downtown Ciudad Juárez last week buying fruit for his daughter when he saw something startling.

“When I went to throw away some trash, I saw the body of a dead man” lying on the ground, he said in Spanish...

Document: Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction of 'Remain in Mexico' (Lawfare)

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Paul Watford, an Obama appointee, concurred in the majority ruling lifting the stay, but said:
I agree that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is likely to prevail
on the plaintiffs’ primary claim, as 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) appears to authorize DHS’s
new policy of returning applicants for admission to Mexico while they await the
outcome of their removal proceedings. But congressional authorization alone does
not ensure that the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) are being implemented in a
legal manner. As then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen
recognized, the MPP must also comply with “applicable domestic and international
legal obligations.” One of those legal obligations is imposed by Article 33 of the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides:
No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a
refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
territories where his life or freedom would be threatened
on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
of a particular social group or political opinion.

Under DHS’s current procedures,
...immigration officers do not ask applicants being returned to Mexico whether they
fear persecution or torture in that country. Immigration officers make inquiries
into the risk of refoulement only if an applicant affirmatively states that he or she
fears being returned to Mexico.

DHS’s policy is virtually guaranteed to result in some number of applicants
being returned to Mexico in violation of the United States’ non-refoulement
obligations. It seems fair to assume that at least some asylum seekers subjected to
the MPP will have a legitimate fear of persecution in Mexico. Some belong to
protected groups that face persecution both in their home countries and in Mexico,
and many will be vulnerable to persecution in Mexico because they are Central
American migrants. It seems equally fair to assume that many of these individuals
will be unaware that their fear of persecution in Mexico is a relevant factor in
determining whether they may lawfully be returned to Mexico, and hence is
information they should volunteer to an immigration officer. If both of those
assumptions are accurate, DHS will end up violating the United States’ treaty
obligations by returning some number of asylum seekers to Mexico who should
have been allowed to remain in the United States.

There is, of course, a simple way for DHS to help ensure that the United
States lives up to its non-refoulement obligations: DHS can ask asylum seekers
whether they fear persecution or torture in Mexico. I’m at a loss to understand
how an agency whose professed goal is to comply with non-refoulement principles
could rationally decide not to ask that question, particularly when immigration
officers are already conducting one-on-one interviews with each applicant. This
policy of refusing to ask seems particularly irrational when contrasted with how
DHS attempts to uphold the United States’ non-refoulement obligations in
expedited removal proceedings. In that context, immigration officers are required
to ask applicants whether they fear being removed from the United States and
returned to their home countries. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(i) (requiring
immigration officers to use Form I-867B). Since the same non-refoulement
principles apply to removal and return alike, DHS must explain why it
affirmatively asks about fear of persecution in the removal context but refrains
from asking that question when applying the MPP.

DHS has not, thus far, offered any rational explanation for this glaring
deficiency in its procedures. (One suspects the agency is not asking an important
question during the interview process simply because it would prefer not to hear
the answer.) As the record stands now, then, it seems likely that the plaintiffs will
succeed in establishing that DHS’s procedures for implementing the MPP are
arbitrary and capricious, at least in the respect discussed above.

Success on this claim, however, cannot support issuance of the preliminary
injunction granted by the district court. We explained recently that the “scope of
the remedy must be no broader and no narrower than necessary to redress the
injury shown by the plaintiff.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 584 (9th Cir.
2018). Here, the plaintiffs’ injury can be fully remedied without enjoining the
MPP in its entirety, as the district court’s preliminary injunction currently does. I
expect that appropriate relief for this arbitrary and capricious aspect of the MPP’s
implementation will involve (at the very least) an injunction directing DHS to ask
applicants for admission whether they fear being returned to Mexico.


From the majority opinion, the procedure in determining whether someone stays in the U.S. or is sent to Mexico is that the "officer decides inadmissibility on the spot without sending the matter to an immigration judge DHS’s regulations further explain that a § 1225(b)(1) determination entails either the issuance of a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal or the referral of the applicant for a credible fear screening."

The majority opinion from the Ninth then interprets Congress's intent - something that they have been criticized for.
The plaintiffs were not processed under § 1225(b)(1). We are doubtful that
subsection (b)(1) “applies” to them merely because subsection (b)(1) could have
been applied. And we think that Congress’ purpose was to make return to a
contiguous territory available during the pendency of § 1229a removal
proceedings, as opposed to being contingent on any particular inadmissibility
ground. Indeed, Congress likely believed that the contiguous-territory provision
would be altogether unnecessary if an applicant had already been processed for
expedited removal. The plaintiffs are properly subject to the contiguous-territory
provision because they were processed in accordance with § 1225(b)(2)(A).

But the "nutty" Ninth's decisions that are heard before SCOTUS are often overturned.

The allowance by the Court of DHS' MPP rules (Remain in Mexico) is based on
"the Mexican government’s commitment to honor its international law obligations and to grant humanitarian status and work permits to individuals returned under the MPP. We are hesitant to disturb this compromise amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Mexico"

and, on DHS officials asking refugees they fear of persecution on being returned to Mexico.

Should diplomatic relationships between the U.S. and Mexico sour or if Mexico does not honor its obligations under international law and if refugees are harmed or persecuted in Mexico awaiting their court dates or if DHS violates international obligations, MPP has the potential of being halted by the courts.
 
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
So Legacy, what is it.

a) Mexico is so violent, we need walls and shouldn't let asylum seekers stay there
b) Mexico is not violent and we don't need walls, and asylum seekers are safe

there isn't a convenient
c) Mexico is not violent enough that we need walls, but too violent for asylum seekers
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
So Legacy, what is it.

a) Mexico is so violent, we need walls and shouldn't let asylum seekers stay there
b) Mexico is not violent and we don't need walls, and asylum seekers are safe

there isn't a convenient
c) Mexico is not violent enough that we need walls, but too violent for asylum seekers

You realize - maybe not - that Trump is saying:
a) Mexico is so violent, we need walls and asylum seekers are safe and Mexico can't be trusted to keep their word and not open their borders

and that Homeland Security is saying to the Ninth:
b) Mexico is not that violent and asylum seekers are safe and Mexico can be trusted to keep their word.

Something tells me that you would choose both a) and b)

There, I simplified it for you. Less stressful? Perhaps an image helps?

twotrumps.jpg
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Relevant to the above.

In ruling with 'sweeping implications,' 9th Circuit rules asylum-seeker is entitled to habeas review (ABA Journal)

Immigrants seeking asylum may seek habeas review of the procedures leading to expedited removal orders, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Under the current procedure, asylum-seekers are screened by asylum officers who determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. If denied, asylum-seekers can request a review by an immigration judge, “but it is usually cursory, and favorable decisions are rare,” the New York Times reports.

Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima said in the 3-0 panel opinion that the fast-track system offered “meager procedural protections,” and the constitutional minimum “is not satisfied by such a scheme.”

Immigrants in such cases are entitled to seek habeas review in federal courts to challenge the legal procedures leading to expedited removal orders, Tashima said.

One of the Texas Tribune articles cited above noted that in a group of immigrants in immigration court exploring their declaration of credible fear were asked in Spanish if they wanted a lawyer, to which they universally refused. It was then explained that they had this right under U.S. law, and they universally accepted legal representation to fight expedited removal orders by a law enforcement officer at the time of their apprehension. I imagine that the Admin will appeal this to SCOTUS to facilitate their Remain in Mexico policy.
 
Last edited:

goldandblue

Well-known member
Messages
3,721
Reaction score
419
You realize - maybe not - that Trump is saying:
a) Mexico is so violent, we need walls and asylum seekers are safe and Mexico can't be trusted to keep their word and not open their borders

and that Homeland Security is saying to the Ninth:
b) Mexico is not that violent and asylum seekers are safe and Mexico can be trusted to keep their word.

Something tells me that you would choose both a) and b)

There, I simplified it for you. Less stressful? Perhaps an image helps?

twotrumps.jpg

You didn't answer the question
 
Top