Donald Trump will sign border deal but will also declare emergency
Congress lopsidedly approved a border security compromise that would avert a second painful government shutdown. But a new confrontation has been ignited — this time over President Donald Trump‘s plan to bypass lawmakers and declare a national emergency to siphon billions of dollars from other federal coffers for his wall on the Mexican boundary. Money in the bill for border barriers, about $1.4 billion, is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles (322 kilometers) he wanted. The White House said he’d sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority. The uproar over Trump’s next move cast an uncertain shadow over what had been a rare display of bipartisanship to address the grinding battle between the White House and lawmakers over border security. The Senate passed the legislation 83-16 Thursday, with both parties solidly aboard. The House followed with a 300-128 tally, with Trump’s signature planned Friday. Trump will speak Friday morning in the Rose Garden about border security, the White House said. Trump is expected to announce that he will be spending roughly $8 billion on border barriers — combining the money approved by Congress with funding he plans to repurpose through executive actions, including a national emergency, said a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The money is expected to come from funds targeted for military construction and counterdrug efforts. House Democrats overwhelmingly backed the legislation, with only 19 — most of whom were Hispanic — opposed. Just over half of Republicans voted “no.” Should Trump change his mind, both chambers’ margins were above the two-thirds majorities needed to override presidential vetoes. Lawmakers, however, sometimes rally behind presidents of the same party in such battles. Lawmakers exuded relief that the agreement had averted a fresh closure of federal agencies just three weeks after a record-setting 35-day partial shutdown that drew an unambiguous thumbs-down from the public. But in announcing that Trump would sign the accord, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders also said he’d take “other executive action, including a national emergency,” In an unusual joint statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said such a declaration would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract” from Trump’s failure to force Mexico to pay for the wall, as he’s promised for years. “Congress will defend our constitutional authorities,” they said. They declined to say whether that meant lawsuits or votes on resolutions to prevent Trump from unilaterally shifting money to wall-building, with aides saying they’d wait to see what he does. Democratic state attorneys general said they’d consider legal action to block Trump. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello told the president on Twitter “we’ll see you in court” if he makes the declaration. Despite widespread opposition in Congress to proclaiming an emergency, including by some Republicans, Trump is under pressure to act unilaterally to soothe his conservative base and avoid looking like he’s lost his wall battle. The abrupt announcement of Trump’s plans came late in an afternoon of rumblings that the volatile president — who’d strongly hinted he’d sign the agreement but wasn’t definitive — was shifting toward rejecting it. That would have infused fresh chaos into a fight both parties are desperate to leave behind, a thought that drove some lawmakers to ask heavenly help. “Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday’s Senate session opened. Moments before Sanders spoke at the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took to the Senate floor to announce Trump’s decisions to sign the bill and declare an emergency. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters there were two hours of phone calls between McConnell and the White House before there were assurances that Trump would sign. McConnell argued that the bill delivered victories for Trump over Pelosi. These included overcoming her pledge to not fund the wall at all and rejecting a Democratic proposal for numerical limits on detaining some immigrants, said a Republican speaking on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. In a surprising development, McConnell said he would support Trump’s emergency declaration, a turnabout for the Kentucky Republican, who like many lawmakers had opposed such action. Democrats say there is no border crisis and Trump would be using a declaration simply to sidestep Congress. Some Republicans warn that future Democratic presidents could use his precedent to force spending on their own priorities, like gun control. GOP critics included Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who said emergency declarations are for “major natural disasters or catastrophic events” and said its use would be of “dubious constitutionality.” White House staff and congressional Republicans have said that besides an emergency, Trump might assert other authorities that could conceivably put him within reach of billions of dollars. The money could come from funds targeted for military construction, disaster relief and counterdrug efforts. Congressional aides say there is $21 billion for military construction that Trump could use if he declares a national emergency. By law, the money must be used to support U.S. armed forces, they say. The Defense Department declined to provide details on available money. With many of the Democrats’ liberal base voters adamantly against Trump’s aggressive attempts to curb immigration, four declared presidential hopefuls opposed the bill in the Senate: Cory Booker of New Jersey, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota voted for it, as did Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who is expected to join the field soon. Notably, the word “wall,” the heart of many a chant at Trump campaign events and his rallies as president, is absent from the compromise’s 1,768-page
Richard Shelby: Border security talks ‘stalled’ as clock ticks
Bargainers clashed Sunday over whether to limit the number of migrants authorities can detain, tossing a new hurdle before negotiators hoping to strike a border security compromise for Congress to pass this coming week. The White House wouldn’t rule out a renewed partial government shutdown if an agreement isn’t reached. With the Friday deadline approaching, the two sides remained separated by hundreds of millions of dollars over how much to spend to construct President Donald Trump’s promised border wall. But rising to the fore was a related dispute over curbing Customs and Immigration Enforcement, or ICE, the federal agency that Republicans see as an emblem of tough immigration policies and Democrats accuse of often going too far. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, in appearances on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and “Fox News Sunday,” said “you absolutely cannot” eliminate the possibility of another shutdown if a deal is not reached over the wall and other border matters. The White House had asked for $5.7 billion, a figure rejected by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and the mood among bargainers has soured, according to people familiar with the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about private talks. “You cannot take a shutdown off the table, and you cannot take $5.7 (billion) off the table,” Mulvaney told NBC, “but if you end up someplace in the middle, yeah, then what you probably see is the president say, ‘Yeah, OK, and I’ll go find the money someplace else.’” A congressional deal seemed to stall even after Mulvaney convened a bipartisan group of lawmakers at Camp David, the presidential retreat in northern Maryland. While the two sides seemed close to clinching a deal late last week, significant gaps remain and momentum appears to have slowed. Though congressional Democratic aides asserted that the dispute had caused the talks to break off, it was initially unclear how damaging the rift was. Both sides are eager to resolve the long-running battle and avert a fresh closure of dozens of federal agencies that would begin next weekend if Congress doesn’t act by Friday. “I think talks are stalled right now,” Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican-Ala., said Sunday on “Fox News Sunday.” ″I’m not confident we’re going to get there.” Sen. Jon Tester, Democrat-Mont., who appeared on the same program, agreed: “We are not to the point where we can announce a deal.” But Mulvaney did signal that the White House would prefer not to have a repeat of the last shutdown, which stretched more than a month, left more than 800,000 government workers without paychecks, forced a postponement of the State of the Union address and sent Trump’s poll numbers tumbling. As support in his own party began to splinter, Trump surrendered after the shutdown hit 35 days without getting money for the wall. This time, Mulvaney signaled that the White House may be willing to take whatever congressional money comes — even if less than Trump’s goal — and then supplement that with other government funds. “The president is going to build the wall. That’s our attitude at this point,” Mulvaney said on Fox. “We’ll take as much money as you can give us, and we’ll go find the money somewhere else, legally, and build that wall on the southern border, with or without Congress.” The president’s supporters have suggested that Trump could use executive powers to divert money from the federal budget for wall construction, though it was unclear if he would face challenges in Congress or the courts. One provision of the law lets the Defense Department provide support for counterdrug activities. But declaring a national emergency remained an option, Mulvaney said, even though many in the administration have cooled on the prospect. A number of powerful Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican-Ky., have also warned against the move, believing it usurps power from Congress and could set a precedent for a future Democratic president to declare an emergency for a liberal political cause. The fight over ICE detentions goes to the core of each party’s view on immigration. Republicans favor tough enforcement of immigration laws and have little interest in easing them if Democrats refuse to fund the Mexican border wall. Democrats despise the proposed wall and, in return for border security funds, want to curb what they see as unnecessarily harsh enforcement by ICE. People involved in the talks say Democrats have proposed limiting the number of immigrants here illegally who are caught inside the U.S. — not at the border — that the agency can detain. Republicans say they don’t want that cap to apply to immigrants caught committing crimes, but Democrats do. In a series of tweets about the issue, Trump used the dispute to cast Democrats as soft on criminals. He charged in one tweet: “The Border Committee Democrats are behaving, all of a sudden, irrationally. Not only are they unwilling to give dollars for the obviously needed Wall (they overrode recommendations of Border Patrol experts), but they don’t even want to take muderers into custody! What’s going on?” Democrats say they proposed their cap to force ICE to concentrate its internal enforcement efforts on dangerous immigrants, not those who lack legal authority to be in the country but are productive and otherwise pose no threat. Democrats have proposed reducing the current number of beds ICE uses to detain immigrants here illegally from 40,520 to 35,520. But within that limit, they’ve also proposed limiting to 16,500 the number for immigrants here illegally caught within the U.S., including criminals. Republicans want no caps on the number of immigrants who’ve committed crimes who can be held by ICE. As most budget disputes go, differences over hundreds of millions of dollars are usually imperceptible and easily solved. But this battle more than most is driven by political symbolism — whether Trump will be able to claim he delivered on his long-running pledge to “build the wall” or newly empowered congressional Democrats’ ability to thwart him. Predictably each side blamed
Donald Trump says border troops defending southern border could hit 15K
President Donald Trump says the number of military troops deployed to the U.S.-Mexican border could reach 15,000 — roughly double the number the Pentagon said it currently plans for a mission whose dimensions are shifting daily. The Pentagon says “more than 7,000” troops were being sent to the southwest border to support the Customs and Border Protection agents. Officials said that number could reach a maximum of about 8,000 under present plans. The troop numbers have been changing at a dizzying pace, with Trump drawing a hard line on immigration in the lead-up to the midterm elections. Just last week officials were indicating that about 800 to 1,000 might be sent. On Monday, officials announced that about 5,200 were being deployed. The next day, the Air Force general running the operation said more than the initially announced total were going, and he pointedly rejected a news report that it could reach 14,000, saying that was “not consistent with what’s actually being planned.” Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, told reporters the number would exceed the initial contingent of 5,200, but he offered no estimate of the eventual total. Just 24 hours later, Trump thrust new uncertainty into the picture, catching the Pentagon by surprise. With his eyes squarely on Tuesday’s contests, Trump has rushed a series of immigration declarations, promises and actions as he tries to mobilize supporters to retain Republican control of Congress. His own Republican campaign in 2016 concentrated on border fears, and that’s his focus in the final week of the midterm fight. “As far as the caravan is concerned, our military is out,” Trump said. “We have about 5,800. We’ll go up to anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 military personnel on top of Border Patrol, ICE and everybody else at the border.” Later Wednesday, Trump told ABC News, “We have to have a wall of people.” His comments were the latest twist in a story that has pushed the Pentagon unhappily into the political space, prompting questions about whether Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was allowing the military to be leveraged as a political stunt. “We don’t do stunts,” Mattis said Wednesday. Trump rejected the idea he was “fearmongering” or using the issue for political purposes, but his escalating rhetoric in the waning days of the campaign season calls that denial into question. Trump has railed against illegal immigration, including several caravans of migrants from Central America slowly moving on foot toward the U.S. border. The caravan of an estimated 4,000 people is still nearly 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from the border. Several smaller groups, estimated at a combined 1,200 people, are farther away. As he seeks to stoke concerns about illegal immigration ahead of the midterm elections, Trump tweeted a video alleging Democrats were responsible for allowing a homicidal immigrant into the U.S. He provided no evidence supporting that claim. It was reminiscent of the infamous “Willie Horton” ad used against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988 and condemned as racist. Horton, who was black, raped a woman while out of prison on a weekend furlough. As Massachusetts governor, Dukakis supported the furlough program. Dukakis went on to lose to Republican George H.W. Bush. In his Wednesday tweet, Trump highlighted the case of Luis Bracamontes, a twice-deported immigrant from Mexico sentenced to death in California for killing two police officers. The 53-second spot includes expletives uttered by Bracamontes during his trial as he professed regret at not killing more officials. “Illegal immigrant, Luis Bracamontes, killed our people!,” the video states, adding, “Democrats let him into our country…Democrats let him stay.” It includes scenes of a migrant “caravan” moving toward the U.S., warning ominously, “Who else would Democrats let in?” Trump has insisted the media is underestimating the caravans. “You have caravans coming up that look a lot larger than it’s reported actually. I’m pretty good at estimating crowd size. And I’ll tell you they look a lot bigger than people would think,” he told ABC. He has also promised to end so-called catch-and-release policies by erecting tent cities to hold those crossing illegally. And this week he is asserting he could act by executive order to unilaterally end birthright citizenship for the children of non-U.S. citizens. Trump’s comments left some in the Pentagon scratching their heads. Officials said they had no plans to deploy as many as 15,000 troops. The number conceivably could reach 10,000, counting the 2,100 National Guard soldiers who have been operating along the border for months as part of a separate but related mission. The number of active-duty troops tapped for deployment stood at 7,000 as of Wednesday but could reach 8,000. A deployment of 15,000 would bring the military commitment on the border to roughly the same level as in war-torn Afghanistan. And it would more than double the number of people thought to be in the caravans. Trump did not back down Wednesday from his proposal to upend the very concept of American citizenship. In a morning tweet, he said the right to citizenship for babies born to noncitizens on American soil “will be ended one way or the other.” He also claimed that what he terms “so-called Birthright Citizenship” is “not covered by the 14th Amendment.” However, the text of the amendment’s opening Citizenship Clause is this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The citizenship proposal would inevitably spark a long-shot legal battle over whether the president can alter the long-accepted understanding that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents’ immigration status. House Speaker Paul Ryan asserted Tuesday that “obviously” Trump could not upend that policy by executive order, drawing a tweeted rebuke from Trump. He said Wednesday that Ryan “should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about!” Speaking to reporters
ICE arrest of approximately 30 illegal immigrants in N. Alabama sparks conversation
Agents from the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) arrested “approximately 30 persons” in North Alabama the last week of August, an ICE spokesperson has confirmed to Alabama Today. “ICE makes targeted arrests on a daily basis in accordance with its ongoing enforcement activity,” explained Bryan Cox, the Southern Region Communications Director for ICE. “The general premise I’ve seen from some in the area that ICE’s presence in North Alabama is a new development is not accurate. These arrests were made by Alabama-based officers regularly assigned to the area who conduct targeted enforcement actions as part of their everyday duties.” According to the ICE spokesman, the local field office, which is based in Louisiana and covers a territory spanning Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, is averaging, thus far this year, approximately 200 arrests in any given week. A local immigrants rights group is calling the arrests held a press conference in Huntsville, Ala. on Thursday titled “Stop Tearing Families Apart,” where they voiced their concerns over the recent arrests. The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice (ACIJ) claims many of the people arrested did not have criminal records. They said they’ve collected information that ICE arrested people from Huntsville, Decatur, Athens, Hartselle, many whom of were simply getting ready for work or pumping gas. “We are for sure clear this is a racial profiling issue,” said ACIJ Executive Director Sarai Portillo. But ICE says that’s not the case. “ICE continues to focus its limited resources first and foremost on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety and any suggestions as to ICE engaging in random or indiscriminate enforcement are categorically false,” explained Cox. “ICE does not conduct any type of indiscriminate raids or sweeps that target aliens indiscriminately. The agency’s arrest stats clearly reflect this reality.” Nationally, 90 percent of all foreign nationals arrested by ICE to date in FY18 either had a criminal conviction, faced a criminal charge, or were already subject to a final order of removal. In explaining the reasons in which someone facing deportation may not have a criminal conviction or a pending criminal charge though they have been arrested for or suspected of criminal activity ICE noted that decisions of criminal prosecution is up to local prosecutors who when faced with a criminal facing imminent deportation may drop charges in order to allow ICE to expedite the deportation process thus saving the costs associated with incarceration and of trial. This decision to drop charges by the prosecutor, in which ICE has no say, allows for what some have called the manipulative ability of lawyers and family members of those being deported to claim that their family member has no record and thus pose no threat. The term “criminal alien” below signifies that an alien has been convicted of a an additional crime in the U.S. beyond their violation of federal immigration law. Sixty-one percent of the non-criminal aliens ICE has arrested in FY18 thus far nevertheless came to ICE’s attention due to criminal charges. New Orleans (of which Alabama is a part) field office ICE administrative arrest stats: FY18 (Q1-Q3): 7,584 arrests, 4,478 convicted criminal (59 percent) FY17: 7,968 arrests, 5,059 convicted criminal (64 percent) FY16: 5,174 arrests, 4,347 criminal (84 percent) FY15: 5,244 arrests, 4,385 criminal (84 percent) FY14: 7,429 arrests, 5,504 criminal (74 percent) FY13: 9,115 arrests, 6,370 criminal (70 percent) ICE national administrative arrest stats: FY18 (Q1-Q3): 119,884 arrests, 79,644 convicted criminal (66 percent) FY17: 143,470 arrests, 105,736 convicted criminal (74 percent) FY16: 110,104 arrests, 94,751 criminal (86 percent) FY15: 119,772 arrests, 101,880 criminal (85 percent) FY14: 183,703 arrests, 134,734 criminal (73 percent) FY13: 232,287 arrests, 168,444 criminal (73 percent) Watch the ACIJ press conference below:
Poll: Few Democrats favor liberal cry to abolish ICE
The rallying cry from some liberals to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement isn’t a likely winner this election year, as a new poll finds only a quarter of Democrats support eliminating the agency that carried out the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents. But even as they don’t want to fully dismantle ICE, 57 percent of Democrats view the agency negatively, including nearly three-fourths of those who describe themselves as liberal, according to a poll released Monday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The findings demonstrate tension among Democrats about how to address the crisis at the border that intensified in June when the Trump administration instituted a family separation policy to deter illegal immigration. Some potential Democratic presidential contenders, such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, backed getting rid of ICE in response to the separations. Others, including Sen. Kamala Harris of California, urged a rethinking of the agency, but stopped short of calling for its abolition. President Donald Trump has seized on the Democratic criticism of ICE to paint the party as weak on immigration and national security. The administration reversed its separation policy amid an international outcry, but hundreds of children remain separated from their families. Overall, opinions about ICE are divided along partisan lines. While a majority of Democrats view the agency negatively, Republicans largely have favorable views of ICE. A sizable chunk — a full one-third of Americans — are too unfamiliar with the agency to form an opinion. Dianne Stone, a 68-year-old retired bus driver from Charlotte, North Carolina, said ICE should be modified but not scrapped. After spending decades living in Southern California, she said ICE ought to be less of a law enforcement agency and more dedicated to helping immigrants negotiate the border. “Yes, there are more drugs and crime coming across the border than years ago. But you can’t keep kids in cages,” Stone said. “ICE can be part of a more sophisticated vetting process where you’re keeping criminals out.” The public is largely critical of the administration’s progress in reuniting families. Nearly 6 in 10 think the Trump administration is doing too little, though 8 percent say it’s doing too much, and a third think it is doing enough. Anna Lee Lish was appalled by the scenes of children separated from their parents at the border in June, but does not blame ICE for the problem. “I thought it was horrific,” said the 60-year-old social worker from Pocatello, Idaho. “ICE was just doing its job, following orders. But it’s the policy of separating families that needs to change, not abandon ICE.” The partisan divide is dramatic: 85 percent of Democrats say the administration is doing too little to reunite children with their families, compared to 22 percent of Republicans. Still, that means nearly a quarter of Republicans feel the administration should be doing more. Reviews of Trump’s overall handling of immigration are also divided. More than three-quarters of Republicans have largely favorable views of the president’s immigration performance while more than 90 percent of Democrats disapprove. Nearly two-thirds of independent voters said they don’t approve of Trump’s handling of the issue. And while the Trump administration seeks to curb legal immigration, Americans are more likely to say they want to keep it at existing levels (42 percent) than to want the number of immigrants let in to be increased (29 percent) or decreased (28 percent). The push to abolish ICE became something of a litmus test among liberal Democrats this summer after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated a 10-term party leader for a New York congressional seat in part by campaigning on the issue. But it hasn’t proved a political winner in other races. Democrat Brent Welder, endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez in July, backed ending ICE but was narrowly beaten in an August primary in suburban Kansas. And no Democrats running in competitive Senate races in November have advocated abolishing ICE. More common among prominent Democrats is the suggestion the agency be reformed. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat running for Senate in Republican-heavy Arizona with its 378-mile (608-kilometer) border with Mexico, said last month that “ICE does provide some important functions,” though she has recommended changes to the agency. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,055 adults was conducted Aug. 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
A rose by any other name: Randall Woodfin rejects “sanctuary city” label for “welcoming city” instead
Advocates for sanctuary cities have been trying for several years to get Birmingham officials to officially designate the city as such. Last year, Birmingham City Councilman Jonathan Austin led the city council in passing a resolution declaring the city a sanctuary city and then there was a tweet from the city that received a lot of attention but formally it’s never been on the list of cities kept by immigration groups. At the end of July, Alabama Today reported, that “the Alabama chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Alabama), the state’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization, and Adelante Alabama Workers Center, which unites day laborers, domestic workers, and other low-wage and immigrant workers and their families in the Birmingham area, along with other coalition partners, faith and civic leaders, met outside of the Birmingham City Hall where they called on Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin to honor his commitment to be on the front lines of resistance to President Donald Trump‘s polices. There they endeavored to hold the Mayor to the progressive mandate he was elected on by calling him to take action on the proposed “Trust and Public Safety” order.” This was not the first time Woodfin has been asked to commit to giving Birmingham the sanctuary city title, even as a candidate he was asked to commit to making Birmingham one. At a filming of NPR’s “Code Switch” it seems he has finally publicly closed the door on that according to transcripts saying, “I think sanctuary city is narrowly tailored and isolated towards don’t have your police enforce certain things of rounding up and hurting people, which I agree with. We’re not going to do that. But welcoming cities is more broad about, how do we help our immigrant community? And as I go to Birmingham city schools, I can tell you our immigrant community continues to grow. So it’s – for me it has a broader positive impact, whereas sanctuary is don’t do this. Welcoming is, this is what we’re going to do.” What exactly is a “Welcoming City?” Well according to their website, “Welcoming Cities are guided by the principles of inclusion and creating communities that prosper because everyone feels welcome, including immigrants and refugees.” According to the group promoting welcoming cities pledge some cities choose to be both sanctuary-cities and welcoming but not all. There you have it. He’s not going to make Birmingham a “sanctuary city.” Does that mean that residents can rest easy knowing that the police will be making sure that illegal immigrants who may be committing additional crimes besides just residing in our nation illegally are properly checked out? No. Woodfin was clear that police would not be checking the status of immigrants with ICE or reporting immigrant arrest or crimes to them. After all, that wouldn’t be very welcoming would it? So what happens when a member of a foreign gang here illegally is arrested or pulled over in Birmingham? Well they can get bailed out and disappear into the night because heaven knows we that’s the kind thing to do. What happens when the immigrant who has overstayed their work or school visa and is stopped and police recognize that they’re not here legally? Nothing more than would happen to someone here legally. Pesky law makers and federal law enforcement can’t expect the Birmingham Police to be bothered helping them catch human traffickers, identity thieves or drug smugglers that would just be downright inhospitable. Woodfin and illegal immigration proponents would say that’s kind and compassionate but how is that kind to those waiting to get into the country legally? How is it compassionate towards those who have lost their lives or their identities to illegal immigrants? It’s out of fairness for the doctor at UAB from out of the country or engineer at one of the new high-tech companies who went through the legal avenues for citizenship that the illegal folks get to stay too. Just this week in Jasper an illegal immigrant attempted to abduct a woman. If that happened here in Birmingham then Mayor Woodfin says his police department wouldn’t alert ICE to the immigrants arrest and location. How’s that for ridding our city of crime or making it more enticing to businesses? It’s a logical cop-out to accuse those who are opposed to illegal immigration of being against immigrants. Leave it to those who support open borders and blanket mass amnesty to say that those who did things the right way should be lumped in with those who are breaking the law. Many who are here and working are using fake or stole identities. Don’t believe this is an issue for cities all over the nation, just read some of the latest cases brought by ICE. So Woodfin would have you believe all immigrants deserve the same level of respect and protections regardless of legal status at least he’s stopped hedging his bets. He may get to say he’s not for sanctuary cities but so long as he has his police department turn a blind eye towards illegal immigrants and their presence here he might as well be. Full immigration section of NPR transcript below: MERAJI: President Trump has a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration. We know this. And we also know that here in Birmingham, you’ve gotten a little bit of criticism from the immigrants’ rights community… WOODFIN: I have. MERAJI: …Because they really want you to sign an executive order to basically put in writing that you won’t use your city’s resources for immigration enforcement, that you won’t use your city’s resources to surveil Muslim residents. Can you respond to that criticism? WOODFIN: First thing is this – is that I’m not. Like, we’re not going to use our police to do anything around what I call rounding up people. We just don’t believe in that. I don’t believe in that as mayor. I’ve had a clear, direct conversation with my police chief. I’ve had a clear and direct conversation with my chief of our city jail. We’re not in that business.
Steve Marshall talks illegal immigration, drug trafficking at White House event
Concerned with border security and the crime associated with cross-border drug trafficking and illegal immigration, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall accepted an invitation to the White House to participate in a panel discussion on Monday about cooperation between federal, state, and local government in protecting national borders. Chaired by Mercy Schlapp, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, the panel consisted of Marshall, along with CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, ICE Deputy Director Ron Vitiello, U.S. Senator David Perdue (R-GA), Governor Doug Ducey (R-AZ), and Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Mark J. Dannels in a discussion in the East Room of the White House. “Due to our state’s proximity to Atlanta, a major distribution point for drugs, and to Texas, a border state, Alabama has become a prime transit point for drug trafficking,” said Marshall. “We see marijuana, cocaine, meth, and now illicit fentanyl coming into our state as a result. The drug trade brings dangerous and violent illegal aliens into Alabama. Just this summer, our state was rocked by the brutal murder of a special needs 13-year-old girl—killed by affiliates of the Mexican drug cartel. I am grateful to the President and the White House for allowing me to share the observations of Alabama law enforcement and our citizens.” The day also featured an immigration a ceremony with President Donald Trump‘s that honored the men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). There, agents, ho have been caught in the crosshairs of the immigration policy debate as they uphold their sworn duty to enforce the law, were brought to the podium to note their achievements in addressing unlawful border crossings and stemming the flow of illicit drugs. “As the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Alabama, I want to thank each member of ICE and CBP for your courage and your loyalty to enforcing the laws of this country in the face of irresponsible rhetoric and meritless attacks,” added Marshall. “The people of Alabama thank you, too. The work of ICE and CBP has a direct connection to the safety of the citizenry that extends far beyond those states that are on the border.” Marshall continued, “A shared mission and strong partnership between state and local law enforcement and the brave agents of ICE and CBP are in the best interest of public safety and I am pleased with the coordination that I see in Alabama. But in the immigration debate, public safety is not the only threat we must contend with. The rule of law—America’s bedrock principle—is under attack as well.” Marshall singled out Trump and former Alabama U.S. Senator, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for their strong support of border security. “Under the previous administration, amnesty programs were unconstitutionally initiated by executive fiat and without any action from Congress. The former United States Attorney General turned a blind eye to sanctuary cities that brazenly refused to work with ICE and CBP,” said Marshall. “The Justice Department also failed to cooperate with Congress when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in relation to a botched gunwalking operation. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, Attorney General Sessions, and Secretary [Kristjen] Nielsen, we have finally begun to see the pendulum swing in the other direction. But the work is far from over. We must secure our borders and we must restore respect for the rule of law throughout this country. The men and women of ICE and CBP are critical to securing our borders, and Attorneys General—I believe—must play a major role in restoring the rule of law.” Watch the White House panel discussion below:
Bradley Byrne confirms illegal immigrants will not be housed in Baldwin County
Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne on Tuesday tweeted there are no plans to house immigrants at the Navy airfields in south Baldwin County. “BREAKING: My office has learned that there are no plans to house illegal immigrants at Navy airfields in south Baldwin County! This was a bad idea from the start, and I am pleased it will not come to fruition,” Byrne tweeted upon receiving confirmation from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). BREAKING: My office has learned that there are no plans to house illegal immigrants at Navy airfields in south Baldwin County! This was a bad idea from the start, and I am pleased it will not come to fruition. — Rep. Bradley Byrne (@RepByrne) August 14, 2018 “Housing illegal immigrants at ill-equipped airfields along the Gulf Coast was always a terrible idea, so I appreciate the confirmation that this plan is no longer being considered,” Byrne said in a statement following his tweet. “We had a team effort to push back this flawed idea, and I especially want to thank Baldwin County Commissioners Chris Elliott and Tucker Dorsey and Baldwin County Sheriff Hoss Mack for their advocacy on this issue.” Byne continued, While I am glad this issue is resolved, we must continue working to secure the border and eliminate the need for additional housing for illegal immigrants altogether. I remain 100% committed to working with President Trump to build a border wall, hire additional border patrol officers, and ensure our border security is as strong as possible.” Byrne led an effort in Washington in June to express opposition to housing up to 10,000 illegal immigrants at Naval Outlying Field Silverhill and Naval Outlying Field Wolf in south Baldwin County. He joined other members of the Alabama and Florida Congressional delegations in sending a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson outlining concerns with the proposal. Byrne also hosted Baldwin County officials in Washington for a series of meetings to convene local concerns with the proposal. Read the letter from ICE Deputy Director Ronald Vitiello below:
Bradley Byrne: Standing up for ICE
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE, is the federal law enforcement agency tasked with enforcing our nation’s border control, customs, trade, and immigration laws. The agency was formed back in 2002 when Congress passed the Homeland Security Act. ICE has over 20,000 employees, including over 400 offices in the United States and additional offices in 46 other countries. ICE is responsible for enforcement and removal procedures against those who enter our country illegally. They also play a critically important role in cracking down on human and drug trafficking. I have deep respect for the work our ICE officials and officers do daily to help keep the nation safe. In 2017, ICE made more than 76,000 drug arrests, arrested 4,818 people in gang-related incidents, and stopped 980,000 pounds of narcotics at the border. Similar efforts are already underway this year. Given the important work ICE does, I am dismayed to see some liberals calling for ICE to be abolished altogether. Instead of supporting these hardworking law enforcement officials, it seems some are truly committed to open borders and reckless behavior. The “Abolish ICE” movement is not something that just activists are calling for. In fact, several Democrat Senators and Congressmen have also started to call for the law enforcement agency to be shut down. This would be a major mistake that could endanger the safety of the American people. This is just another example of how the “resistance” movement in our country today seems much more interested in causing problems than solving them. We have serious flaws and issues with our immigration system that need to be fixed and enforced, but the answer is not to simply open our borders. In an effort to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for ICE, the House held a vote last week on a resolution declaring our support for ICE and their mission. This was a straightforward resolution simply to make sure our ICE officers know the majority of Americans have their back. I was shocked to see only 18 Democrats vote in support of the resolution. 34 voted against supporting ICE, while another 133 simply voted present. I know there are political differences in our country today, but it is deeply concerning that over 160 Democrats in the House were not willing to say they support ICE and the work they do to keep our country safe. Despite their opposition, the resolution still passed. I hope all our ICE officers and employees take comfort in seeing a majority in Congress continue to stand up for them and the vital mission they carry out, despite what is often said on the news. The issue really speaks to the larger problem about the future of immigration laws in our country. I am committed to standing up for the rule of law and ensuring our immigration laws are fully enforced. To be clear, I support the legal immigration process, but I hear from individuals who have come into our country through the legal process who are incredibly frustrated by the idea that people can break the line, enter our country illegally, and not face any consequences. We must have a process in place that actually works and strongly punishes those who choose to enter illegally. ICE plays a critical role in implementing and enforcing that process. Without the agency, we would be unable to control the flow of people and products into our country. As I have said before, a nation without borders and the rule of law is destined to fail. Rest assured, I will keep standing up for ICE and will vehemently fight any efforts to abolish the agency. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Groups call for Birmingham to be a sanctuary city after illegal immigrant arrests
Across a five-state ICE region, which includes Alabama, on average 200 illegal immigrants are being arrested each week, according to Bryan Cox, Southern Region Communications Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a weekend AL.com piece. According to Cox, the region consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, and “about 90 percent of arrests in fiscal year 2017 and the first two quarters of fiscal 2018 were criminal.” In light of the arrests, immigrant rights organizations such as Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA) and Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice (ACIJ) are pushing for Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin to make the Magic City a sanctuary city to protect the illegal immigrants. “At least have Birmingham to recognize the work of immigrants and undocumented immigrants in our city,” ACIJ Lead Organizer Miguel Carpizo said. Multi-year effort Last January, then-Birmingham Mayor William Bell held a press conference with community leaders naming Birmingham a “welcoming city” regardless of immigration status. “Every individual who resides, works, plays or come through the city will know they are welcome and have no fear in interacting with their municipal government in any way,” Bell said. Following his press conference, the Birmingham City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting illegal immigrants, though they did not declare it as a sanctuary city. But the HB56, also known as the Beason Hammon Act, stopped the city from setting a policy contrary to federal or state law.
Jeff Sessions: California immigration policy defies common sense
California Gov. Jerry Brown denounced U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for coming to the state to speak about a lawsuit targeting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, saying Wednesday it was unprecedented for him to “act more like Fox News than a law enforcement officer.” Shortly after Sessions’ speech to law enforcement officials, the Democratic governor accused the attorney general of lying and trying to appease President Donald Trump. “What Jeff Sessions said is simply not true and I call upon him to apologize to the people of California for bringing the mendacity of Washington to California,” Brown told reporters. Sessions said several California state laws prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from making deportation arrests and singled out elected officials for their actions. He had particularly strong words for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who issued an unusual public warning last month about an immigration operation. “How dare you?” he said of Schaaf at a California Peace Officers Association meeting in Sacramento. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda?” The Justice Department, in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Sacramento, is challenging three California laws that bar police from asking people about their citizenship status or participating in federal immigration enforcement activities. “It wasn’t something I chose to do, but I can’t sit by idly while the lawful authority of federal officers are being blocked by legislative acts and politicians,” Sessions said, straying from his prepared remarks. More than a dozen attendees in a room of about 200 people gave the attorney general a standing ovation. The lawsuit is the latest salvo in an escalating feud between the Trump administration and California, which has resisted the president on issues from taxes to marijuana policy and defiantly refuses to help federal agents detain and deport immigrants. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has said it will increase its presence in California, and Sessions wants to cut off funding to jurisdictions that won’t cooperate. “I say: Bring it on,” said California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat who wrote the so-called sanctuary state bill. Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon was among those suggesting that Sessions shouldn’t come at all. The lawsuit was filed as the Justice Department also reviews Schaaf’s decision to warn of an immigration sweep in advance, which ICE said allowed hundreds of immigrants to elude detention. Schaaf said Tuesday that the city would “continue to inform all residents about their constitutional rights.” The California laws were passed in response to Trump’s promises to sharply ramp up the deportation of people living in the U.S. illegally. One prohibits employers from letting immigration agents enter worksites or view employee files without a subpoena or warrant, an effort to prevent workplace raids. Another stops local governments from contracting with for-profit companies and ICE to hold immigrants. Justice Department officials said that violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which renders invalid state laws that conflict with federal ones. The Supreme Court reinforced the federal government’s primacy in enforcing immigration law when it blocked much of Arizona’s tough 2010 immigration law on similar grounds. The high court found several key provisions undermined federal immigration law, though it upheld a provision requiring officers, while enforcing other laws, to question the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally. In this case, California “has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of Congress to protect our homeland,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. Sessions, who has blamed sanctuary city policies for crime and gang violence, spoke Wednesday to groups representing police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys, narcotics investigators and the California Highway Patrol. Only the California State Sheriffs’ Association actively opposed the so-called sanctuary law. Dozens of demonstrators chanted “stand up, fight back” and “no justice, no peace” outside the hotel where the meeting was held and some blocked traffic on a major thoroughfare. A heavy police presence was on hand. Demonstrator Henry Gordon of Sacramento said he hopes Sessions gets the message that Californians will resist efforts to separate families and deport immigrants. Becerra, who is up for election in November, said sanctuary policies increase public safety by promoting trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, while allowing police resources to be used to fight other crimes. “We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation,” he said. Republished with permission form the Associated Press.
Donald Trump moving forward with border wall, weighs refugee cuts
President Donald Trump will use his executive authority Wednesday to jumpstart construction of his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall, one of his signature campaign promises. He is also expected to target so-called sanctuary cities and potentially restrict the flow of refugees to the United States, according to administration officials. The president will sign the first actions — including the measure authorizing work on the wall —during a trip to the Department of Homeland Security Wednesday afternoon. He’ll also move to increase the number of border patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. On his personal Twitter account Tuesday night, Trump tweeted: “Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!” The president is said to still be weighing the details of plans to curb the number of refugees coming to the U.S. The current proposal includes at least a four-month halt on all refugee admissions, as well as a temporary ban on people coming from some Muslim-majority countries, according to a source from a public policy organization that monitors refugee issues. The person was briefed on the details of that proposed action by a government official and outlined the plan to The Associated Press. The officials and the public policy organization source insisted on anonymity in order to outline the plans ahead of the president’s official announcements. Trump campaigned on pledges to tighten U.S. immigration policies, including strengthening border security and stemming the flow of refugees. His call for a border wall was among his most popular proposals with supporters, who often broke out in chants of “build that wall” during rallies. In response to terrorism concerns, Trump controversially called for halting entry to the U.S. from Muslim countries. He later turned to a focus on “extreme vetting” for those coming from countries with terrorism ties. While the specifics of Trump’s orders were unclear, both administration officials said Wednesday’s actions would focus in part on the president’s plans to construct a wall along the southern border with Mexico. He’s also expected to move forward with plans to curb funding for cities that don’t arrest or detain immigrants living in the U.S. illegally — localities dubbed “sanctuary” cities — which could cost individual jurisdictions millions of dollars. Trump has insisted that Mexico will pay for construction of the border wall, though he has not detailed how he make that happen given the Mexican government’s insistence that it will not cover the costs. Earlier this month, Trump said the building project would initially be paid for with a congressionally approved spending bill and Mexico would eventually reimburse the U.S. Trump is expected to discuss the matter with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto when he visits the White House next week. In claiming authority to build a wall, Trump may rely on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier. That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians. The Secure Fence Act was signed by then-President George W. Bush, and the majority of that fencing in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was built before he left office. The last remnants were completed after President Barack Obama took office in 2009. The Trump administration also must adhere to a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built along the border. The 1970 treaty requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the U.S.-Mexico border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency that administers the treaty. Other executive actions expected Wednesday include ending what Republicans have labeled a catch-and-release system at the border. Currently, some immigrants caught crossing the border illegally are released and given notices to report back to immigration officials at a later date. If Trump’s actions result in those caught being immediately jailed, the administration would have to grapple with how to pay for additional jail space and what to do with children caught crossing the border with their parents. It appeared as though the refugee restrictions were still being finalized. The person briefed on the proposals said they included a ban on entry to the U.S. for at least 30 days from countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, though the person cautioned the details could still change. There is also likely to be an exception for those fleeing religious persecution if their religion is a minority in their country. That exception could cover Christians fleeing Muslim-majority nations. As president, Trump can use an executive order to halt refugee processing. Bush used that same power in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Refugee security vetting was reviewed and the process was restarted several months later. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
