It's hard to secure the border when the Government is smuggling in illegals

The head of the union representing thousands of federal immigration officers backed a federal judge's claim that the Department of Homeland Security is delivering children smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border to their illegal immigrant parents. 
"This is exactly what's happening," Chris Crane, head of the National ICE Council, told FoxNews.com.
Crane was reacting to a blistering court order from U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, which detailed the alleged policy. The Texas judge said the "dangerous" practice is effectively aiding human traffickers and particularly the drug cartels, which run many of these operations.
It remains unclear, though, which agency may ultimately be responsible and how widespread the practice is.
The Department of Homeland Security claimed in a statement to Fox News that it was following the law, and that its officers are committed to the "safe, fair and humane treatment" of minors. 
But a law enforcement official claimed that in many cases, minors crossing the border are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. The official cited The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in describing how "unaccompanied alien children must be treated at entry including requiring formal removal proceedings and the need to quickly be transferred to the care of HHS."
The official described how only certain minors could be returned without going through that process.
However, the 2002 law cited by the official was the same one that Judge Hanen argued did not apply in these cases. The relevant section of that law refers to "unaccompanied alien" children who have no parent in the U.S.
The judge noted that the children in question were all accompanied by the person smuggling them over the border, and did have a parent in the U.S.
"There is nothing in this Act that directs and authorizes the DHS to turn a blind eye to criminal conduct," he wrote, adding the 2002 law "provides no excuse" for the practice.
Crane claimed that immigration officers are in fact shepherding children who cross the border illegally and delivering them to parents in the U.S., at least in some cases. 
"That's what we do now, we babysit kids," he said.
He concurred with Hanen in arguing that, despite the humanitarian interest in connecting children with their parents in the U.S., the government could be putting more children in danger by inadvertently encouraging smuggling.
"The very people patting themselves on the back as humanitarians are putting these children at more risk than they've ever been before," he said.
The federal judge's statement last week was prompted by the case of Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez. She was arrested at the Texas-Mexico border in May and pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle a 10-year-old child originally from El Salvador. After the sentencing, the judge wrote, he decided to go public with additional details from the case.
He wrote that the "conspiracy" started when an illegal immigrant in Virginia hired smugglers to get her daughter from El Salvador to Virginia. She paid $6,000 in advance. But after the smuggling operation was interrupted by federal agents, he wrote, "the DHS delivered the child to her."
Further, he wrote, this was the fourth case he'd seen in as many weeks along these lines. In one case, he claimed, the U.S. government "flew a child to multiple locations" in the U.S. at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
The administration, though, stresses that DHS is focused on "sensible, effective immigration enforcement" that prioritizes deporting "criminal aliens" and "egregious immigration law violators."
Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced Thursday that in fiscal 2013, the agency removed 368,644 people, most of whom were caught while or shortly after trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Nearly 60 percent had a criminal record.

Duck Dynasty: Can’t imagine show going on without Phil

Duck season may soon be over for A&E.
The Robertson family released a statement late Thursday that raises doubts about the future of one of the most popular shows on cable television.
“We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm,” the Robertson family said in a prepared statement. “We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.”
The family said it has “spent much time in prayer” since learning A&E had suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Louisiana family, over comments he made about homosexuality.
Robertson sparked a national debate on religion and tolerance in an interview with GQ magazine. The writer asked him what he considered to be sinful behavior.
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” Robertson said.
Then he paraphrased Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The family defended Robertson’s comments and stressed that they are a “family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.”
“While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible,” the family said. “Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Phil would never incite or encourage hate.”
The family also criticized A&E for its actions, saying he was placed on hiatus “for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.”
Robertson’s comments drew immediate condemnation from gay rights groups who pressured the network to take action. On Wednesday, A&E announced Robertson was being removed from the show indefinitely.
"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," the network said in a statement.

"His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."
A&E’s decision to pull Robertson from the show drew strong support from the gay and lesbian rights group GLAAD.
“What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value.”
Duck Dynasty drew 11.8 million viewers in August for the debut of its fourth season - setting a record for a cable nonfiction series. Hundreds of thousands of outraged fans responded to the news of Robertson’s suspension by launching boycotts and petitions They accused the network of discriminating against Robertson because of his religious beliefs and violating his First Amendment rights.
“Free speech is an endangered species,” wrote former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on her Facebook page. “Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also voiced support for his embattled constituents.
“The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with,” he said. “It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News the suspension shows Hollywood wants to avoid reality.
“The reality is that the Robertson family are Bible-believing Christians who don’t cherry pick what the Bible teaches,” he said.
Perkins said the Duck Dynasty patriarch was targeted “simply because he expressed his religious beliefs but there is a clear double standard that is being applied.”
“It is time for all Americans to take a stand against the cultural elites who want to destroy the livelihood of people and remove God and His truth from every aspect of public life,” he said.
The Liberty Institute, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, condemned A&E’s actions and urged them to reconsider.
“In the spirit of American tolerance of religious diversity, A&E should reinstate Mr. Robertson and apologize for its religious bigotry,” the statement read.