Amid sanctuary city debate, Obama administration takes heat for pulling plug on enforcement program

The president said it worked. The nation's top immigration agent said it worked. Even the inspector general said it worked. So why did the Obama administration kill a government program that did exactly what Congress intended by identifying and deporting illegal immigrants?
"It worked! It worked, I think, a little too well in terms of broadly identifying individuals that had been arrested and charged with crimes," said Julie Myers-Wood, who directed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency from 2005-2008.
At issue is an ICE program known as Secure Communities. Launched after the 9/11 attacks under the Patriot Act, it required immigration agents to have access to the fingerprints and criminal history of any immigrant booked in jail. That requirement came after studies showed immigration agents failed to identify 86 percent of all illegal immigrants released from jail.
Secure Communities cost more than $1 billion, and in 2012, then-ICE Director John Morton called it "the future of immigration enforcement." That same year, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general called Secure Communities a success, "effectively identifying criminal aliens ... with little or no cost" to local jurisdictions.
But to critics, the program cast too wide a net. In large, Democratically controlled cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles, politicians said the program deported too many immigrants guilty of minor crimes, like traffic violations and non-violent offenses like theft and burglary. In response, some 200 cities created "sanctuary" laws to shield immigrants by prohibiting local police from cooperating when ICE sought to pick up an inmate.
Chris Newman, with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, told the Huffington Post last year, "The tide has turned against the program, and I think there is now consensus that the program needs to be shut down completely." Fred Tsao, of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, added, "The whole machinery is just so flawed. If the focus really is on people who have committed serious crimes and have been convicted of those offenses, then you don't try to catch people when they've first been arrested, in many cases before they've even had a bond set for them."
Amid the pressure, DHS ended the program last year, replacing it with a narrower version called the Priority Enforcement Program, which targets only those held on certain offenses.
But many argue that Secure Communities worked -- and that sanctuary laws have gone too far, exempting not only drunk drivers and thieves but child molesters and killers, leaving the system paralyzed and the public at risk.
Those concerns were renewed earlier this month after an illegal immigrant released by the sheriff's department in one such city, San Francisco, was arrested for the murder of a woman along a city pier.
"It's not fair for cities to have choices like this. However, DHS and ICE have got to work with the realities that are out there," said Wood. "Until Congress changes the law or until there is a little action against those entities, I think it's very smart for DHS and ICE to try to find a way to come to common ground."
Officials created Secure Communities when studies revealed one out of six illegal immigrants released from jail were re-arrested within three years, according to the Congressional Research Service. A more recent study by Jessica Vaughan at the Center for Immigration Studies found, of 8,000 criminal aliens released by sanctuary cities in 2014, almost 2,000 were arrested again within eight months on charges including domestic violence and murder.
The illegal immigrant population of 11.7 million represents just 3.6 percent of the U.S. population. But according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, illegal immigrants represent 12 percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences.
While some sheriffs support and others quietly agreed to the sanctuary restrictions imposed by lawmakers, Fresno County, Calif., Sheriff Margaret Mims has not. Instead of following the state law -- which limits communication between jail deputies and ICE -- Mims installed two ICE agents in the Fresno County jail.
In the past, ICE relied on deputies to notify them whenever a "person of interest" was scheduled for release. Mims believed that system made it possible for a dangerous offender to slip through the cracks. Under the new system, ICE agents have access to the inmates for interviews and can see their entire criminal history before making a decision on whether to deport them or not. In the last three weeks, Fresno County deported 23 illegal immigrants because of the program, the only one of its kind in the U.S.

Iran, world powers agree to nuclear deal

Iran and six world powers, led by the United States, reached a formal agreement early Tuesday aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in international sanctions relief.
Diplomats from both sides confirmed the deal had been reached after the latest 18-day round of intense and often fractious negotiations in Vienna, Austria blew through three self-imposed deadlines. A final meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran, the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia was underway Tuesday morning, with a press conference expected to follow. President Barack Obama was to make a statement on the agreement from the White House at 7 a.m. ET.
There was no immediate comment on the agreement from U.S. officials, but Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif described the accord as "a historic moment" as he attended the final session.
"We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish," Zarif continued, "and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been the end of hope on this issue. But now we are starting a new chapter of hope."
Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, called it "a sign of hope for the entire world."
The Associated Press reported that the accord is meant to keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and will impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites.

More on this...

• Diplomats: Iran nuclear deal likely early Tuesday

• Iran nuke talks: What about our imprisoned Americans?

• Is Putin trying to burn US in Iran nuclear talks?

• What happens if Congress rejects a nuclear deal with Iran?

Diplomats said Iran agreed to the continuation of a United Nations arms embargo on the country for up to five more years, though it could end earlier if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) definitively clears Iran of any current work on nuclear weapons. A similar condition was put on U.N. restrictions on the transfer of ballistic missile technology to Tehran, which could last for up to eight more years.
Reuters reported, citing Western diplomats, that Iran had agreed to a so-called "snapback" provision, under which sanctions could be reinstated in 65 days if it violated the agreement.
Washington had sought to maintain the ban on Iran importing and exporting weapons, concerned that an Islamic theoracy flush with cash from the nuclear deal would expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, Yemen's Houthi rebels, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and other forces opposing America's Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Iranian leaders insisted the embargo had to end as their forces combat regional scourges such as ISIS. And they got some support from China and particularly Russia, which wants to expand military cooperation and arms sales to Tehran, including the long-delayed transfer of S-300 advanced air defense systems -- a move long opposed by the United States.
The last major sticking point appeared to be whether international weapons inspectors would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites. The deal includes a compromise between Washington and Tehran that would allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties. However, access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on as possibly giving Tehran time to cover any sign of non-compliance with its commitments.
Under the deal, Tehran would have the right to challenge the U.N request and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers that negotiated with it would have to decide on the issue. Such an arrangement would still be a notable departure from assertions by top Iranian officials, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that their country would never allow the IAEA into such sites. Iran has argued that such visits by the IAEA would be a cover for spying on its military secrets.
The IAEA also wants the access to complete its long-stymied investigation of past weapons work by Iran, and the U.S. says Iranian cooperation is needed for all economic sanctions to be lifted. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday his agency and Iran had signed a "roadmap" to resolve outstanding concerns.
"This is a significant step forward towards clarifying outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program," Amano said in a statement released Tuesday. "It sets out a clear sequence of activities over the coming months, including the provision by Iran of explanations regarding outstanding issues."
The economic benefits for Iran are potentially massive. It stands to receive more than $100 billion in assets frozen overseas, and an end to a European oil embargo and various financial restrictions on Iranian banks.
The overall nuclear deal comes after nearly a decade of international, intercontinental diplomacy that until recently was defined by failure. Breaks in the talks sometimes lasted for months, and Iran's nascent nuclear program expanded into one that Western intelligence agencies saw as only a couple of months away from weapons capacity. The U.S. and Israel both threatened possible military responses.
The United States joined the negotiations in 2008, and U.S. and Iranian officials met together secretly four years later in Oman to see if diplomatic progress was possible. But the process remained essentially stalemated until summer 2013, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president and declared his country ready for serious compromise.
More secret U.S.-Iranian discussions followed, culminating in a face-to-face meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations in September 2013 and a telephone conversation between Rouhani and President Barack Obama. That conversation marked the two countries' highest diplomatic exchange since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran.
Kerry and Zarif took the lead in the negotiations. Two months later, in Geneva, Iran and the six powers announced an interim agreement that temporarily curbed Tehran's nuclear program and unfroze some Iranian assets while setting the stage for Tuesday's comprehensive accord.
It took time to get the final deal, however. The talks missed deadlines for the pact in July 2014 and November 2014, leading to long extensions. Finally, in early April, negotiators reached framework deal in Lausanne, Switzerland, setting up the last push for the historic agreement.
Protracted negotiations still lie ahead to put the agreement into practice and deep suspicion reigns on all sides about violations that could unravel the accord. And spoilers abound.
In the United States, Congress has a 60-day review period during which Obama cannot make good on any concessions to the Iranians. U.S. lawmakers could hold a vote of disapproval and take further action.
Iranian hardliners oppose dismantling a nuclear program the country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing. Khamenei, while supportive of his negotiators thus far, has issued a series of defiant red lines that may be impossible to reconcile in a deal with the West.
And further afield, Israel will strongly oppose the outcome. It sees the acceptance of extensive Iranian nuclear infrastructure and continued nuclear activity as a mortal threat, and has warned that it could take military action on its own, if necessary.
The deal is a "bad mistake of historic proportions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday, adding that it would enable Iran to "continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region."
Sunni Arab rivals of Shiite Iran are none too happy, either, with Saudi Arabia in particularly issuing veiled threats to develop its own nuclear program.

Lying Cartoon

Ouster of Marine officer overseeing female boot camp training sparks controversy

Crazy Eyes?

The Marine officer who made female recruits better shots at boot camp has been relieved of her command, igniting controversy.

Military Times reports that Lt. Col. Kate Germano served only a year as the head of the 4^th Recruit Training Battalion on Parris Island, S.C., before her dismissal.
She got bounced June 30 after a command investigation accused her of “toxic leadership” by berating and showing contempt for subordinates in public. The 300-page report found her to be “hostile, unprofessional and abusive “ and told recruits that sexual assault was preventable, and that those who drank put themselves in a position to be assaulted.
She also told recruits male Marines would never take orders from them and would see them as inferior if they couldn't meet men's physical standards.
But, according to the Times, her supporters say she was a blunt reformer only trying to make the unit better by holding women to tougher standards.
“What she did when she came is she changed the mentality of the Marines in the battalion and the recruits to not expect a historically lower performance than the male recruits at the battalion,” a female Marine officer stationed at the recruit depot told the paper.
Parris Island officials admitted rifle range qualification scores improved dramatically among female recruits under Germano’s tenure.
In May, Germano accused her boss of undermining her efforts to push female recruits to perform as well as their male counterparts.
The Times said Germano had filed a complaint alleging a hostile work environment and gender discrimination. That prompted an investigation by Marine Training and Command, which found no evidence to support the allegations.
Following her dismissal, Germano sent a letter to her battalion, saying the unit excelled in the face of strong opposition.
“Despite considerable active and passive resistance throughout all echelons of the Recruit Depot and the Marine Corps, we each worked incredibly hard to improve the performance of our recruits to make them stronger, faster, smarter and better shots -- all to better the institution," she wrote.
Germano is now petitioning Congress for redress, saying she was treated unjustly by Parris Island superiors, the Times said.

Done deal? Iran nuclear agreement to be announced Monday, report says

An agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief will likely be announced Monday, according to a published report. 

Two diplomats involved in ongoing talks in the Austrian capital of Vienna told the Associated Press Sunday that final details of the pact were still being worked out. Once it is complete, a formal, final agreement would be open to review by officials in the capitals of Iran and the six world powers at the talks, they said. The diplomats involved demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.
The envoys had said that it was possible for a provisional agreement to have been reached Sunday evening. However, senior Iranian and U.S. officials told the AP there was not enough time to do so.
"We are working hard, but a deal tonight is simply logistically impossible," the Iranian official said, noting that the agreement will run roughly 100 pages.
The senior U.S. official declined to speculate as to the timing of any agreement or announcement but said "major issues remain to be resolved."
Despite the caution, the negotiators appeared to be on the cusp of an agreement.

ObamaCare Ruling May Stop Obama's Immigration Action

The Justice Department on Friday urged a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel to lift a lower-court injunction and let it start granting temporary legal presence to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

The Obama administration is expected to lose this round because two Republican-appointed judges on the three-judge panel rejected an initial request to lift the injunction in May, writing that "the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal."
The case could be on a fast track to the Supreme Court, with a decision due in 2016. But last month's King v. Burwell opinion helping to preserve President Obama's signature health care law suggests that the justices may not uphold his administration's aggressive legal interpretations. That includes his controversial executive action to grant de facto legal status to millions of illegal aliens.The ObamaCare case hinged on whether the IRS was justified in providing tax subsidies to people in states that had never set up their own health insurance exchange. Conservatives argued that the plain text authorized subsidies only via an "Exchange established by the State" and not by the federal Healthcare.gov.
The Obama administration argued that the law's context was clear. But if the justices deemed the text unclear, then they should rely on the "Chevron deference" precedent. In the 1984 case Chevron v. NRDC, the court ruled that it should accept the executive branch agency's interpretation of what Congress meant as long as it is plausible.
'Deep Significance' Test
That was too much for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who called it "a drastic step" to let the IRS decide whether to award billions of dollars in subsidies without clear congressional intent.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion siding with the administration, agreed: The availability of billions in subsidies "is a question of deep 'economic and political significance'; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly."
Instead, Roberts wrote, it was up for the judicial branch to determine the statute's meaning.
"The Court's invocation of the 'major questions' doctrine, and various justices' increasingly vocal skepticism of judicial deference doctrines in general, could prove significant," said Adam White, counsel at Boyden Gray & Associates focused on regulatory law. "Certainly as to the immigration controversy, but also other unilateral actions by this administration, such as environmental regulation and Internet regulation."
Reasonable Discretion?
The Obama administration has said its deferred action program granting three-year legal presence is a reasonable form of the prosecutorial discretion to which it is entitled. Further, granting legal presence doesn't automatically legalize employment. That step is allowed based on prior legislation that permitted people applying for asylum and others to get work authorization as their status was determined.

Muslim hired as British government terror watchdog is extremist who called US ‘vicious world empire’

 

A British government worker who helped regulate the country’s anti-terror planning was fired after superiors learned of his Islamist sympathies, the Telegraph reported.

Abdullah al Andalusi said the brutal exploits of ISIS were “no different to the history of some Western armies” and supported the right of youths to venture to Syria to fight.
“If merely going to fight overseas is condemned as terrorism, shouldn’t the UK arrest British volunteers joining the Israeli Defense Force which kills civilians in Gaza in a war against the Gazan government?” al Andalusi wrote in a September 2014 article for the Muslim Debate Initiative, a group he co-founded.

"IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West"
- Abdullah al Andalusi

He compared ISIS to Western armies “and even some of the ‘Founding Fathers’ of Western nations” in a June 2014 post on his own website.
“IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organization and ability to use social media!” al Andalusi wrote.
During a Jan. 16 talk at Queen Mary University, he dismissed the 9/11 terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people,” according to the Telegraph.
But al Andalusi says his words have been taken out of context, and on Sunday he posted to his website a full-throated, 2,300-word rebuttal.
“I have never worked in any government counterterrorism work, team or department,” he wrote, before offering a point-by-point refutation of the claims made in the Telegraph.
Even his denial, however, contained a few questionable passages.
“Do I support the re-establishment of a Caliphate? Of course, because a Caliphate is a part of Islamic belief, so integral is it to Islam that Sunnis and Shias originally split merely due to the question of who should be the Caliph,” al Andalusi wrote.
Al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid and who has used at least one other alias according to the Telegraph, worked for nearly two years at the London office of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which assesses police forces and activity “ranging from neighborhood teams through serious crime to the fight against terrorism.”
HMIC said al Andalusi passed an initial security vetting and had been promoted to a management-level position, according to the Telegraph. He didn’t handle classified material, HMIC said; however, a former MDI colleague told the Telegraph that al Andalusi talked about having access to sensitive information.
“His work did involve security areas,” said the colleague, who was quoted anonymously. “He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about.”
At least one member of parliament can’t believe al Andalusi’s statements didn’t raise a red flag earlier.
“The man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said.

Walker announces 2016 White House bid

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker announced his bid Monday for the Republican presidential nomination, entering a crowded 2016 field amid high expectations. 

Walker, known for his high-profile battles with the powerful public-sector unions, announced his plans on social media and in a fundraising email. He becomes the 15th Republican candidate.
In his email to supporters, Walker pointed to his record in Wisconsin as a potential model, saying "it's time to take the successes we have created in Wisconsin and apply them to Washington."
Walker, set to kick off his campaign at a rally in Waukesha, Wis., later Monday, joins the race after signing a controversial budget. His tenure in Wisconsin has been turbulent, but the governor has enacted major changes in the state.
A campaign video released Monday is heavy on images of Walker speaking to a crowd in an Iowa cornfield, as well as his 2010 battle with unions. The video includes Walker speaking directly to the camera touting his willingness to take on big fights.
"We didn't nibble around the edges," he says.
Walker enacted policies weakening the unions' political power and became the first governor in U.S. history to defeat a recall election.
He also cut income and corporate taxes by nearly $2 billion, lowered property taxes, legalized the carrying of concealed weapons, made abortions more difficult to obtain, required photo identification when voting and made Wisconsin a right-to-work state.
His budget this year, which plugged a $2.2 billion shortfall when he signed it into law Sunday, requires drug screenings for public benefit recipients, expands the private school voucher program, freezes tuition at the University of Wisconsin while cutting funding by $250 million and removing tenure protections from state law.
Such achievements may appeal to conservatives who hold outsized sway in Republican primaries, yet some could create challenges in a general election should Walker ultimately become the GOP's nominee. Voter ID laws, abortion restrictions, liberal gun policies and education cuts are not necessarily popular among swing-state independents.