Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You

[Dos Equis]

Rubio is obama lite

What makes you say that?

[240 is Back]

What makes you say that?

lol

[Soul Crusher]

What makes you say that?

No real experience.   Talks in politcal code.    Not tested.   Etc.   

[240 is Back]

No real experience.   Talks in politcal code.    Not tested.   Etc.   

plus his complete reversal on amnesty, with whatever is popular at the moment.

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/border-jumpers-enticed-by-legalization-debate-in-u/#ixzz3TBh0SQFd

[Dos Equis]

No real experience.   Talks in politcal code.    Not tested.   Etc.  

I think he could use more private sector experience and would be nice if he served in the military, but he's miles ahead of where Obama was when he ran for president.  

Every time I've listened to him speak I've liked him.  

In terms of being tested, I guess that's debatable, but he did pretty darn well in his senate race.  He beat Crist by 1 million votes, which is pretty remarkable, because Crist was running as an independent.  He beat Meeks (the Democrat) by over 1.5 million votes.  

[Soul Crusher]

I think he could use more private sector experience and would be nice if he served in the military, but he's miles ahead of where Obama was when he ran for president. 

Every time I've listened to him speak I've like him. 

In terms of being tested, I guess that's debatable, but he did pretty darn well in his senate race.  He beat Crist by 1 million votes, which is pretty remarkable, because Crist was running as an independent.  He beat Meeks (the Democrat) by over 1.5 million votes. 

I have a much higher expectation and standard than Obama.    

[Soul Crusher]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/govt-union-obamas-weak-immigration-policy-is-inviting-an-attack-worse-than-911/

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/03/03/obama-immigration-fix-4m-illegals-who-never-paid-u-s-tax-get-3-years-of-tax-refunds/

[Soul Crusher]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/05/obama-amnesty-to-grant-1-7-billion-in-taxpayer-cash-to-illegals

[Dos Equis]

‘Like an idiot I believed that’: Judge blasts DOJ over immigration claims, threatens sanctions
Published March 20, 2015
FoxNews.com

A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama's immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program -- and that he fell for it, "like an idiot."

The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program -- giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children -- would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.

Obama's executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama's actions.

Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama's actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

"Like an idiot I believed that," Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.

"We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point," she said.

Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn't properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.

But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.

"Can I trust what the president says? That's a yes or no question," Hanen asked.

"Yes your honor," Hartnett replied.

The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made "representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming," said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General's Office, the lead attorney for the states.

Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver's licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.

"There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here," Hartnett said. "The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing."

Hanen said he would issue a ruling "promptly" on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen's injunction while the case is appealed.

The other states seeking to block Obama's orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/20/judge-sanctions-possible-in-obama-immigration-court-case/

[Dos Equis]

Federal judge denies request to lift hold on Obama immigration action
Published April 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

A federal judge in Texas denied a Justice Department request Tuesday to lift his temporary hold on President Obama's executive action shielding potentially millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to set aside his Feb. 16 decision granting a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted -- allowing Obama's action to proceed -- while it appeals Hanen's ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.

In his order Tuesday denying the government's request, Hanen said the government hasn't "shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation."

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

The Justice Department has already asked the 5th Circuit to lift the injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17. In that case, the AFL-CIO has filed a brief in support of the administration -- though some labor groups have voiced concern about the impact illegal immigration has on U.S. jobs, the AFL-CIO and other unions also represent undocumented workers who already are here.

The coalition of states leading the challenge filed its lawsuit to overturn Obama's executive actions, which would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally from being deported. The states, led by Texas, argue that the action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. The injunction is intended to stall Obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts.

Justice Department attorneys argue that keeping the temporary hold harms "the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation" of the president's immigration action.

Obama announced the executive orders in November, saying a lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own.

Before ruling on the injunction, Hanen said he first wanted to hear from federal prosecutors about allegations that the U.S. government had misled him about the implementation of part of the immigration plan.

The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- had been set to take effect Feb. 18. The other major part would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for several years. That provision was slated to begin on May 19.

Hanen issued his initial injunction believing that neither of those orders had taken effect. About a month later, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation and work permits, but DOJ attorneys insisted the moves were made under 2012 guidelines that weren't blocked by the injunction. The DOJ apologized for any confusion, but Hanen seemed unconvinced during a hearing last month and threatened to sanction the attorneys.

He wrote Tuesday that while the federal government had been "misleading" on the subject, he would not immediately apply sanctions against the government, saying to do so would not be "in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country" because the issue was of national importance and the outcome will affect millions of people.

"The parties' arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit," Hanen wrote.

Republicans hammered the administration after the latest decision.

"The Obama Administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the President’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse."

In a separate order Hanen, told the government it has until April 21 to file to the court and plaintiffs detailed information about its March advisory about the 108,000 three-year reprieves.

The order asks the government to produce "any and all drafts" of the advisory, including information on when each draft was written, edited or revised. Hanen also asked for a list of each person who knew about the advisory.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/08/federal-judge-denies-request-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/?intcmp=latestnews

[Dos Equis]

 

Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship

Image: Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship  (Brendan McDermid/Reuters/Landov)
Tuesday, 05 May 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton intends to draw an early distinction with Republicans on immigration reform, pointing to a pathway to citizenship as an essential part of any overhaul in Congress.

Clinton was laying the foundation of her immigration agenda Tuesday in her first stop in Nevada since launching her presidential campaign. After years of delays in Congress, Latinos and immigration activists are watching Clinton's statements closely for signs of how she might break a legislative logjam on immigration and whether she would extend President Barack Obama's executive actions to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.

"We hope that she leans in and really issues a challenge on the issue," said Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza.

Clinton, a Democrat, has backed Obama's unsuccessful pitch for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, and supported his announcement last year of executive actions to protect certain immigrants from deportation.

The issue could be pivotal in the 2016 race. Obama received strong support from Hispanic voters during his two presidential bids and immigration turned into a stumbling block for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who received only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, and struggled in battleground states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada where Latinos are influential.

Clinton was holding a discussion on Cinco de Mayo with young people at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, where about 70 percent of the student body is Hispanic.

Previewing her remarks, Clinton's campaign said she would say that a true fix to the nation's immigration system would need to include a "full and equal path to citizenship" and the nation shouldn't settle for proposals that would provide hard-working people with a "second-class" status.

Many Republicans have opposed a comprehensive bill that includes a path to citizenship, saying any reforms must be made incrementally, beginning with stronger border security. Clinton' event in Nevada comes as some of her potential Republican rivals, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have courted Hispanics and outlined steps to reform immigration.

At a conference of Hispanic evangelicals last week, Bush said immigrants living in the U.S. illegally should have an opportunity to attain legal status under certain conditions. Bush, who speaks Spanish fluently and is married to a Mexican-American, said such immigrants should be required to pay taxes, work and not receive government benefits.

Rubio, who is Cuban-American, worked on a failed bipartisan immigration bill that proposed a lengthy pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally. The measure cleared the Senate but was blocked by conservatives in the House.

Rubio has said the bill doesn't have enough support to become law and reforms should first focus on border security. The senator ultimately wants to create a process that leads to legal status and citizenship.

Obama's executive orders, meanwhile, loom large in the immigration debate. GOP presidential candidates have said they would overturn the orders, which included the expansion of a program protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Another provision extended deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for several years.

Twenty-six states, including Nevada, have sued to block the plan, and a New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel heard arguments on the challenges last month. A ruling is pending.

For Clinton, "the $64 million question is will she continue the executive actions," said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. Activists are also watching how she would address the opening of family detention centers by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Clinton was spending a day in Nevada before opening a three-day fundraising trip to California. Nevada holds an early contest on the Democratic primary calendar and has been a top-tier battleground state in recent presidential elections. Clinton won the 2008 Democratic caucuses in the state but Obama came away with a slight edge in the number of delegates because of his strength in rural areas.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-path-citizenship-immigration/2015/05/05/id/642578/#ixzz3ZHvXW57n

[240 is Back]

Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship

She's running as a Republican?   

[Dos Equis]

The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals.  It's a full-time job. 

[240 is Back]

The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals.  It's a full-time job. 

soooo anyone that supports amnesty is a liberal?

Maybe you're not familiar with the amnesty positions of Rand, Rubio, Jeb.... LOL

[Dos Equis]

soooo anyone that supports amnesty is a liberal?

Maybe you're not familiar with the amnesty positions of Rand, Rubio, Jeb.... LOL

What I'm trying to say is that every time something unflattering or negative is said about a liberal, you pipe in to try and deflect attention away from liberals.  The DNC should put you on their payroll. 

[Dos Equis]

With this push for amnesty, what is the incentive for people to wait in line and do it legally? 

Immigrants applying to enter US legally facing longer waits
By William La Jeunesse
Published May 18, 2015
FoxNews.com

As illegal immigrants continue to seek legal status under President Obama's executive actions, the waiting list to enter the United States legally grows longer, as does the waiting time for those in the pipeline.

American born Jimmy Gugliotta, who currently lives in Santiago, Chile, with his Argentinian wife and their children, has been waiting more than a year and a half for visas to bring his family to the U.S. He doesn't understand why going through the process legally puts him behind people who sneak into the U.S. illegally.

"It's really sad to see that we've been put in the back seat," Gugliotta told Fox News via email. "What I found outrageous is people like me, a U.S. citizen, are actually being put at the back of the line, and that to me is a total outrage."

The waiting list for those trying to enter the U.S. legally now stands at 4.4 million, 100,000 more than last year. Some have been on the list for more than 15 years. Even though the spouses and children of U.S citizens are supposed to get priority, even their wait times have jumped from as little as two months to up 18 months as the administration deals with a surge of illegal immigrants given lawful status by president Obama.

"I've had people tell me, 'Why don't you just show up at the border and try to get across?'" said Gugliotta. "I say, 'No, we want to do this thing right.'"

While the State Department handles the granting of visas for those overseas, their application first has to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency has been deluged by more than 2,000 applications a day for green cards and work permits after President Obama offered to shield some 4 million illegal immigrant children and adults from deportation using his executive authority.

"I think most Americans are upset that the legal immigration system that was set up by Congress has been completely dismemebered and distorted in this way to benefit people who came here originally illegally.

"What message does this send to people who are trying to do it the right way?" says Jessica Vaughn,  of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stronger controls on illegal immigration.

Vaughn said is is not only disheartening, but unfair, when those waiting their turn and paying thousands of dollars in fees are leapfrogged by people crossing over from Mexico illegally.

Gugliotta says he's been told it could be several more months before he gets a visa for his family. In the meantime, the Administration announced a new program called the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, which provides a taxpayer paid for plane ticket for the Central American children of illegal immigrants “lawfully present” in the U.S. That includes those here through executive amnesty or deferred action. Gugliotta considers the program inherently unfair, especially since the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have historically gotten priority.

"I just find it ridiculous that we're actually bringing people to the United States - going and getting them to bring them in - while I'm very capable of working and paying huge amounts of taxes once I get back to the states,"  he said. "To me, it's kind of frustrating to understand that the U.S. is actually sending planes to look for people in Central America, to bring them to the U.S. and basically we've gone broke trying to abide by the system and do things right."

Last week, Fox News asked the USCIS to explain why it provided preferential status to illegal immigrant applications over those of U.S. Citizen relatives.

"We're working on it," a spokesman told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/18/immigrants-applying-to-enter-us-legally-facing-longer-waits/?intcmp=latestnews

[Dos Equis]

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opi



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/#ixzz3bHATZt1E
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Dos Equis]

Confirmed by IRS: Amnestied Illegals Can Claim Up To $35K in Tax Refunds Without Ever Having Filed Returns
June 4, 2015 By Colleen Conley


Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing the southern American border every year.

If I rob a bank, do I get to deduct the cost of my gun as a business expense?

That’s essentially what Democrats and establishment Republicans have ensured as illegal immigrants granted executive amnesty can claim back tax credits for work performed illegally, even if they never filed a tax return during those years.

This was confirmed recently in a letter by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in response to a query sent by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The new information clarifies an earlier assertion in which Koskinen stated that in order to claim the tax credits the amnestied illegal immigrant would have had to have filed returns in the past. In his written response to Grassley, he says:

“To clarify my earlier comments on EITC, not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC (subject to refund limitations under section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code). I would note that filing new returns for prior years would likely be difficult, since filers would have to reconstruct earnings and other records for years when they were not able to work on the books,” Koskinen said in his written response.

According to the IRS, illegal immigrants granted amnesty, and with it Social Security numbers, can claim up to three years prior in back tax credits.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed. At your request, the IRS has reviewed the relevant statutes and legislative history, and we believe that the 2000 Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) on this issue is correct,” Koskinen added.

As we reported earlier, illegal immigrants granted amnesty could up to $35,000 in tax refunds, courtesy of American taxpayers.

How is it that lawful, tax-paying citizens are beholden to pay millions of dollars in tax refunds for people who arrived to this country illegally, and who never filed tax returns?  Makes one wonder who our government thinks are the real criminals.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/04/confirmed-by-irs-amnestied-illegals-can-claim-up-to-35k-in-tax-refunds-without-ever-having-filed-returns/

[Dos Equis]

Most illegal immigrants from border surge skipped court date after release, records show
By William La Jeunesse
Published June 23, 2015
FoxNews.com

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant women and children streamed across the U.S. border last year seeking asylum and protected status, claiming a "credible fear" of going home to the violence in Central America. President Obama addressed the crisis through increased border enforcement, more detention beds, more immigration judges and pressure on political leaders in their home countries.

But a year later, new data obtained exclusively by Fox News shows the policy isn't stopping the influx. Not only are illegal immigrant women and children continuing to cross the border in large numbers, but the majority charged with crimes aren't even showing up for court.

"That strategy is obviously a complete failure because such a high percentage of these people who were not detained have simply melted into the larger illegal population and have no fear of immigration enforcement," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Statistics released by the Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review show 84 percent of those adults with children who were allowed to remain free pending trial absconded, and fewer than 4 percent deported themselves voluntarily.

The data set, requested by Fox News, underscores the dilemma facing immigration officials. While the ACLU and more than 100 lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to close federal detention centers, which they consider inhumane and unacceptable on legal and moral grounds, releasing the women and children to relatives and charities virtually guarantees they will fall off the federal government's radar.

"Now that we see that 85 percent of the people who were not detained before their immigration hearings do not show up for these hearings, that illustrates the need for detention," Vaughan said.

But others disagree. After the ACLU sued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction immediately halting the administration's policy of locking up asylum-seeking mothers and children. It cited a Department of Homeland Security survey of women and children in family detention. More than 70 percent claimed a credible fear of staying in their home country. The judge rejected the administration's argument that detention was necessary to prevent a mass influx of new immigrants.

"Many of these women and children are being terrorized in their own countries and that's the reason they are leaving," said Belen Robles, a trustee at El Paso Community College in Texas, speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "Once they get here, they need to be treated as human beings and not incarcerated or put in shelters."

The data set from the Department of Justice looks at all women and children detained from Central America beginning July 18, 2014, when Obama declared the immigrants to be an enforcement priority and ordered the courts to treat them on a priority basis.

Since then, ICE detained 83,385 adults and children and completed 24,842 cases. Of those, more than 64 percent, or 16,136, didn't show up for court, and fewer than 4 percent, or 908, agreed to leave voluntarily.

But compare the number of removals for women and children who were detained against those who were not. Among those families who were allowed to remain free after their initial appearance in court, 84 percent never showed up again for their case. They remain free, scattered in cities across America. By contrast, 70 percent of those detained did show up before a judge.

"These figures are very strong evidence that the Border Patrol was right all along, that these people were coming because they knew they would be allowed to stay, that they were not planning to make some kind of plea for humanitarian status such as asylum," said Vaughan.

Nevertheless, immigrant advocates are trying to close down federal government detention centers and some 130 House Democrats and 33 senators called on Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop family detention altogether. Additionally, a federal judge in California ruled that detaining immigrant children violates an existing settlement stipulating that migrant children must be released to foster care, relatives or -- if they must be held -- in the least restrictive environment possible.

"They deserve asylum. They are human beings and they deserve to be treated that way," said Victor Lopez, the mayor of Orange Cove, Calif., a small town in the Central Valley.  "They should be free, and if they want to be citizens of this country, they will appear in court."

Yet, despite "credible fear" claims of violence back home, immigration judges reject that argument 92 percent of the time for adults with children. Illegal immigrants have a better chance of staying in the U.S. by running away than showing up in court.

Here's why: 

-- 103 cities, towns and counties in 33 states have sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants from deportation.

-- Most cities and states refuse to honor "immigration detainers" -- meaning they will no longer hold criminal aliens for deportation for 48 hours for pick-up by federal authorities.

-- Total deportations to date (117,181) are the lowest in four years and 25 percent fewer than at the same time last year.

-- Of those who are deported, 98 percent are either convicted of a felony or multiple misdemeanors, or re-entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.

-- Worksite enforcement is virtually non-existent. So far this fiscal year, ICE conducted just 181 workplace audits and brought charges against just 27 employers, down from 3,127 audits in 2013 and 179 arrests. Employer fines are also down by more than 50 percent.

-- Only eight states require employers to use E-Verify, the federal database used to determine legal status.

-- 10 states issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and last week, for the first time, the administration required employers accept these licenses for employment verification, in violation of the Real ID Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/23/most-illegal-immigrants-from-border-surge-didnt-show-up-for-court-date-records/

[Dos Equis]

MURDERER: I CHOSE SF BECAUSE IT IS A ‘SANCTUARY CITY’

San Francisco immigration (Justin Sullivan / Getty)Justin Sullivan / Getty
by MICHELLE MOONS
6 Jul 2015
San Diego, CA

Five-time deportee, seven-time convicted felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez said in a new interview Sunday with a local ABC News affiliate that he came to San Francisco because he knew the sanctuary city would not hand him over to immigration officials.

He also claimed that he was “looking for jobs in the restaurant or roofing, landscaping, or construction.”

Lopez-Sanchez has confessed to shooting Kathryn Steinle last Wednesday at Pier 14.

Had San Francisco police not refused a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request, Lopez-Sanchez may not have been in the United States and Steinle might still be alive.

“Did you shoot Kate Steinle, the lady who was down at Pier 14?” an ABC7 News reporter asked Lopez-Sanchez in an interview exclusive to the station. “Yes,” said Sanchez.

An ICE official told Breitbart News that ICE Enforcement and Removal had begun processing the suspect for reinstatement of removal from the U.S. in March. But instead Lopez-Sanchez was transferred on March 26 from the Bureau of Prisons in another city to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) because of a drug warrant. ICE then filed the detainer request to be notified prior to Lopez-Sanchez’s release from custody.

A San Francisco court dismissed Lopez-Sanchez’s drug charges on March 27.

San Francisco and SFSD policy is to deny ICE detainer requests, barring special circumstances, such as a warrant for a suspected violent offender. The ICE detainer request was denied, and on April 15, 2015 Lopez-Sanchez was released. Two and a half months later Kate Steinle was killed.

The 2013 “Trust Act,” signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, gave California cities like San Francisco more leeway in deciding whether to comply with immigration authorities.

In the ABC7 interview, Sanchez claimed that he had found sleeping pills in a dumpster and taken them before heading down to the pier. He strangely claims he found the gun on a bench wrapped in a T-shirt. In a new version of the story, he says the gun went off three times and that he kicked it into the bay. He then lit up a cigarette, walked away and claims he didn’t know he shot anyone until police picked him up.

Sanchez had initially told police he had shot the gun at sea lions ,ABC 7 reported.

“Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials,” the report added.

The same night Steinle was shot and killed, a four-time deported illegal alien in Laredo, Texas, murdered his wife with a hammer, according to his own admission. Breitbart Texas previously reported that Laredo Police Department admitted three prior violent encounters with the man. Federal agents told Breitbart Texas that Laredo police failed to inform Border Patrol of the encounters with the illegally present foreign national.

It was suggested that the woman would still be alive today, had police reported the man to Border Patrol.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/06/murderer-says-he-chose-san-francisco-because-it-is-a-sanctuary-city/

[Dos Equis]

SHOCK: ARIZONA PAPER DECRIES BORDER FENCE AS TOO HIGH FOR MEXICANS TO SAFELY JUMP

Border Fence in Arizona
by BRANDON DARBY
5 Jul 2015

A mainstream Arizona newspaper is decrying the small section of the Arizona-Mexico border that has a 14-foot-high primary fence because it is too high for illegal immigrants to safely cross. The article, “Border Fence Jumpers Breaking Bones,” includes the claim that sections of the border with a 14-foot-high fence are “as tall as a two or three-story house” and tells the stories of several women who broke bones and were treated extensively to healthcare and surgeries at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. The writer never mentions any lives directly lost as a result of there not being a border fence in most sections, such as when Mexican nationals crossed into the U.S. and murdered father and husband Robert Rosas, a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

The article in question was written by Perla Trevizo for the Arizona Daily Star. In the excerpt below, note the section’s subtitle and the casual mention that the foreign woman had been deported multiple times prior:

A DREAM ENDS

For some, the fence is a last resort.

Maria Ibarra, 28 and also from Oaxaca, had tried crossing through Nogales and El Paso in April, but both times she was sent back to Mexico.

This time she was determined to get through. She left her 10-year-old son with her parents in Oaxaca. He was born in South Carolina, where she lived for two years before going back to Mexico in 2006 so her parents and siblings could meet her son.

Once there, she said, her son started losing his hearing in one ear and having seizures.

“All I wanted was an opportunity to fight my case,” she said. She hoped her son could join her or maybe she could get a permit to visit the hospitals where he was first treated. But she already had a couple of deportations and a voluntary return to Mexico.

Interestingly, the part about the woman hoping her son could join her is errant in not mentioning that once her son does join her in the U.S., the woman and her son would likely be permitted to stay because they would then be an incomplete family unit.

The assertion that the border fence is as tall as a two or three-story house came from Fernando Valdez, Mexico’s deputy consul general in Nogales, Arizona. He was quoted as stating, ““What surprises us is that people continue to jump from heights that can be the equivalent of a two- or even three-story house,” he said. “But we hear they feel pressured to do it because they are holding the line or they start insulting them, telling them to jump.”

The second part of his statement appears to be directed towards U.S. Border Patrol agents, but the writer left the intended direction of the assertion ambiguous. Of course, if that be the case, the Border Patrol routinely saves illegal immigrants’ lives, as the article inadvertently makes clear. Mexican authorities routinely demonize and attack U.S. Border Patrol agents, even in cases where agents have acted in self-defense against the violent narco-traffickers or other violent individuals.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the advocacy article is that the writer did not mention why a segmented border security fence exists. The fence, which contrary to left-of-center media assertions does not encompass most of the border, was built largely to stop violent criminals from their routine entering and existing of U.S. communities. Two instances come to mind, though in both cases the “wall” has yet to be built in those specific segments.

In 2002, the FBI engaged in a sting operation in Sunland Park, New Mexico along the U.S.-Mexico Border. The effort was spurred by Mexicans routinely crossing the border and robbing trains of cargo. Mexicans would jump the small chain-link fence that served as the area’s only border security and rob the train cars. They would then simply jump back across the fence and U.S. authorities were powerless to stop them. Mexican authorities, often corrupted by the criminal organizations behind the robberies and thefts, did nothing to stop the crimes.

Two FBI special agents got separated from their group in the sting. One of them was a woman. The two agents were surrounded by dozens of Mexican nationals who beat them unconscious and caused severe injuries, including broken facial bones. A federal agent with knowledge of the incident spoke to Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity and said, “There were indicators that the Mexican nationals were trying to drag the unconscious body of the female FBI agent back with them into Mexico.”

This writer previously covered the issue in 2013 and wrote, “Only a few of the men were eventually prosecuted, as most were deported back to Mexico prior to prosecution. Unless something else happened or they moved, the men are still free and presumably operating in the area.”

The second case mentioned above is the murder of Border Patrol agent Robert Rosas. Border sensors went off in an area of California that has a small metal fence separating Mexico from the United States. Agent Rosas was dispatched to check on the sensors. As he arrived and walked up on a bluff, five Mexican nationals jumped him and ruthlessly beat him to death. He fought for his life, but they ultimately overwhelmed him. The Mexican nationals stole Agent Rosas’ gun and gear and then fled back into Mexico. It took years before Mexican authorities would cooperate and help Rosas’ family have peace and justice.

These are just two of the cases that encourage the building of border fences. The very nature of a fence is that it poses a difficulty or risk to unauthorized crossings in an area, such as in the recent issue of Barack Obama’s White House raising the height of their fence to keep unwanted people from crossing. In Arizona’s specific border situation, there exist two border sectors: the Tucson Sector and the Yuma Sector. Though the Yuma Sector is largely locked down with significant coverage of technology and a primary and secondary fence, the Tucson Sector is largely open. Most of the sector has no fence at all and can be freely crossed at the whim of any person in Mexico wishing to enter the United States. The video embedded below shows the reality of most of the Arizona-Mexico border.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/05/shock-arizona-paper-decries-border-fence-as-too-high-for-mexicans-to-safely-jump/

[Dos Equis]

Fraud crackdown sends illegal immigrant licenses plummeting in NM
By Joseph J. Kolb
Published July 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has tried to repeal the state's policy of issuing driver's licenses to illegals, but has had to settle for cracking down on fraud. (AP)

A crackdown on document fraud has sent the number of driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens in New Mexico plunging by 70 percent, while revealing that the state likely issued tens of thousands of bogus licenses after becoming the first state to adopt the controversial policy a dozen years ago.

Last year, New Mexico issued 4,577 licenses to foreign nationals, down sharply from the 2010 high of about 15,000. Officials in the administration of Gov. Susana Martinez, who opposes the policy but has been unable to get it repealed, say the huge drop came as soon as new procedures were implemented to identify fraudulent documents that had been submitted to obtain licenses.

“While this is encouraging news, Gov. Martinez still sides with an overwhelming majority of New Mexicans who believe we must repeal the dangerous law of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, which has turned our state into a magnet for criminal activity,” said Mike Lonergan, spokesman for the governor.

“These people enter the country illegally then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies.”

- Bill Rehm, New Mexico state lawmaker
New Mexico became the first of 10 states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2003, under then-Gov. Bill Richardson, who claimed it would cut down on uninsured drivers in the state. But while the policy's effect on public safety has been inconclusive, critics say it launched a cottage industry for criminals to sell fraudulent documents.

Last year, federal officials broke up a five-year operation -- which extended from New Mexico to New York -- that saw illegal immigrants from Georgia paying as much as $2,000 to obtain documents to secure a New Mexico driver’s license.

A high-profile case in 2012 saw five Albuquerque residents federally indicted in a multi-state license distribution scheme. Federal investigators said 30 people from five states were involved in the ring that provided false documents to illegal immigrants who had resided in South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia to fraudulently obtain 164 New Mexico driver's licenses.

"New Mexico's driver's license policy has once again attracted criminal elements to our state in pursuit of a government-issued identification card," Martinez said at the time. "Our current system jeopardizes the safety and security of all New Mexicans and it is abundantly clear that the only way to solve this problem is to repeal the law that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."

Although it is impossible to say how many licenses were issued fraudulently, Republican State Rep. Bill Rehm, a retired county sheriff's officer, said more than 100,000 driver’s licenses have been issued to illegal immigrants, but only about 17,000 have filed a state income tax.

“These people enter the country illegally, then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies,” Rehm said. “We sparked a whole criminal industry by allowing this.”

Rehm is among a large number of opponents who have been unable to get the law repealed, despite Martinez's support. The critics say the policy has penalized legal residents of the state, because of a 2005  federal law aimed at preventing terrorists from getting fraudulent IDs. Because the federal REAL ID Act sets forth standards stricter than New Mexico's for federal recognition of identification documents, the Department of Homeland Security will not recognize licenses from states including New Mexico as ID for getting on a plane or entering federal buildings, for example.

“Because of this policy of giving licenses to illegal immigrants we continue to be non-compliant with the federal guidelines,” Rehm said.

Vivian Juarez, director of the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque, declined to comment on the drop in licenses issued to Mexican nationals in New Mexico.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/08/fraud-crackdown-sends-illegal-immigrant-licenses-plummeting-in-nm/?intcmp=latestnews

[Dos Equis]

Judge orders Obama administration to release illegal immigrants from 'deplorable' facilities
Published July 27, 2015
FoxNews.com

A federal judge in California has ruled that hundreds of illegal immigrant women and children in U.S. holding facilities should be released, another apparent setback for President Obama’s immigration policy, according to The Los Angeles Times.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said Friday that the conditions in which the detainees are being held are “deplorable” and violate parts of an 18-year-old court settlement that put restrictions on the detention of migrant children.

The ruling also raises questions about what the administration will do with the estimated 1,700 parents and children at three detention facilities, two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania.

Last year, tens of thousands of women and unaccompanied minors from Central America arrived at the Southwest border, with many believing a rumor that unaccompanied children and single parents with at least one child would be allowed to stay.

More than 68,000 of them were apprehended and detained while officials decided whether they had a right to stay.

Many were being released and told to appear at immigration offices until the administration eventually opened new detention centers.

Gee said in her ruling that children in the two Texas facilities had been held in substandard conditions and gave the administration until Aug. 3 to respond.

“We are disappointed with the court's decision and are reviewing it in consultation with the Department of Justice,” Marsha Catron, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a prepared statement given to The Times.

Many of the Central Americans who crossed the Southwest border illegally last summer said they were fleeing poverty and escalating gang violence.

The Texas facilities are run by private companies, while the one in Pennsylvania is run by a county government.

In February, a federal judge blocked Obama's 2012 executive action to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported.

And a federal appeals court in New Orleans refused three months later to allow the program to go forward, denying an administration request to lift the lower court decision.

Gee’s decision is also seen as a victory for the immigrant rights lawyers who brought the case.

The ruling upholds a tentative decision Gee made in April and comes a week after the two sides told her that they failed to reach a new settlement agreement as she had requested.

The 1997 settlement bars immigrant children from being held in unlicensed, secure facilities. Gee found that settlement covered all children in the custody of federal immigration officials, even those being held with a parent.

The Justice Department had argued it was necessary to modify the settlement and use detention to try to deter more immigrants from coming to the border after last year's surge. The department also said it was an important way to keep families together while their immigration cases were being reviewed, but the judge rejected that argument in her decision.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/27/judge-orders-obama-administration-to-release-illegal-immigrant-women-children/