Michael Sam

Report: Thousands of convicted criminals freed while awaiting deportation proceedings

The Obama administration released thousands of convicted criminals -- including murderers and those convicted of sexual assault -- while they were awaiting deportation proceedings, according to a new report. 
The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based advocacy group, released the statistics on Monday, in its latest bid to draw attention to what analysts with the organization say are lax enforcement practices by the Obama administration. 
The numbers showed that in 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 36,007 "convicted criminal aliens" while they were waiting for the outcome of their deportation cases. They represented a total of 88,000 convictions. 
The majority of the cases involved individuals convicted on lower-level or nonviolent offenses, like auto theft, drunk-driving and drug charges. But many were involved in more serious cases.   
According to the report, the 88,000 convictions included: 
-- 193 homicide convictions 
-- 426 sexual assault convictions 
-- 303 kidnapping convictions 
-- More than 1,000 aggravated assault convictions 
Jessica Vaughan, the group's director of policy studies, said in a statement she was "astonished" by the figures. Referring to an ongoing Department of Homeland Security review of deportation policies, she said any "further relaxation of enforcement" would be "hard to justify" in light of the statistics. 
"Congress should resist further action on immigration reform until the public can be assured that enforcement is more robust and that ICE can better deal with its criminal alien caseload without setting them free in our communities," she added. 
ICE defended its enforcement practices when asked about the report, and said in a statement that many of those cited were released "under restrictions such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision, or surety bond."
Further, the statement said the agency was required by law to release some of those individuals.
"The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report.  For example, mandatory releases account for over 75% of the homicides listed," ICE said.
The individuals in question were reportedly released on bond or on parole or under various other alternatives to detention while awaiting processing. 
The same organization that published the data put out a separate report more than a month ago that showed ICE agents were opting not to deport thousands of "criminal aliens." These are separate from the cases detailed in the latest study. 
According to that prior report, ICE released 68,000 foreign nationals in 2013 who either had criminal convictions or charges against them. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though, accused CIS of distorting the numbers, and claimed that some of them could represent minor offenses. Further, the agency said a total of 216,000 "convicted criminals" were removed in 2013.

Geithner, in memoir, suggests White House asked him to bend truth on deficit

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims in his new book that the White House on more than one occasion tried to put words in his mouth or outright asked him to bend the truth. 
In his memoir, "Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises," Geithner recalls a Sunday talk show prep session in 2011 during which top White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer wanted him to say Social Security "didn't contribute" to the federal deficit. Geithner wrote that he objected. 
"It wasn't a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute," Geithner wrote, explaining his own reasoning. "Pfeiffer said the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security." 
After the anecdote began to generate attention on Monday, a source close to Geithner clarified to Fox News that the former secretary "does not believe he was encouraged to go out and mislead the public on the Sunday shows." 
The source said all the former secretary was trying to get across was that Pfeiffer wanted him to "send a signal" to liberals about the president's commitment to not allowing major cuts to Social Security. 
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also defended Pfeiffer, reiterating the White House position that Social Security is not the "main driver" of the deficit, when compared with health care-related entitlement programs. "That, I'm sure, is the point that Dan was making," Carney said. 
Still, the episode and others in the 544-page book, in stores Monday, provide a glimpse into how the White House screens and provides information to the public -- particularly following revelations about White House involvement in a "prep call" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial appearance on Sunday shows after the 2012 Benghazi attacks. 
Geithner also recalled an incident in January 2009, having been on the job as secretary for less than a week, in which he rejected what a Democratic strategist wanted him to say at an Oval Office press event. 
"I was supposed to have my first one-on-one meeting with President Obama," Geithner wrote. "As I was about to walk into the Oval Office, Stephanie Cutter, a veteran Democratic operative who was handling our communications strategy, told me we would have a 'pool spray,' a photo opportunity for the White House press. 
"The president and I would make brief remarks about executive compensation, responding to a report that Wall Street firms had paid their executives big bonuses while piling up record losses in 2008. 'Here's what you're going to say,' Cutter said." 
Geithner wrote that Cutter handed him the text, and he "skimmed the outrage I was expected to express." 
He wrote: "I'm not very convincing as an angry populist, and I thought the artifice would look ridiculous." 
According to his memoir, he told Cutter he wouldn't do it. 
"Instead, I sat uncomfortably next to the president while he expressed outrage. Americans were furious about bailouts for overpaid bankers, and the White House political team wanted us to show we were on the right side of the backlash," he wrote. "The public outrage was appropriate ... but I didn't see how we could ever satisfy it. We had no legal authority to confiscate the bonuses that had been paid during the boom."

New Jersey mayor fights feds over prayer during citizenship ceremony

A New Jersey town canceled its ceremony celebrating new U.S. citizens after federal immigration officials would not allow the event to begin with a prayer.
According to the Star-Ledger, Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman had assured U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials that the prayer leading Saturday’s ceremony would be nondenominational.
“They refused to budge on that,” Reiman said, the paper reported.
The battle came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local government meetings can include sectarian prayers.

“They refused to budge on that.”- Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman

Reiman and immigration officials each cited the high court’s opinion.
Reiman, who was elected to office in 2002, said the court’s decision is proof that he should be able to open any event with a prayer. He issued a statement Friday saying it is borough policy to open all borough events with a prayer and a moment of silence.
The citizenship agency said the ruling does not mean federal agencies are required to include prayers in ceremonies. It cited a portion of the justices’ decision that referred to the “Pledge of Allegiance” as one of the traditions that “lend gravity to public proceedings.”
Katie Tichacek Kaplan, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, told the Associated Press that it's a long-standing policy to make sure naturalization ceremonies are "conducted in a meaningful manner which is welcoming and inclusive and excludes political, commercial and religious statements."
Click to read the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.
Reiman said the town celebrates diversity and that the prayer is non-denominational. He said the immigration service can "host its godless ceremony someplace else."
The event was moved to Newark.
During the fight to include prayer in the opening of the naturalization ceremony, Reiman cited the CIS website, which states that new citizens must recite an oath that contains the phrase, “so help me God,” as well as the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which includes the phrase “under God.”
The website says that reciting the pledge and oath completes the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing gov’t power to seize property

WASHINGTON –  Motel owner Russell Caswell wasn’t expecting to find himself at the center of a national controversy when FBI agents came knocking on his door.
They said they wanted his Tewksbury, Mass., business – and the land it was on – because they suspected it was a hotbed for drug-dealing and prostitution. The agents, who were working with state and local authorities, told a disbelieving Caswell they had the right to take the property, valued at as much as $1.5 million, through a legal process known as civil forfeiture.
Caswell, 70, fought back, and the case turned into one of the nation's most contentious civil forfeiture fights ever – and one that legal experts say sheds light on a little-known practice that, when abused, is tantamount to policing for profit.
Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. It differs from criminal forfeiture cases, where prosecutors typically must prove a person is guilty or reach a settlement before freezing funds or selling property. In civil forfeiture, authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.
“You breed a culture of 'take first, ask questions later,'” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.”
Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture powers give them an effective tool against lawbreakers. Freezing funds and seizing assets allow them to hit alleged criminals, frequently suspected drug dealers, where it hurts the most – their wallets.
Alarmed civil rights groups and libertarians are rallying against the practice. Salzman's group defended Caswell and won case in federal court last year. 
But not every target of civil forfeiture can afford the fight.
In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice created its Asset Forfeiture Fund. One year later, the fund -- which holds the proceeds from seized property and is available to be divvied out to law enforcement agencies -- brought in $93.7 million. In 2008, the amount had ballooned to $1.6 billion. In 2013, it reached $6.3 billion.
Across the country, many states are stepping up efforts to curb civil forfeiture abuse.
In Tennessee, local law enforcement agencies get to keep 100 percent of all property seized through civil forfeiture – an incentive some say can tempt police to go after property for the wrong reasons. Rep. Barrett Rich, a former state trooper, introduced legislation last year that would eliminate the practice in the Volunteer State.
The original version of Rich's bill would have required authorities to obtain a warrant before seizing property. Forfeiture and title transfer of property would take place only under due process of law and only if the owner of the property had been prosecuted and convicted. Rich's bill underwent amendments that, in the end, amounted to more modest reforms to state law.
“We shouldn’t completely get rid of civil forfeiture,” Rich told FoxNews.com. “It’s a valuable tool for law enforcement, but it is also ripe for abuse.”
In other states, the fight for reform has been even harder.
In March, the Georgia Sheriff’s Association successfully killed a bill that would have raised the burden of proof in civil cases and mandated the forfeiture of property worth more than $5,000 be brought before a judge rather than handled administratively.
GSA president and Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills argued the bill would “demoralize the law enforcement community to a point where we will see little public benefit in enforcing the law when it comes to drug dealers and other criminal entrepreneurs.”
His letter drew harsh criticism from many watchdog groups.
“It is hard to believe that a Georgia law enforcement official would argue that upholding the law is worthwhile only when it is profitable,” Heritage Foundation bloggers Jason Snead and Andrew Kloster wrote. “Such are the perverse incentives created by civil forfeiture laws.”
An investigation conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looked into how funds over a five-year period were spent in Georgia. 
According to the newspaper, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard spent thousands of dollars gleaned from civil forfeitures on pricey dinners and an elaborate home security system for himself. In November 2009, he allegedly paid $800 to rent out a movie theater. Three months later, Howard told his employees they’d have to take 10 furlough days due to budget constraints.
To many, like attorney Salzman, civil forfeitures represent a dangerous area of the U.S. justice system where, by law, a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.
On a national level, Salzman says a loophole in the federal law called equitable sharing allows authorities to circumvent the paper-thin protections offered on a state level.
In Ball Harbour, Fla., police raked in more than $5 million through its participation with the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture sharing program in 2011.  The town, which is home to only 2,500 permanent residents, made most of its money through the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing program.
Under the federal program, state and local agencies work in tandem with the feds and often they are allowed to keep most of what they help seize. Property is often sold, with proceeds funneled back into local coffers. They money can go toward anything from new equipment to raises and other perks from the same officials who carried out the bust.
It’s the lopsided power of the law that many Americans who are targeted can’t afford to fight, Salzman says. 
Salzman, who took on the Caswell case pro bono, said law enforcement officials targeted his client’s property out of greed. 
The basic accusation they used to seize his motel was that Caswell could have done more to police what was happening in his own motel. That was news to Caswell, who says over the years he had comp’d the cops free rooms and space so they could set up stings and bust drug deals going down.
“I’ve found, which is kind of hard to believe, but I’m responsible for the action of people I don’t even know, I’ve never even met, and for the most part I have no control over them,” Caswell said in court.  “And I have to rent them a room unless I have a real good reason not to or I get accused of discrimination and that kind of thing.”
“And when they do something wrong, the government wants to steal my property for the actions of those people, which to me makes absolutely no sense,” he added. “It’s more like we’re in Russia or Venezuela or something.”
After a four-day trial, on Jan. 24, 2013, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the forfeiture action against the motel, ruling that the government engaged in “gross exaggeration” of the evidence and did not have authority to seize the property.

Obama angers labor groups with Wal-Mart visit to promote energy efficiency

SAN JOSE, Calif. –  President Obama is showcasing Wal-Mart, often a target of labor groups and other Democratic constituencies, to promote advances in energy efficiency in his broader campaign to confront climate change.
Obama on Friday was to announce commitments from more than 300 companies and local and state governments to use solar energy technology. He also was announcing executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency in buildings and appliances. The White House says the solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes and the administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.
The White House chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam's Clubs and distribution centers.
But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say Wal-Mart pays low wages and who archly noted that Obama has made pay equity a central issue of his presidency.
"What numbskull in the White House arranged this?" former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said in a posting on Facebook on Thursday.
"While he's in California, I would hope President Obama would speak directly to Wal-Mart employees and hear from them about their daily struggles to pay the rent and put food on the table," said Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
Wal-Mart says it pays wages that are competitive in the retail industry.
The clashing energy vs. jobs message is not new to the White House. Labor unions, for example, have pressed the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada into the U.S. because it would create jobs. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline, and the administration recently put off a decision on whether to approve it, likely until after the November congressional elections.
Obama was wrapping up a three-day trip mostly devoted to raising money for the Democratic Party.
Complicating things for the White House, Obama on Thursday attended a fundraiser hosted by Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, who sits on Wal-Mart's board of directors.
In promoting the energy efficiency announcement ahead of Friday's event, the White House said solar energy prices have dropped markedly in four years, with solar panels now costing about 60 percent less.
"All of this means more jobs in the industry, which is now supporting more than 140,000 good-paying American jobs and that are increasing at a rate of 20 percent per year," said Dan Utech, a special assistant to Obama on energy and climate change.
The White House said Obama also would announce completion of energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers typically used in grocery stores.
The rule on walk-in freezers was proposed last August under an agreement with attorneys general from 10 states and New York City. The states, along with House and Senate Democrats, have been urging Obama to move faster to implement proposed efficiency standards, including those for commercial walk-in coolers and freezers, which were due in 2012.

Pope Francis should stick to doctrine, stay away from economic 'redistribution'

Pope Francis has spent a year on the Throne of Peter. In that time, his modest style and high-minded ideals have ignited a new optimism and fervor among Roman Catholics, including those who left because of disagreements with some of its teachings.
Francis has gone out of his way to voice support for the world’s poorest citizens, rightly noting that their plight is too often ignored or brushed aside. Until this week, his statements have called for voluntary action by wealthier countries and individuals as the right way to relieve economic inequality. He appealed to our better selves, and in so doing, made us all ask if we could be kinder and more generous. The answer, of course, is yes.
On Friday, however, Francis chose a meeting with – of all people -- officials of the United Nations to endorse what he called “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician.

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician. He also exposed his Church, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, to inevitable charges of hypocrisy. And he put himself in a position of having to back up his frothy talk with ruinous action.
Let’s see: for starters, perhaps the Catholic Church and its affiliated non-profit organizations should start voluntarily paying income and real estate tax in the United States, from which it has traditionally been exempt.
There is no doubt that the addition of tax revenue from the Church would be considerable, if hard to estimate. The 17,000-plus parishes may not all measure up to architectural wonders like St. Patrick’s in New York or the newer Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. But few Catholic churches have absolutely no value. What would 39.5% of all that be?
How could Francis, or his subordinates in the United States object to voluntarily turning over part of their vast revenue?
The notion of the church paying taxes is certainly not heretical. Italy – which surrounds Vatican City where the pope lives – began taxing Catholic Church property last year as a way of helping to relieve its enormous economic problems. At last check, St. Peter’s was still standing.
Further, Francis might consider selling off the artworks stored at the Vatican museum and in churches throughout the world, and the thousands upon thousands of ancient books and manuscripts in its library. The Pietá, for instance, should fetch a pretty penny, especially if the buyer is, say, a backer of Al Qaeda who can afford to smash it to pieces as soon as it is acquired.
The pope is the head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible on matters of doctrine.
When it comes to economics, however, Francis should stick to making suggestions for how to voluntarily reduce economic inequality and leave tax policy to the politicians. Perhaps he can help by offering a prayer for them. God knows, they need it.
John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Vatican correspondent and Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books, including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."