Author Topic: Homeland Security, Border, sabotage of energy, transportation, environment  (Read 1085978 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2100 on: February 18, 2019, 10:23:32 AM »
So, the president can have a drone fire a hellfire missile to kill anyone globally, but doesn’t have the power to block illegal aliens from streaming over our border.

The entire war in Libya was done without Congress, just President Obama ordering funds around, '...  but [this President] doesn’t have the power to block illegal aliens from streaming over our border?'

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight

How about the national emergency over uncut diamonds from Sierra Leone? Then there were the declarations over property owned by certain figures in Zimbabwe, the presidential election in Congo, and issues concerning Yemen, Burundi, Myanmar, Lebanon, Somalia, and South Sudan. All of these were “national emergencies.”
...
Congress has the authority to rescind the national emergency declaration of Trump with a vote of both chambers. The legislative branch should do so. If Congress cannot muster the votes, however, a federal judge is unlikely to do so.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 10:27:08 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
NRO: Rubio finds non-Emergency way to fund wall
« Reply #2102 on: February 20, 2019, 07:56:20 AM »


Hey, Guys, We Might Not Need that National-Emergency Declaration Fight

Senator Marco Rubio with a much simpler and much more Constitutionally sound way to generate significant amounts of funding for more border fencing: Start with the $1.375 billion appropriated in the most recent spending bill, add $601 million from Treasury Forfeiture Fund and move $2.5 billion from Department of Defense’s Counterdrug fund. Neither of the latter moves require Congressional approval; “Section 8005 of the most recent Defense Appropriations bill allows up to $4 billion to be moved around in the defense operating budget.”

That would add up to something in the neighborhood of 200 miles of new fencing, which I suspect a lot of Trump fans would see as significant progress towards keeping his campaign promise.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: NRO: Rubio finds non-Emergency way to fund wall
« Reply #2103 on: February 20, 2019, 08:29:30 AM »
Hey, Guys, We Might Not Need that National-Emergency Declaration Fight

Senator Marco Rubio with a much simpler and much more Constitutionally sound way to generate significant amounts of funding for more border fencing: Start with the $1.375 billion appropriated in the most recent spending bill, add $601 million from Treasury Forfeiture Fund and move $2.5 billion from Department of Defense’s Counterdrug fund. Neither of the latter moves require Congressional approval; “Section 8005 of the most recent Defense Appropriations bill allows up to $4 billion to be moved around in the defense operating budget.”

That would add up to something in the neighborhood of 200 miles of new fencing, which I suspect a lot of Trump fans would see as significant progress towards keeping his campaign promise.

Yes.  While they fight the emergency order, contradicting everything they said during Obama's 6 years of working outside of congress, Trump can go ahead and build the wall.

A temporary injunction would apply only to the emergency order, not to the proper use of these funds.  Then Republicans have perhaps a 50/50 chance of taking back the House AND holding the Senate - if he wins reelection.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2104 on: February 21, 2019, 07:12:34 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-tells-spanish-speaking-mexican-restaurant-employees-get-f-country-223659853.html

while I am against this verbal attack on people I submit that this is the result of our politicians not enforcing immigration laws.

If they did this would not be happening.  Of course the MSM  tries to pin this on Trump who is trying to fix the problem left him .  He did not cause this. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
isis bride wants to come home
« Reply #2105 on: February 21, 2019, 05:40:53 PM »
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/02/21/of-course-cair-is-definding-isis-bride-who-called-for-the-murder-of-us-troops-innoncents-n2542002

I say lets let her come home - then arrest her and throw her in jail for life for treason terrorism
and conspiracy to commit murder.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: isis bride wants to come home
« Reply #2106 on: February 21, 2019, 08:07:52 PM »
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/02/21/of-course-cair-is-definding-isis-bride-who-called-for-the-murder-of-us-troops-innoncents-n2542002

I say lets let her come home - then arrest her and throw her in jail for life for treason terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder.

Guantanamo.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Who will take down our grid first?
« Reply #2113 on: March 03, 2019, 09:16:13 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 30, 2019, 02:17:51 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
SCOTUS reverses the Ninth on Criminal Alien Detention
« Reply #2119 on: March 20, 2019, 08:50:54 AM »
Another Ninth Circuit Reversal
The Supreme Court sides with Congress on criminal alien detention.
By The Editorial Board
March 19, 2019 7:03 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, March 15, 2019.
The Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, March 15, 2019. Photo: Susan Walsh/Associated Press

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again Tuesday in an immigration case that turned on a clear-cut question of statutory interpretation. While the 5-4 conservative majority read the law as it was written, the Court’s liberals would have overruled Congress.
Subscribe
Assessing the Democratic Candidates
Assessing the Democratic candidates in the 2020 race.
Another Ninth Circuit Reversal
Opinion Live Event

Attend a Talk with Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot in Washington, D.C. Join WSJ Opinion on Wednesday, April 24, for “Opinion Live: The Supreme Court in an Era of Polarization.” Mr. Gigot hosts a panel of journalists and legal experts to discuss how recent appointments will affect the Court and how the Justices will tackle controversial issues. Book now with WSJ+.

Federal immigration law generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain “deportable” immigrants with the discretion to release them on bond or parole if they don’t endanger the public. Congress in 1996 limited executive discretion and required the government to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes or have links to terrorism “when [they are] released” from prison or jail.

In Nielsen v. Preap, plaintiffs argued that if the government does not detain the criminal immigrants immediately upon their release—that is, the day they leave jail—they are entitled to a bond or parole hearing. Immigration officials didn’t detain the lead plaintiff until 2013, seven years after being released from criminal custody. The case is especially ripe since sanctuary cities often don’t inform federal authorities when they release criminal immigrants.

Siding with the plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit twisted itself into knots to rule against the Trump Administration. But as Justice Samuel Alito observed in the majority decision, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “misreads the structure” of the law and would result in all kinds of legal absurdities.

“It would be ridiculous to read paragraph (1) as saying: ‘The Secretary must arrest, upon their release from jail, a particular subset of criminal aliens. Which ones? Only those who are arrested upon their release from jail,’” Justice Alito noted, adding that “The mandatory-detention scheme [favored by the Ninth Circuit] would be gentler on terrorists than it is on garden-variety offenders.”

Or as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in his pithy concurrence: “It would be odd, in my view, if the Act (1) mandated detention of particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of danger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings, but (2) nonetheless allowed the noncitizens to remain free during their removal proceedings if the Executive Branch failed to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”

Although the case involved a narrow statutory question, the Court’s four liberals quibbled about the law’s policy implications on the nation’s “values.” For instance, what if immigrants were detained years after being released from police custody and have “established families and put down roots in a community”? The Court’s job isn’t to substitute its policy judgments for those of Congress.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2122 on: March 28, 2019, 02:32:12 PM »
"There is no crisis on the border."

According to Mario's VERY annoying kid there is a crises
but of sick and frail and scared - children.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
second post
« Reply #2123 on: March 28, 2019, 03:31:57 PM »
If you are an American smuggling two illegals in you are in Fed custody

if you are the illegals coming in then you get released........


https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/03/28/aryan-brotherhood-of-texas-member-pleads-guilty-to-migrant-smuggling/



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Border Asylum Crisis
« Reply #2126 on: April 01, 2019, 01:00:29 AM »
The Border Asylum Crisis
A broken asylum system all but guarantees entry if you bring children.
By The Editorial Board
March 31, 2019 3:54 p.m. ET
In this photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, migrants are seen inside an enclosure in El Paso after crossing the border between Mexico and the United States illegally and turning themselves in to request asylum.



Immigration politics is so polarized that right and left have a veto over any constructive policy. Yet a genuine crisis is building at the southern border as the perverse incentives of U.S. asylum law invite a surge of migrants that is overwhelming border security.


Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said last week that the border has hit “a breaking point” amid a rush of families from Central America. More than a strong U.S. economy is driving this influx. Between 2000 and 2017, apprehensions dropped 80% as Mexico’s economy improved and border security tightened. But immigration has picked up over the last year as word has spread that parents with children who claim asylum can stay for years and perhaps forever.

More than 76,000 immigrants illegally crossed the border in February and about half came with families, a 10-fold increase over the past two years. Border apprehensions in March probably exceeded 100,000, the highest monthly total in a decade. At the current rate, border apprehensions will exceed one million this year—the most since 2006—as human smugglers become more ambitious and reduce prices to entice more migrants.
***

Mr. Trump’s solution is to build a wall along the 1,900-mile border, and on Friday he said he may even close the legal points of entry with Mexico. He has also ordered U.S. aid cut to the Central American countries that are the source of the migrant waves. None of this will deter migrants increasingly drawn by the porous U.S. asylum system. Congress needs to build stronger legal barriers that migrants and judges can’t evade or bulldoze.

One problem is that asylum claimants may avoid immediate deportation simply by convincing an immigration officer that they have a “credible fear” that they will be persecuted if they return to their home country. The Immigration and Nationality Act conditions asylum on a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” But immigrants complaining about abusive spouses and economic hardship have been waved through.

Due to a shortage of detention beds, they are usually released and allowed to work in the U.S. while awaiting another hearing to determine if they qualify for asylum. The average hearing wait time is two years. Many disappear and don’t report for their hearing.

The Trump Administration last year tried to make it harder to pass the credible-fear test by barring those fleeing social and economic unrest. Immigration law allows the President to “establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum” and temporarily “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem” are in the national interest.

But federal Judge Emmet Sullivan last year blocked the Administration from imposing asylum conditions. Last month the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended habeas corpus to asylum claimants, which means even those who fail the initial screening will have recourse in federal court. Almost anyone who claims asylum will now be able to avoid immediate deportation.

The Ninth Circuit in 2016 created other opportunities for asylum arbitrage by extending to families the 1997 Flores settlement, which limits the time unaccompanied children may be detained to 20 days. This has encouraged parents to bring their children on a perilous journey in hopes of expediting their release into the U.S. A father of an eight-year-old boy who died in government custody last December while waiting to be processed had heard rumors that children are a fast-track entry ticket to the U.S. Border agents have identified 2,400 “false families” over the last year as smugglers pair adults with unrelated children.

To relieve overburdened detention facilities and nonprofits, the Trump Administration has tried to steer more immigrants to ports of entry where they can wait in Mexico while their claims are processed. The Administration last year tried to limit asylum eligibility to immigrants who present themselves at ports of entry, but the Ninth Circuit blocked that too.

Thus, the border chaos. Most migrants don’t want to wait years in Mexico so they pay smugglers thousands of dollars to bus them to the border. Some have been ambushed by gunmen. Many cross the border and surrender to government agents because they know they will be quickly released into the U.S.

All of this promotes the perception that the border is out of control and increases support for more restrictionist immigration policies, which should give Democrats a political incentive to fix the asylum loopholes. Start by clarifying that migrants who aren’t being persecuted aren’t eligible for asylum.

Lawmakers should also overrule unfounded court rulings including the Ninth Circuit’s expansion of Flores. More immigration judges are needed to reduce the backlog. Ditto detention beds to house immigrants while claims are processed. Democrats don’t want to make any concessions to Mr. Trump on immigration, but if they refuse to act they will be more to blame for the growing humanitarian and security crisis than the Administration.





G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380765.php

"Maryland Man" Accused of Stealing a U-Haul In Order to Drive It Through Crowds at National Harbor (Just Outside of DC)
White Supremacy Watch.

This plan is of course borrowed from ISIS -- renting (or stealing) a large heavy vehicle and then just plowing through civilians has been a staple of ISIS attacks in Europe.

And in New York City, of course.

A Maryland man inspired by the Islamic State terror network allegedly planned to ram a truck into "disbelievers" at a popular tourist spot and keep "driving and driving and driving" nonstop, U.S. officials said Monday.
...

Henry has had "hatred" toward those who don't practice Islam for two years, officials said Monday, adding that he was allegedly inspired from videos of foreign terrorists. He allegedly planned to conduct a similar attack to the truck attack in Nice, France in 2016. Authorities say Henry admitted that he wanted to create "panic and chaos"

"After stealing the van, Henry drove around, arriving at Dulles International Airport in Virginia at approximately 5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 27, 2019," officials said. "The government’s motion for detention alleges that Henry exited his U-Haul and entered the terminal, trying to find a way through security, allegedly to harm 'disbelievers' in a way designed for maximum publicity. After more than two hours of failing to breach Dulles’s security perimeter, Henry allegedly returned to the U-Haul."

Strangely, we're not getting the sort of coverage we got after Christchurch, with leftwing/jihad-friendly media types searching to figure out what kind of political messaging, from which set of political actors, could have contributed to this terrorists' mindset.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
WSJ: Incoherent on Immigration
« Reply #2135 on: April 10, 2019, 01:54:21 PM »
Incoherent on Immigration
Firing his own deputies won’t help the border or move Congress.
By The Editorial Board
April 9, 2019 7:54 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump greets former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in El Centro, Calif., April 5. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

Frustrated with Congress and the courts on border security, President Trump has responded by firing his own immigration-enforcement deputies. This political incoherence won’t produce better results at the border or break the stalemate in Congress over immigration.

Mr. Trump was good enough to finally show Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen the door on Sunday after taunting her for months on Twitter and via White House leaks to the press. Her forced resignation comes a week after he yanked the nomination of Ron Vitiello to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “go in a tougher direction.” Restrictionists want him to clean house, but what do they hope to accomplish?

After defenestrating the department’s top brass, Mr. Trump will be left with a dozen or so vacancies including the deputy secretary at Homeland Security, the general counsel and Citizenship and Immigration Services director. The Senate could take months to confirm replacements—assuming the President can find masochists who’ll take the jobs—and the lack of permanent leadership won’t ease the mess at the southern border.

The President has good reason to be frustrated with liberal judges who have issued nationwide injunctions against his border-control policies that are well grounded in the law. Last summer a federal judge expanded asylum eligibility to immigrants fleeing gang or domestic violence, which has encouraged tens of thousands of migrants to surge to the border on the expectation of being able to stay in the U.S. indefinitely even if they enter illegally.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has extended habeas corpus protections to migrants whose asylum claims are rejected, and it blocked Ms. Nielsen’s order limiting asylum eligibility to immigrants who present themselves at ports of entry. The Supreme Court last year let the latter injunction stand, essentially encouraging judges to take charge of U.S. border control.

Ms. Nielsen’s last-ditch effort was to keep some asylum claimants in Mexico until their cases are heard. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that an immigrant “who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding.” But a federal judge on Monday enjoined this policy too.

It makes no sense to hang Ms. Nielsen or others because judges—most appointed by Barack Obama—have erected legal barriers to implementing a rational border policy. The dismissals send the message to the public that the problems at the border can be fixed with better administrative policies or execution.

Some advisers want Mr. Trump to take “tougher” actions that strain the legal limits of his executive authority such as ending birthright citizenship. Other bad ideas include reviving family separations at the border, though Mr. Trump backed off that on Tuesday.

Perhaps he was reminded that a federal judge had also ruled against that policy or that images of children in cages don’t sit well with the public. This is why the Administration stopped the separations last spring and asked Congress to fix asylum laws and let families be detained as units.
***

Mr. Trump has cause to be exasperated that Congress has ignored him. Yet some of his advisers, especially immigration Svengali Stephen Miller, have also repeatedly scuttled attempts to forge a compromise with Democrats that could provide more legal immigration including work permits for young adults who came to the country as children.

Last weekend the President channelled Mr. Miller by declaring “we can’t handle any more” immigrants and “our country’s full.” Yet this contradicts Mr. Trump’s avowals that the U.S. needs more foreign workers amid a stretched labor force. The Departments of Labor and Homeland Security acknowledged this reality Monday by making available an additional 30,000 H-2B visas for seasonal workers.

Mr. Trump needs to offer an immigration policy that gets beyond the political dead end of Mr. Miller’s close-the-border restrictionism. Democrats have no incentive to cooperate as long as Mr. Trump is raging against his own deputies as if they’re the problem.

The President needs to offer a larger immigration vision that combines border security while welcoming legal immigrants and offering Democrats something they want. If they still refuse to cooperate, then he can offer that better vision to voters in 2020. Until he does he’ll be frustrated by his own policy incoherence that sounds tough but accomplishes nothing.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 06:44:26 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19776
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2136 on: April 10, 2019, 03:23:58 PM »
"The President needs to offer a larger immigration vision that combines border security while welcoming legal immigrants and offering Democrats something they want. If they still refuse to cooperate, then he can offer that better vision to voters in 2020. Until he does he’ll be frustrated by his own policy incoherence that sounds tough but accomplishes nothing."

***offering crats what they want!  sure , great idea.*** . Is the WSJ kidding?  they have to my knowledge never been serious about this issue

bottom line

we are screwed (unless DJT  takes drastic action but) even then Obamster judges will block him .

Screwed  till 2020 if Republicans can win back the House and maintain Senate and WH.
Till then illegal numbers will swell to 25 million . 

and if the Repubs lose House and or WH then that is the ball game folks

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2137 on: April 10, 2019, 04:00:44 PM »
The WSJ has always been pro-legal immigration and soft on illegal immigration.  I posted the article not as a matter of shared POV, but as a matter of seeing what an important player is saying.

Edited to add:

That said, the editorial I think fairly makes not of some of the specifics of the judicial dismantlement of defense of our border in a way makes good talking points in reasoning with our fellow Americans.

This too I think a point worth noting:

"It makes no sense to hang Ms. Nielsen or others because judges—most appointed by Barack Obama—have erected legal barriers to implementing a rational border policy. The dismissals send the message to the public that the problems at the border can be fixed with better administrative policies or execution."

Though I think the better analysis is that they lacked the testosterone to move the bureaucracy,  I do hope President Trump communicates better to the American people that it in Congress that the true solution lies.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 06:48:36 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19462
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2138 on: April 11, 2019, 06:39:48 AM »
I also like the WSJ opinion writers though I don't fully agree with them on this.  I heard their discussion of this on their podcast, subscription not required.
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch

Crafty:  "I think the better analysis is that they lacked the testosterone to move the bureaucracy"

Yes.  That is Trump's perception of it and it is his right within limits to choose his team.  The problems are not kirstjen Nielsen's fault, but the game has changed and the skill set required going forward is different. 


Crafty:  "I do hope President Trump communicates better to the American people that it in Congress that the true solution lies."

Exactly.  The story of the problem at the border is getting out, but the story about the solution and the blocking of it is not. 

On Democrats and Obama judges blocking of the solution, the WSJ is right.  Left wing judges are acting as Commander in Chief, anti-constitutionally, and Democrats in Congress blocking the reform of laws to allow border security to do its job. 

Regarding the need for action from Congress, it seems that Trump needs an Oval Office address to the nation.  But that method is not his strength and most certainly will be written off as political.  The decision to do it depends on whether it will work and with Pelosi-Omar-Ocasio running the House it will not work, so on we go with Trump communicating in the way that he does and fighting this with all tools available to him.

I agree the strategy now depends on 'testosterone' or testicles (of any gender) for an aggressive legal fight.  Without support from Democrats, Trump unfortunately needs to use emergency powers to address this emergency, and to take this fight strategically all the way up the Court system.  I'm surprised WSJ panel doesn't see the need for the President to choose his own team to do this, even though the fault is not with the outgoing officials.

Bernie Sanders admitted the other day that we do need borders and we do need enforcement, a breakthrough for the Left.  Trump needs to somehow lock in some crossover support on major issues like this one, especially as Democrats lose even Hispanics with their refusal to address the crisis at the border. 

I don't think Republicans alone can defend our country. 

Regarding legal immigration, from the article:
"Last weekend the President channeled Mr. Miller by declaring “we can’t handle any more” immigrants and “our country’s full.” "

This looks to me like another case of journalists making the mistake of taking Trump word for word literally - and drop the Stephen Miller thing already.  They know better and acknowledge it in the next sentences:

"Yet this contradicts Mr. Trump’s avowals that the U.S. needs more foreign workers amid a stretched labor force. The Departments of Labor and Homeland Security acknowledged this reality Monday by making available an additional 30,000 H-2B visas for seasonal workers."

The need for skilled workers is a different question than the current crisis of children and families at the border.  Perhaps Trump is setting out a negotiating position for legislation to address both situations.  If so, he is a step ahead of those who judge him.

Why are these undersecretary positions not getting filled?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/after-500-days-dozens-of-white-house-jobs-remain-unfilled.html
If we loosen the rules that give power to minority in the Senate, will we be screwed later by that decision?  [Yes.]  Where there are vacancies in the departments, does that give the White House more power to run the department?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 06:54:36 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Latest proposal risks unintended results
« Reply #2140 on: April 15, 2019, 09:11:03 AM »
Dunno about this , , ,



Trump's Latest Proposal to Deter Migrants Risks Doing the Opposite
Migrants wait in a detention area on March 31, 2019, in El Paso, Texas.
(JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images)

Highlights

    In an effort to curb rising illegal immigration from Central America, U.S. President Donald Trump is considering limiting transfers of money from migrants working in the United States to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
    But even relatively mild measures — such as denying or delaying more transfers through increased scrutiny by the U.S. Treasury Department — threaten the already tenuous economic and political situations in these Central American countries.
    Reducing remittances would also likely accelerate Central American efforts to seek additional foreign aid and trade links with China, though the United States wields significant economic influence to hamper this trend.
    In the end, the Trump administration's efforts could actually drive more migrants to the border by exacerbating the factors they often seek to escape, such as high crime, poverty and food shortages.

The U.S.-Mexico border has seen an influx of asylum seekers from Central America in recent years. The number of migrants apprehended or turned away at the border increased from about 17,000 in March 2017 to 100,000 this March. And while this figure is still well below where illegal immigration on the southern U.S. border was nearly two decades ago, it nonetheless presents a challenge to U.S. President Donald Trump by undermining the staunch immigration enforcement message that helped fuel his electoral victory in 2016.

The Big Picture

Quelling illegal immigration was the core of Donald Trump's political platform in 2016, and it remains a key issue for his administration and supporters. But the growing number of Central Americans who are now reaching the U.S.-Mexico border risks undercutting this political message ahead of the 2020 presidential election. In response, the Trump administration is mulling unprecedented measures to quickly deter illegal border crossings, such as blocking migrant workers from sending money back home.

See Crossing Borders

In an attempt to shore up support ahead of the 2020 presidential election, the Trump administration is now seeking to turn its campaign promises into policy — even if it means pursuing drastic measures. Currently, the most consequential proposal on the table is a move to stem the flow of remittances to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, or money migrant workers send back to their families. But announcing a crackdown on this money is no idle threat. Remittances to these countries (the vast majority is from citizens in the United States) are a leading source of revenue in Central America — making up about 20 percent of Honduras' and El Salvador's GDP and about 12 percent of the Guatemalan economy.

If the White House makes good on its threat, reducing remittances risks spawning considerable political and economic ripple effects in Central America, which could eventually make their way back to Washington in the form of even more migrants on its doorstep.

A Perfect Storm for Populism

The proposal to slow remittances is particularly risky for the economies in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras because of the high number of citizens in these countries who earn their living through informal jobs. In Guatemala and Honduras, more than 70 percent of the population is estimated to work in what's known as the informal labor force, while in El Salvador, the figure exceeds 60 percent. These jobs offer few, if any, benefits and are often tenuous and low-paying. Those who work in the informal sector can also go for weeks or months without pay. As a result, these citizens often make ends meet through the remittances they receive from family members working abroad.

Targeting remittances would thus severely strain many households' income. And the resulting economic slowdown, worsened by global economic headwinds over the next several years, could threaten the region's already fragile political stability and give rise to brewing populist movements.

A graphic showing an increase in the number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Central American governments would face hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of constituents with delayed or nonexistent income from remittances. And with limited pools of domestic capital and small budgets, they would have little to offer in the way of alleviating citizens' financial woes. As a result, voters could start turning their anger against incumbent governments, leading to violent unrest and increased support for leftist populists who promise to address their social and financial grievances.

In Honduras, the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez is already facing a growing threat from the country's main leftist coalition after the president narrowly defeated its candidate in 2017. There is, of course, little that the Honduran government can do to avoid attracting the Trump administration's ire concerning illegal migration. But that wouldn't stop its leftist opponents from using the issue of remittances to garner support and possibly eke out a win in the next presidential election in 2021.

Tied Hands on Trade

Beyond the direct economic and political implications for the region, cutting off remittances would also likely force Central American governments to consider options for expanding trade links and sources of foreign assistance outside of the United States. In doing so, these countries could start accelerating their efforts to court Chinese assistance and export opportunities, which will prove risky due to the region's exposure to the U.S. economy.

As part of the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are particularly vulnerable to U.S. retaliation in the form of trade benefits. El Salvador, for example, was quickly met with Washington's wrath after toying with the idea of recognizing China over Taiwan to diversify its exports in 2018. The United States considered revoking some of El Salvador's trade benefits under CAFTA-DR in retaliation. While the decision to revoke CAFTA-DR benefits would ultimately fall into the hands of an arbitration panel, it is nonetheless a powerful tool the United States can wield to dissuade Central American countries from strengthening their ties with its chief rival in the East.

Even if the United States moves to penalize Central American countries for illegal immigration, these countries will find it very difficult to pursue a path away from the United States. Their historical reliance on their northern neighbor for trade and foreign assistance will cause governments to walk a fine line between satisfying Washington and planning for the future. But there will be little they can do to prevent the domestic fallout from challenging the United States.

Laying Out Trump's Options

With that said, the extent of these economic and political implications in Central America largely depends on the effectiveness of the measures enacted by the Trump administration. As president, Trump technically has the power to target remittances by cutting off all financial transfers to these countries. However, such a move would be highly unpalatable because of the collateral economic damage. It also would be challenged in the U.S. courts and face potential reversal in Congress.

Complicating Central Americans' ability to send money home risks slowing Central American economies, which would have economic and political consequences for the United States.

Instead, the administration is more likely to target remittances by alleging that some of the money migrants are sending back home is being used to facilitate money laundering or fund criminal activities, such as drug trafficking. In doing so, Trump could, for example, have the Treasury Department order financial entities to start heavily scrutinizing remittances sent to Central American countries. Under such a policy, the Treasury Department could start blocking even small amounts of money wired abroad, if the entities transferring the funds can't easily verify the sender's identity or legal status.

In the long term, Central American migrant workers in the United States stymied by more stringent controls on money transfers may start to look for alternative methods, such as cryptocurrency, to continue sending remittances. However, complicating Central Americans' ability to send money home — even if it's temporary — risks slowing Central American economies, which would have economic and political consequences for the United States.

Beware the Backfire

The importance of Central American economies to the United States is relatively minor, accounting for less than $16 billion of U.S. exports. However, certain U.S. companies that operate in Central America, such as those in the retail sector, could be hit especially hard by consumers' shrinking pocketbooks.

But perhaps of most concern to the United States, and to the Trump administration in particular, is the potentially adverse effect targeting remittances could have on Central American migration. The economic fallout risks exacerbating the existing factors — such as violent crime and food insecurity — that already push Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans to seek asylum in the United States. And drought conditions in rural areas — which are particularly dependent on remittances from abroad — will propel even more of the poorest Central Americans to head north. Though the administration is considering targeting remittances to deter migration, the secondary effects of such a decision could thus end up driving to the U.S. border more desperate Central Americans, who have few other destinations to improve their economic prospects.

Whether the White House will try to make it more complicated for Central Americans to repatriate their earnings remains an open question. A proposal to limit remittances from Mexico was nestled in Trump's 2016 platform on immigration, but the idea only now seems to be under serious consideration. The temptation to make the proposal a reality ahead of the 2020 election will be great. As a result, the United States could come away with even more Central American migrants at its border, and fewer friendly relationships at its disposal in the region to preemptively curb migration flows.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 09:13:07 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Stratfor: Latest proposal risks unintended results
« Reply #2141 on: April 15, 2019, 11:18:06 AM »
Gee, if we only had some sort of ...barrier protecting us...


Dunno about this , , ,



Trump's Latest Proposal to Deter Migrants Risks Doing the Opposite
Migrants wait in a detention area on March 31, 2019, in El Paso, Texas.
(JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images)

Highlights

    In an effort to curb rising illegal immigration from Central America, U.S. President Donald Trump is considering limiting transfers of money from migrants working in the United States to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
    But even relatively mild measures — such as denying or delaying more transfers through increased scrutiny by the U.S. Treasury Department — threaten the already tenuous economic and political situations in these Central American countries.
    Reducing remittances would also likely accelerate Central American efforts to seek additional foreign aid and trade links with China, though the United States wields significant economic influence to hamper this trend.
    In the end, the Trump administration's efforts could actually drive more migrants to the border by exacerbating the factors they often seek to escape, such as high crime, poverty and food shortages.

The U.S.-Mexico border has seen an influx of asylum seekers from Central America in recent years. The number of migrants apprehended or turned away at the border increased from about 17,000 in March 2017 to 100,000 this March. And while this figure is still well below where illegal immigration on the southern U.S. border was nearly two decades ago, it nonetheless presents a challenge to U.S. President Donald Trump by undermining the staunch immigration enforcement message that helped fuel his electoral victory in 2016.

The Big Picture

Quelling illegal immigration was the core of Donald Trump's political platform in 2016, and it remains a key issue for his administration and supporters. But the growing number of Central Americans who are now reaching the U.S.-Mexico border risks undercutting this political message ahead of the 2020 presidential election. In response, the Trump administration is mulling unprecedented measures to quickly deter illegal border crossings, such as blocking migrant workers from sending money back home.

See Crossing Borders

In an attempt to shore up support ahead of the 2020 presidential election, the Trump administration is now seeking to turn its campaign promises into policy — even if it means pursuing drastic measures. Currently, the most consequential proposal on the table is a move to stem the flow of remittances to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, or money migrant workers send back to their families. But announcing a crackdown on this money is no idle threat. Remittances to these countries (the vast majority is from citizens in the United States) are a leading source of revenue in Central America — making up about 20 percent of Honduras' and El Salvador's GDP and about 12 percent of the Guatemalan economy.

If the White House makes good on its threat, reducing remittances risks spawning considerable political and economic ripple effects in Central America, which could eventually make their way back to Washington in the form of even more migrants on its doorstep.

A Perfect Storm for Populism

The proposal to slow remittances is particularly risky for the economies in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras because of the high number of citizens in these countries who earn their living through informal jobs. In Guatemala and Honduras, more than 70 percent of the population is estimated to work in what's known as the informal labor force, while in El Salvador, the figure exceeds 60 percent. These jobs offer few, if any, benefits and are often tenuous and low-paying. Those who work in the informal sector can also go for weeks or months without pay. As a result, these citizens often make ends meet through the remittances they receive from family members working abroad.

Targeting remittances would thus severely strain many households' income. And the resulting economic slowdown, worsened by global economic headwinds over the next several years, could threaten the region's already fragile political stability and give rise to brewing populist movements.

A graphic showing an increase in the number of apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Central American governments would face hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of constituents with delayed or nonexistent income from remittances. And with limited pools of domestic capital and small budgets, they would have little to offer in the way of alleviating citizens' financial woes. As a result, voters could start turning their anger against incumbent governments, leading to violent unrest and increased support for leftist populists who promise to address their social and financial grievances.

In Honduras, the government of President Juan Orlando Hernandez is already facing a growing threat from the country's main leftist coalition after the president narrowly defeated its candidate in 2017. There is, of course, little that the Honduran government can do to avoid attracting the Trump administration's ire concerning illegal migration. But that wouldn't stop its leftist opponents from using the issue of remittances to garner support and possibly eke out a win in the next presidential election in 2021.

Tied Hands on Trade

Beyond the direct economic and political implications for the region, cutting off remittances would also likely force Central American governments to consider options for expanding trade links and sources of foreign assistance outside of the United States. In doing so, these countries could start accelerating their efforts to court Chinese assistance and export opportunities, which will prove risky due to the region's exposure to the U.S. economy.

As part of the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are particularly vulnerable to U.S. retaliation in the form of trade benefits. El Salvador, for example, was quickly met with Washington's wrath after toying with the idea of recognizing China over Taiwan to diversify its exports in 2018. The United States considered revoking some of El Salvador's trade benefits under CAFTA-DR in retaliation. While the decision to revoke CAFTA-DR benefits would ultimately fall into the hands of an arbitration panel, it is nonetheless a powerful tool the United States can wield to dissuade Central American countries from strengthening their ties with its chief rival in the East.

Even if the United States moves to penalize Central American countries for illegal immigration, these countries will find it very difficult to pursue a path away from the United States. Their historical reliance on their northern neighbor for trade and foreign assistance will cause governments to walk a fine line between satisfying Washington and planning for the future. But there will be little they can do to prevent the domestic fallout from challenging the United States.

Laying Out Trump's Options

With that said, the extent of these economic and political implications in Central America largely depends on the effectiveness of the measures enacted by the Trump administration. As president, Trump technically has the power to target remittances by cutting off all financial transfers to these countries. However, such a move would be highly unpalatable because of the collateral economic damage. It also would be challenged in the U.S. courts and face potential reversal in Congress.

Complicating Central Americans' ability to send money home risks slowing Central American economies, which would have economic and political consequences for the United States.

Instead, the administration is more likely to target remittances by alleging that some of the money migrants are sending back home is being used to facilitate money laundering or fund criminal activities, such as drug trafficking. In doing so, Trump could, for example, have the Treasury Department order financial entities to start heavily scrutinizing remittances sent to Central American countries. Under such a policy, the Treasury Department could start blocking even small amounts of money wired abroad, if the entities transferring the funds can't easily verify the sender's identity or legal status.

In the long term, Central American migrant workers in the United States stymied by more stringent controls on money transfers may start to look for alternative methods, such as cryptocurrency, to continue sending remittances. However, complicating Central Americans' ability to send money home — even if it's temporary — risks slowing Central American economies, which would have economic and political consequences for the United States.

Beware the Backfire

The importance of Central American economies to the United States is relatively minor, accounting for less than $16 billion of U.S. exports. However, certain U.S. companies that operate in Central America, such as those in the retail sector, could be hit especially hard by consumers' shrinking pocketbooks.

But perhaps of most concern to the United States, and to the Trump administration in particular, is the potentially adverse effect targeting remittances could have on Central American migration. The economic fallout risks exacerbating the existing factors — such as violent crime and food insecurity — that already push Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans to seek asylum in the United States. And drought conditions in rural areas — which are particularly dependent on remittances from abroad — will propel even more of the poorest Central Americans to head north. Though the administration is considering targeting remittances to deter migration, the secondary effects of such a decision could thus end up driving to the U.S. border more desperate Central Americans, who have few other destinations to improve their economic prospects.

Whether the White House will try to make it more complicated for Central Americans to repatriate their earnings remains an open question. A proposal to limit remittances from Mexico was nestled in Trump's 2016 platform on immigration, but the idea only now seems to be under serious consideration. The temptation to make the proposal a reality ahead of the 2020 election will be great. As a result, the United States could come away with even more Central American migrants at its border, and fewer friendly relationships at its disposal in the region to preemptively curb migration flows.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Quote of the day
« Reply #2142 on: April 15, 2019, 07:33:45 PM »
“One of the main lessons our elites seemed to derive from 9/11 is that the best way to fight Islamic terror is to welcome huge numbers of immigrants from places known for Islamic extremism.” Tucker Carlson

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Citizens arrest illegals in NM
« Reply #2144 on: April 19, 2019, 07:07:13 AM »
Credibility of this source unknown, but the concept is worth noting:

http://theblacksphere.net/2019/04/citizens-arrest-migrants-new-mexico/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2145 on: April 20, 2019, 09:57:58 AM »
Prediction:

Sometime soon we may see some action by America on the Guatemalan border , , ,



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72330
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Caravans not behind crossing slowdowns
« Reply #2148 on: April 22, 2019, 04:00:51 PM »
second post

Why Migrant Caravans Are not Behind the Recent U.S.-Mexico Border Crossing Slowdowns
A Central American migrant caravan on Nov. 11, 2018, passes through the Mexican state of Guanajuato on its way to the United States.

Highlights

    Much has been made of so-called migrant caravans heading toward the U.S.-Mexico border, but they are a relatively small part of a broader problem increasing processing times for legal land border crossings into the United States.
    These slowdowns affect the operations of businesses reliant on cross-border trade.
    While current record levels of immigration will eventually drop off, seemingly intractable staffing challenges at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the national political fight over the border will continue.

Editor's Note: This security-focused assessment is one of many such analyses found at Stratfor Threat Lens, a unique protective intelligence product designed with corporate security leaders in mind. Threat Lens enables industry professionals and organizations to anticipate, identify, measure and mitigate emerging threats to people, assets and intellectual property the world over. Threat Lens is the only unified solution that analyzes and forecasts security risk from a holistic perspective, bringing all the most relevant global insights into a single, interactive threat dashboard.

About 3,000 migrants from Central America crossed into Mexico from Guatemala via the Rodolfo Robles International Bridge on April 12, joining about 4,000 others already in Mexico's southern state of Chiapas hoping to make it to the United States. Based on the patterns of previous caravans from Central America, the migrants will take an additional three to four weeks to make their way north to the U.S. border, arriving sometime in early May. This timeline could be delayed, however, by an apparent crackdown by the Mexican government: Reuters reported on April 17 that Mexico City has sought to slow the caravans by closing visa offices in southern Mexico and stopping the processing of visas, stranding migrants in camps.

The Big Picture

Staffing shortages, a highly charged atmosphere over immigration and border security, and record-high numbers of would-be illegal border crossers — many of whom are children — have overwhelmed U.S. officials, with so-called migrant caravans a relatively small contributor to the slowdown in border crossings. Consequent delays at official crossing points where U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents process thousands of commercial and personal vehicles every day have caused major problems for legitimate businesses. While current record levels of immigration will eventually drop off, the perennial challenge of securing the border and the national political fight over the issue will persist.

See Crossing Borders

But while some migrants will turn back and some will seek shelter in Mexico, the majority will eventually push on to the U.S. border and will even be joined by others — swelling the size of the caravan. Nongovernmental organizations will help by arranging bus rides, providing meals and leading the group on foot at times. As the caravan moves north, it is likely to break up as groups head toward major crossing points into the United States at Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez and Piedras Negras.

The caravans are contributing to a surge in illegal border crossings into the United States, which has experienced more illegal crossings from Mexico than it has in 12 years. To boost patrols in overwhelmed sectors, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has reassigned hundreds of agents from high-traffic ports of entry, such as San Diego, and Laredo and El Paso in Texas. This in turn has slowed down the processing of legitimate border traffic.

The recent slowdown in processing times threatens the operations of businesses reliant on trade with Mexico. In El Paso, for example, wait times increased to two to three hours in early April 2019 compared with an average of about one hour in April 2015. At Otay Mesa, California, crossing was taking close to 4.5 hours in early April versus minimal wait times in November 2018. And California's San Ysidro crossing, just a few miles west of Otay Mesa, was shut down by protests and immigrants trying to force their way across. Laredo is also experiencing unusually high wait times of about four hours. No caravans, however, will arrive at the border in April. Moreover, the last time a caravan arrived on the border — when about 1,800 Central Americans reached Piedras Negras in early February — its arrival didn't cause a significant jump in legal border crossing times.
Migrant Caravans, a Small Part of the Overall Problem

While caravans have been drawing a great deal of attention in the national debate over immigration and border security, they are just one of a number of factors that have contributed to the crisis unfolding along the border with Mexico. Immigrants attempting to reach the United States by caravan make up a small percentage of total immigration from Mexico and Central America. The February Piedras Negras caravan, for example, accounted for little more than 2 percent of the 76,535 individuals that CBP agents apprehended that month trying to cross into the United States.

March 2019 in turn saw the highest levels of monthly reported apprehensions (103,492) at the border since April 2007, a 105 percent increase over March 2018. In March 2019, apprehensions were up 516 percent from March 2017, when migration along the border with Mexico was at record lows. From January to March 2019, CBP apprehended more Honduran and Guatemalan family units than in all of 2018 combined. So it is actually the overall increase in illegal immigration that is overwhelming the border, not the caravans themselves.

Seasonal Surges and CBP Staffing Woes

Immigration to the United States from Latin America is currently in the middle of its annual increase as seasonal workers attempt to make their way in. In a historical trend, border apprehensions — an indicator of overall illegal immigration patterns — tend to increase from February through May before dropping in June and July. So with or without caravans, the seasonal pressure on immigration authorities along the border should continue for the next one to two months.

Making it harder for the government to cope with the surge, and thus increasing legal crossing wait times, CBP has simultaneously been struggling with staffing shortages. In late March, CBP ordered the redeployment of 750 agents from El Paso and Laredo; Tucson, Arizona; and San Diego to address the surge along less-patrolled sections of the border. That number could go up to 2,000 agents during April, and CBP could request even more if it deems it necessary — further straining resources at busy ports of entry.

Less personnel means fewer open lanes, delays in processing vehicles and backlogs that compound the wait time — ultimately raising shipping costs for companies and individuals that rely on products from Mexico.

During 2018, similar but smaller redeployments saw shorter delays. CBP moved 100 agents from El Paso to the Arizona and California sectors in November, causing wait times to double to about an hour in El Paso. This reallocation of resources has closely corresponded to the increase in wait times during early April. The agents' absence is forcing ports of entry to limit their operations. For example, Laredo was operating only 10 of 12 commercial lanes on April 12, while Otay Mesa was using only eight of 10. Less personnel means fewer open lanes, delays in processing vehicles and backlogs that increase wait times — ultimately raising shipping costs for companies and individuals that rely on products from Mexico.

The apparent shortage of CBP agents is nothing new. According to a 2017 report from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, CBP hasn't hit its hiring goals since 2014. It is also trying to fill 7,000 to 8,000 positions for new agents and officers to secure the border and ensure commerce continues without unreasonable delays. But nothing so far indicates the CBP will overcome its personnel shortages any time soon.

Faced with an influx of immigrants and a shortage of personnel to deal with them, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has chosen border security over the swift processing of commercial and private traffic from Mexico. While the president didn't go so far as to shut down the border as he threatened in early April, the redeploying of limited human resources away from entry points has still hampered trade.

The importance of border security to Trump, as evidenced by his insistence on a border wall, means the subject will remain a politically intractable issue. And while current record levels of immigration will eventually drop off, relieving some pressure on border security forces, the perennial challenges of an understaffed CBP and the national political fight over the border will continue at least through the next round of U.S. elections in 2020.