Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Cartoon


Most illegal immigrants from border surge skipped court date after release, records show

Stupid American Government?

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 immigration courts 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.
Among adults with children not detained, 25,000 have had their initial appearance; 13,000 are still in the system, and 12,000 have had their cases completed. Of the cases completed, 10,000 failed to appear.
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, almost all 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.
 

Number affected by hack soars to 18M, agency head says nobody ‘personally responsible’


Fox News has learned that the number of victims of a pair of massive cyberattacks on U.S. government personnel files has soared to at least 18 million -- but the head of the hacked Office of Personnel Management refuses to blame anyone in her agency. 
"I don't believe anyone is personally responsible," OPM Director Katherine Archuleta said Tuesday.
The statement came during tense Capitol Hill testimony on a breach that seems to be growing wider by the day. Archuleta, who faced tough questioning at a House hearing last week, likewise faced angry senators on Tuesday before a Senate appropriations subcommittee.
Grilled on whether anyone takes responsibility, Archuleta said only the perpetrators should be blamed -- she said current failures result from decades of meager investment in security systems, but said changes are being made and in fact helped detect the latest breaches.
Still, the assurances are unlikely to ease concerns on Capitol Hill and among those who may have been affected. The web has expanded to include not just current and former government workers, but also those who may have applied for a government job.
The Office of Personnel Management initially estimated about 4 million current and former government workers were affected by one of the hacks. But Fox News is told by multiple sources that lawmakers have been informed the number will grow to at least 18 million -- and could, according to one source, soar to as high as 30 million.
During the Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Archuleta testified that a second hack indeed exposed more individuals, though she said its "scope" and "impact" have not yet been determined.
She said this separate incident has affected files related to background investigations for "current, former and prospective government employees." Amid concerns that those affected have been left in the dark, Archuleta said the government would be notifying those whose information may have been compromised "as soon as practicable."
Meanwhile, she said a hacker also gained access to the agency's records with a credential used by a federal contractor. Archuleta told the Senate hearing on Tuesday that an "adversary" somehow obtained a user credential used by KeyPoint Government Solutions, a contractor based in Colorado. She didn't say specifically when that occurred or if it was related to the two cyberbreaches being discussed.
It was reported earlier that officials, in the second hack, were concerned information may have been stolen from a document known as Standard Form 86, which requires applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant's Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.
Some officials have implicated China in at least one of the breaches. The new revelations and Tuesday's hearing come during an awkwardly timed U.S.-China economic dialogue in Washington, where Secretary of State John Kerry is participating.
There are about 2.6 million executive branch civilians, so the majority of the records exposed relate to former employees. Contractor information also has been stolen, officials have said.
Earlier, a major union said it believes the hackers stole Social Security numbers, military records and veterans' status information, addresses, birth dates, job and pay histories; health insurance, life insurance and pension information; and age, gender and race data.

Not so fast? Haley could face tough battle in push to remove Confederate flag


South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, after joining with other state leaders in calling for the Confederate flag to be removed from Statehouse grounds, could be in for a drawn-out legislative battle.
Under the state's own rules for even touching that Confederate flag, any changes are easier said than done.
“I would be shocked if there wasn’t considerable or even vehement opposition from legislators, particularly from small rural towns,” William Gaston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told FoxNews.com.
On Monday, Haley, surrounded by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state Capitol. Her comments came less than a week after Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white man, confessed to gunning down nine black members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
Renewed efforts to remove the flag gained momentum after images of Roof, posing with the flag, surfaced.
“The hate-filled murderer has a sick and twisted view of the flag,” Haley said. “We have changed through the times and we will continue to do so, but that doesn’t mean we forget our history.”
But Haley, in calling for the flag's removal along with the state's top congressional representatives, must get the legislature to agree -- which could be an uphill climb. And the current push to remove the Confederate symbol is just the latest twist in a storied saga that has pitted Palmetto State lawmakers against one another for decades.
The Confederate battle flag first flew at the Statehouse in 1962 as part of a centennial commemoration. While many civil rights groups protested and demanded its removal for years, nothing changed until 2000. That year, the flag fight led to a political compromise that removed it from the Capitol Dome and moved it to a 30-foot flagpole at the Confederate Soldier Monument on Statehouse grounds.
Some say it’s that very same compromise that could present a challenge for the latest plans to remove it. The plan that was hammered out in 2000 requires a two-thirds majority in both the state House and Senate to remove it. It also requires a two-thirds majority to lower it, which is why when Haley ordered the U.S. and South Carolina flags to half-staff after the shooting, the Confederate flag remained flying at full-staff.
Republicans, who have a majority in both the House and Senate, have long been divided on the issue. But many Republicans have abandoned their past defense of the flag.
“I just didn’t have the balls for five years to do it, but when my friend was assassinated for being nothing more than a black man, I decided it was time for that thing to be off the Statehouse grounds,” Republican state Rep. Doug Brannon, told The Associated Press. “It’s not just a symbol of hate. It’s actually a symbol of pride in one’s hatred.”
Brannon said he plans to introduce a bill to take down the flag as early as he can.
Others, like state Sen. Lee Bright, who has a Confederate flying hanging in his office, was quoted equating efforts to remove it from the north lawn of the Statehouse with a “Stalinist purge.” Bright's office declined to elaborate on the comments when reached by FoxNews.com.
The process of taking the flag down took its first baby step on Tuesday afternoon when the South Carolina House voted 103-10 to allow a special session to discuss it. The Senate must also agree to meet, though Haley has said she would use her authority as governor to force a special legislative session.
Once a special session is called, there will be some procedural hurdles that will draw out the process. The bill would have to clear the judiciary committees and then come back to both floors for debate.
“If I had to set a deadline, I’d say about August first, hopefully before September,” state Rep. Todd Rutherford told WLTX-TV in a recent interview.
The Post and Courier newspaper, which is based in Charleston, has a working tally of the number of South Carolina legislators who say they’ll support taking the flag down, who say they’ll vote against it, and who have not responded.
By early Tuesday afternoon, 50 members of the state House said they would vote to remove the flag.  Eight have said no, nine were undecided, nine refused to answer and 46 have not responded.
In the state Senate, 19 lawmakers said they’d vote in favor of taking down the flag. One said no, four were undecided, three refused to answer and 18 have not responded.

US, West ready to offer nuclear equipment to Iran if it limits possible atomic weapons programs


The United States and its allies are willing to offer Iran state-of-the-art nuclear equipment if Tehran agrees to pare down its atomic weapons program as part of a final nuclear agreement, a draft document has revealed.
The confidential paper, obtained by the Associated Press, has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes with little more than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.
However, the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.
The draft, entitled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation," promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.
Reducing the Arak reactor's plutonium output was one of the main aims of the U.S. and its negotiating partners, along with paring down Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium -- like plutonium, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.
Outlining plans to modify that heavy-water reactor, the draft, dated June 19, offers to "establish an international partnership" to rebuild it into a less proliferation-prone facility while leaving Iran in "the leadership role as the project owner and manager."
The eight-page draft also promises "arrangements for the assured supply and removal of nuclear fuel for each reactor provided," and offers help in the "construction and effective operation" of the reactors and related hardware. It also offers to cooperate with Iran in the fields of nuclear safety, nuclear medicine, research, nuclear waste removal and other peaceful applications.
As well, it firms up earlier tentative agreement on what to do with the underground site of Fordo, saying it will be used for isotope production instead of uranium enrichment.
Washington and its allies had long insisted that the facility be repurposed away from enrichment because Fordo is dug deep into a mountain and thought resistant to air strikes -- an option neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out should talks fail.
But because isotope production uses the same technology as enrichment and can be quickly re-engineered to enriching uranium, the compromise has been criticized by congressional opponents of the deal.
A diplomat familiar with the negotiations said China was ready to help in re-engineering the heavy water reactor at Arak; France in reprocessing nuclear waste, and Britain in the field of nuclear safety and security.
He spoke on the eve of Wednesday's new round of nuclear talks in Vienna and demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the confidential talks.
Diplomats say the other appendices include ways of dealing with enrichment; limits on Iran's research and development of advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges and ways of making sure Tehran is keeping its commitment to the deal.
Iran has most publicly pushed back on how much leeway the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have in monitoring Tehran's nuclear activities. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is rebuffing U.S. demands that the IAEA have access to military sites and nuclear scientists as they keep an eye on Iran's present activities and try to follow up suspicions that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapon.
But a senior U.S. official who demanded anonymity in exchange for commenting on the talks said Tuesday that the sides are still apart not only on how transparent Iran must be but all other ancillary issues as well. Separately, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested the talks could go past June 30.
If a deal "requires us to take a couple of extra days ... then we'll do that," he said.
A delay up to July 9 is not a deal-breaker. If Congress receives a deal by then, it has 30 days to review it before President Barack Obama could suspend congressional sanctions.
But postponement beyond that would double the congressional review period to 60 days, giving both Iranian and U.S. opponents more time to work on undermining an agreement.
Earnest indicated that negotiations may continue even if the sides declare they have reached a final deal, in comments that may further embolden congressional critics who say the talks already have gone on too long.
He said that even past that point, ongoing "differences of opinion ... may require additional negotiations."

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos