New twist in Bergdahl defense case

In the latest twist to the saga of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, his military attorney quietly reached out to the same former CIA officer who earlier this year told Fox News Bergdahl was stoned after he walked off his Afghanistan post in 2009 --but this time in an effort to help Bergdahl’s case.
Not only that, the lawyer had tried to discredit the same source in a public filing.
According to military documents, Bergdahl's defense team took aim at former CIA case officer, Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, who at the time of the 29-year-old's disappearance was running a private intelligence gathering network in Afghanistan to help locate and free Western hostages.
"Fox spared its many viewers the fact that that retiree had been indicted on seven counts of perjury and making false statements in connection with the notorious Iran-Contra scandal but was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush before his scheduled trial in federal district court," the filing states.
It neglects to mention that Bergdahl's military lawyer, LTC Franklin D. Rosenblatt, contacted Clarridge after the Fox story in June, seeking more information about the timeline of events that could be beneficial to Bergdahl.
Clarridge told Fox that according to his network of informants on the ground in Afghanistan, Bergdahl was apparently “high” with a small group of Afghan soldiers when they were picked up by nomads in 2009, and within four days, Bergdahl was sold by the nomads to the Haqqani network in Pakistan.
That information was passed through the proper military and intelligence channels. Retired Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, a former senior special operations commander who watched events unfold in 2009, said in June the information was deemed "credible" and "highly useful."
"[Operatives on the ground] had an opinion that the nomads would try and sell the soldiers probably to the Haqqanis. ... I can't say precisely, but I think it was certainly within four days and maybe less," Clarridge said, though he added the opinion was not shared by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, and the dangerous village-to-village search continued
Clarridge's account that Bergdahl was allegedly high could be used by the defense to argue he  did not intend to leave base permanently, but was unable to return after his capture by the nomads.
Credible evidence that the US military suspected Bergdahl was out of reach in Pakistan within 96 hours of his disappearance could be used to argue against the most serious charge of misbehavior before the enemy, since it has been claimed U.S. soldiers were killed or injured searching for Bergdahl.
Fox News first contacted Eugene Fidell, a civilian who is Bergdahl's lead attorney, in April about the investigation and again in June about the specific allegations his client was high after leaving base – a state the Afghans call "diwana” - and his capture by nomads. Fidell declined to comment.
Asked now about criticizing the former CIA officer, while at the same time seeking information from him about the timeline of events, and what was known by the military, Fidell did not immediately respond.
Clarridge said he stood by his original statements, which have not been publicly disputed.

Obama NLRB pushes pro-labor agenda as administration winds down

The Democrat-leaning National Labor Relations Board is pushing a pro-union agenda with a flurry of rulings ahead of the 2016 elections and a possible swing to the right, say critics.
In recent months, the board charged with conducting union elections and enforcing fair labor practices has ruled that companies must hand employee contact information over to organizers, allow workers to use company e-mail systems for union business and compressed the amount of time between initial efforts and votes on representation. It has also ruled that existing unions can organize their employers' subcontractors.
“They [NLRB] have been active in recent months,” said Trey Kovacs, a labor policy expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “And the unions have been organizing much quicker than they ever have before. It gives employees less time to make an informed decision and gives them no opportunity to opt out.”
The five-member board includes three Democrats, one Republican and one vacancy. Terms end on a staggered basis, with openings coming in each of the next two years. Appointments have been so contentious that only two slots were filled for much of President Obama's first term. After that, confirmation battles in the Republican-controlled Senate and a failed attempt by Obama to make recess appointments have left the board with a tenuous Democrat majority.
But while the seemingly pro-union rulings from the board have given Big Labor a boost, the trend among states is toward right-to-work, where employees of a unionized company do not have to join. The result has been a labor-management stalemate, with a continuing and gradual decline in overall union membership.
Rule changes the NLRB has recently enacted, including those allowing for "quick-snap" elections that can take place within days of a petition being submitted, and the mandate that companies hand over employees’ personal contact information – names, home addresses, email addresses -- have angered anti-union activists.
“Giving this information out is an open invitation for union organizers to bully, harass, and intimidate employees until they agree to support unionization,” Will Collins of the National Right to Work Foundation said.
Collins also says that the NLRB has generally made it very difficult for employees to get rid of an unwanted union once it takes root. One recent example occurred this past April, when the United Auto Workers refused to relinquish power at an NTN-Bower ball-bearing plant in Alabama. Employees had to vote five times to get rid of the UAW because the union kept taking advantage of the NLRB’s election rules to keep from getting ousted, he said.
“The NLRB has created aggressive procedures to speed up certification elections and help unions get into power, but ignores blocking charges and election bars that hinder or completely deny employees’ ability to decertify the union,” Glenn Taubman, an NRTW attorney said during his recent testimony before congress regarding these procedures.
Union membership among employed workers in the U.S. has been on a steady decline since the 1950s, when more than a quarter of the workforce was unionized. As of 2010, just over 12 percent of American workers were in a union.
Last month, the NLRB issued a new ruling that has large implications for employment arrangements that broaden the definition of employer. In what has become known as the “Browning-Ferris” ruling, theboard held that unions can organize all employees at a facility even if it employs workers from different companies. The case involved hundreds of sorters and other workers at a landfill and recycling center in Milpitas, Calif. by outsourcing firm Leadpoint. Only 60 employees were under a union contact with the facility's operator and owner Republic, but the ruling allowed the local union to organize all workers, including those outsourced—despite Republic officials maintaining that they had no authority over workers from Leadpoint.
Collins points out that the NLRB has also spent the past two years trying to implement biased notice posting rules that would have required businesses to post information with emphasis on employees’ rights to join or organize a union while downplaying their rights to refrain from union membership and opt out of paying dues for union politics.
“Although these rules were eventually struck down in court, the fact that they were promulgated in the first place points to the NLRB’s pro-organizing agenda,” Collins said.
Officials for the NLRB did not immediately return requests for comment.
And it seems as if the state politicians on the left are helping to bolster the NLRB’s efforts.
As recently as Wednesday, lawmakers in Missouri voted not to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s June veto of right-to-work legislation, which the Democrat governor called “a threat to unionized workers and wages.” The bill would have made Missouri the 26th state to enact the legislation.
Kovacs maintains that if Missouri were granted right-to-work status, employee income and the state economy would have benefited greatly, adding that from 1977 to 2012, Missouri’s estimated per capita income loss linked to not having RTW laws was $3,040, altogether making the total of estimated income loss in the state over $18.3 billion.
“In failing to override the governor’s veto, Missouri lawmakers lost a chance to make history and dealt a devastating blow to worker freedom in favor of special interests and Big Labor,” Kovacs told FoxNews.com.

More than 20 students at Virginia high school suspended for wearing Confederate flag on clothing

More than 20 western Virginia high school students were suspended Thursday after holding a rally to protest a new policy banning vehicles with Confederate flag symbols from the school parking lot and refusing to take off clothing displaying the symbol.
Christiansburg High School Senior Houston Miller, who organized the rally, said he doesn't believe the administration should be able to tell students what they can wear or put on their vehicle. He said he doesn't intend to back down and is encouraging more students to show their support for the flag Friday.
"I feel like I should have the right to wear whatever I want, and I'm standing up for this," Miller said.
The dress code at the school in Christiansburg — south of Blacksburg along Interstate 81 — prohibits students from wearing articles that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender, or other factors. A new policy this fall bans students from having Confederate symbols on their vehicles in the parking lot.
Confederate symbols have come under increased public scrutiny since the June 17 massacre of nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Roof, the white man charged in the slayings, had been photographed holding the Confederate battle flag.
The 21 students who refused to remove their Confederate flag clothing were initially given in-school suspensions, said Brenda Drake, a spokeswoman for Montgomery County Public Schools. But 15 of them were sent home for the day after being loud and disruptive. Another two students were suspended for additional days.
Drake said the school values the students' First Amendment rights but has to maintain a safe and orderly environment. She said "incidents of racial tension" at the school have made the ban necessary but did not specify what the incidents were and didn't immediately respond to further requests for comment.
Of the school's 1,100 students, 83 percent are white and 8 percent are black, state data show.
"We are not issuing a judgment on the flag, but know that not allowing it at CHS supports a peaceful educational environment in the building," Drake said in a statement. "Continued racial friction suggests that lifting the ban of this particular symbol would cause significant disruption at the school."
Senior Morgan Willis attended the rally but decided to comply with the rules because she feared a suspension would prevent her from representing the school at an event this weekend. She had a Confederate flag draped across the top of her car until she was told on the first day of class to remove it, she said.
Willis said that for her and for other students, the flag is central to their Southern heritage.
"I understand some people take it as hate, but none of us out there were racist or anything," Willis said. "I don't see it as hate. If I did, I wouldn't own it. I see it as this is your Southern heritage, and if you can't have that, then what can you have?"
The new policy regarding Confederate flags on cars has also angered some parents, including Josh Akers, whose child attends the grade school in the school district. He started an online petition that has more than 1,200 supporters urging the school board to reverse the policy.
Richmond-based Attorney Jonathan Arthur said he has been talking to some of the students about potentially filing a lawsuit against the school, arguing that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to wear clothing emblazoned the flag.
Douglas Mertz, an attorney in Juneau, Alaska, who works on civil rights cases, said the courts have been divided over the issue. It often comes down to whether the school can point to concrete and specific problems that the symbol has caused, like a fight that broke out between students.
"The Supreme Court has said that you don't speculate that there might be a substantial impact on the education process. It has got to be really clear," Mertz said. "School officials can't simply go in with the belief that symbols are trouble and therefore can be banned," he said.

Marines reportedly will ask to keep some combat jobs closed to women

The Marine Corps reportedly will ask to keep several front-line combat jobs closed to women, bucking the trend being followed by the other three military services.
The Associated Press, citing U.S. officials, reported Friday that the Corps' tentative decision has ignited tension between Navy and Marine leaders and raised a debate over whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus can veto any Marine Corps proposal to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions.
The AP reported that no final decision had been made or presented to Marine leaders, but officials say Defense Secretary Ash Carter is aware of the dispute and intends to review the Marine plan.
The report comes nine days after the Marines released a study that found that all-male infantry units performed at a higher-level than units with women in them. Specifically, the study found that the all-male units moved faster, shot more accurately, could carry more weight and suffered fewer injuries than gender-integrated units. The injuries suffered by female Marines included stress fractures that likely resulted from carrying heavy loads.
The report did acknowledge that "female Marines have performed superbly in the combat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan and are fully part of the fabric of a combat-hardened Marine Corps after the longest period of continuous combat operations in the Corps' history."
But the report also pointed to the 25-year-old report by a presidential commission on women in the armed forces that concluded: "Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."
The ongoing divide has put Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford in the spotlight as he prepares to take over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff next week. And it puts him in a somewhat awkward position of eventually having to review and pass judgment -- as chairman -- on a waiver request that he submitted himself while serving as Marine commandant.
Officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force are expected to allow women to serve in all combat jobs and will not ask Carter for any exceptions. They say that Special Operations Command is also likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs -- including the Navy SEALs -- though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Mabus on Monday made his position clear.
"I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines, and it's not going to make them any less fighting effective," he said, adding that the Navy SEALs also will not seek any waivers. "I think they will be a stronger force because a more diverse force is a stronger force. And it will not make them any less lethal."
Mabus' comments angered Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who has asked Carter in a letter to demand Mabus' resignation because he "openly disrespected the Marine Corps as an institution, and he insulted the competency of Marines by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership."
Hunter, who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Mabus' comments raise questions about whether he can be objective and continue to lead the Marine Corps. And he said Mabus should have no role in any decisions about women in the Marine Corps.
Mabus, however, told the City Club of Cleveland that the Marine study relied on averages -- such as the average woman can't carry as much or perform as quickly as a man.
"The other way to look at it is we're not looking for average," said Mabus. "There were women that met this standard, and a lot of the things there that women fell a little short in can be remedied by two things: training and leadership."
Under the current plan, the service chiefs will present their plans to the service secretaries, who will then forward recommendations to Carter. He will make the final decisions by the end of the year.
If Dunford does seek the exception, it puts the new Joint Chiefs chairman at odds with public statements by Carter asserting that anyone, regardless of gender, who meets the standards and requirements for a job should be allowed to do it.
Women make up less than 8 percent of the Marine Corps, the smallest percentage across the four active-duty services.
The services have been slowly integrating women into previously male-only roles, including as Army artillery officers and sailors on Navy submarines. Adding to the debate was the groundbreaking graduation last month of two women in the Army's grueling Ranger course.
In January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order wiping away generations of limits on women fighting for their country, ordering a quarter-million positions open regardless of gender. They called for sweeping reviews of the physical requirements for combat jobs and gave the military services until January 2016 to argue if any positions should remain closed to women.

Graham plays elder statesmen, Jindal lashes out at congressional GOP, in second tier debate

Struggling to break out of the pack, the second tier candidates did not shy away from testy exchanges during the undercard GOP debate Wednesday, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, who positioned himself as the elder statesmen, often chiding his fellow candidates for taking unrealistic positions on domestic policy.
In an exchange with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal over whether congressional Republicans should shut down the government if Democrats refused to defund Planned Parenthood, the South Carolina senator said they needed to be “honest” with the American people.
“One thing I’m not going to do is shut down the government, like what you are saying and what (candidate and Senator) Ted Cruz is saying, and I’m sick of it,” Graham said.
Graham, while maintaining his strong stance on the issues of Iran, Syria, Russia and Islamic extremism, appeared to take a more pragmatic tone on immigration and working with Democrats, often delivering frank one-liners and looking comfortable in his role as an experienced senator who has been there, done that, in Washington. At one point he suggested more drinking with each other, and less sniping, would move things further in Washington. “Absolutely I want to work with (Democrats),”he said.
Aware that this might be the last time they will be able to make a national impression, the four were not afraid to argue among themselves on the finer points of the issues of immigration, whether or not county clerk Kim Davis should be fired for not providing marriage licenses for same sex marriages, minimum wage, and front runner Donald Trump.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum compared Davis to a martyr Wednesday night at the CNN sponsored debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. “People have the fundamental right of the first amendment,” he said. “How many clerks are we going to throw in jail because (they say) ‘I am not going to violate my faith?’”
He responded to an earlier charge by former New York Gov. Pataki that Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, should have been fired for not upholding the rule of law because she did not agree with it.
“We doing to have a president who defies the Supreme Court?” he said.
“If they’re wrong,” Santorum shot back. “I would argue that what the Supreme Court is against God’s law, it’s against natural law,” and therefore an unjust law.
The four also sparred on dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country today. In a testy exchange, Graham said that sending them all back to their home country was unrealistic, and challenged Santorum’s assertion that he introduced tough legislation to curb illegal immigration when he was in office.
“It went nowhere,” charged Graham, suggesting that immigration reform should start with deporting criminals and assimilating the rest. He stopped short of supporting allowing babies born in the U.S. to become automatic citizen. He did say that the country will need workers in the future – legal ones.
“We’re going to need more legal immigration, so let’s just make it logical. Let’s do it logically,” he said.
Even though he was not in the room, billionaire Donald Trump still got full attention in the first five minutes of the debate.
When asked if Jindal has broken Ronald Reagan’s commandment of not attacking other Republicans by attacking GOP frontrunner Trump in the press, he said simply, Let stop treating Donald trump like a republican –he’s not a conservative,” he said. He doesn’t believe in anything, he said. “He believes in Donald Trump.”
Santorum said it was wrong to continue the infighting.
“I think these attacks please one person – Hillary Clinton,” said “I don’t think it helps when Republicans attack Republicans personally.”
Santorum emerged holding the mantle for working people, supporting a hike in the minimum wage, which Graham said would kill jobs in his own state. Santorum, taking the opposite stand than most in his party, said it would only lift working people, and in the end, the economy. “They work for a living, they are wage earners,” he said. "How are we going to win if 90 percent of American people don't think we care for them?"
Where there was little disagreement is on the Iran nuclear deal, with all four believe should be killed. They accused President Obama of falling down on the job in the fight against ISIS and against radicalization at home. Jindal blamed Obama for the refugee crisis. “We cannot draw a line between this refugee crisis and the president’s failed foreign policy. The way to solve this problem is, to be clear, replace (Syrian president Bashar) Assad and to destroy ISIS.”
While Graham capitalized on his role of senior senator, other embraced the role as outsider. Jindal said he was more disappointed in congressional Republicans than in Obama and the democrats, "who actually fight for what they believe in."
"I wish the Senate Republicans had half the fight in them as the House does," he said regarding the debate over Planned Parenthood. "If we cant defund Planned Parenthood now after these barbaric videos, it is time to get rid of the Republican Party."
Missing from the August stage are former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who is the only second-tier veteran to poll well enough to move up to the main event; ex-Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has since dropped out of the race, and Jim Gilmore, who isn’t even registering in the polls and didn’t qualify for either debate.
All four GOP candidates are polling at less than 1 percent in the latest Real Clear politics average. Of them, Santorum is doing the best with 0.8, followed by Jindal with 0.5 and Graham with 0.3 percent.
This is a make or break situation for these men, said Sean Evans, politics professor at Union University in Tennessee. “This is the last best chance they have and I think this will be the last undercard debate,” he told Foxnews.com before the debate began. The goal is to be the Carly Fiorina, the one who can get everyone talking, so they get more media coverage and increase their fundraising so they can get into the next (primetime) debate. If not, their campaign is basically over.”
It’s not as if these candidates weren’t trying on their own to get noticed. In a recent appearance at the National Press Club, Jindal lashed out a front runner Donald Trump, calling him a narcissist and egomanic. He later wrote in a CNN op-ed that Trump is “a madman who must be stopped.” Trump responded by saying he only “responds to “people that register more than 1 percent in the polls.”
Trump, who analysts predict will be the man to beat at the later debate, is leading all of the national polls, followed closely by surgeon Ben Carson.
While the undercard debate might be constructive, Evans warned that these men were against 15 other candidates who were just as qualified, but who have the advantage of being a few points or more up in the polls.
“It only makes sense that these numbers will winnow down over time,” he said. “The undercard people don’t really have a place to move forward.”
“Their campaigns might move forward,” he predicted, “but they will be dead men walking.”

Guess which ABC show will feature full frontal nudity?

The other day I hopped off the R Train underneath the Fox News Corner of the World and came face to face with a poster promoting ABC’s new interpretation of “The Muppets.”
There, in all his glory, was Kermit the Frog – touting an “adult” version of the beloved children’s show.
“Finally. A network tv show with full frontal nudity,” the poster read.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a Must-Read for Conservatives!

I suspect it’s going to shock a lot of moms and dads when they discover that the family-friendly Muppets of the 1970s are no more.

Technically, the advertisement is correct – seeing how Kermit doesn’t wear pants. I mean, what self-respecting frog would wear Chinos?
Still, I suspect it’s going to shock a lot of moms and dads when they discover that the family-friendly Muppets of the 1970s are no more.
 “It’s sort of an adult Muppet show,” Kermit the Frog said during a promotional video for the show.
The mature version of “The Muppets” will cover a range of `topics from sex and drugs to interspecies relationships, The Daily Mail reports. 
“No subject is off limits,” one show source told the newspaper. “Everyone remembers the classic Jim Henson Muppet Show of the 1970s and 1980s, but this new show is aimed firmly at a mature, modern audience and addresses subjects that would have been taboo in the past.”
One story line features Fozzie Bear involved in a relationship with a human. The woman’s father asks about what would happen if they had children.
“Where will they go to the bathroom…in the woods?” the father asks.
“That is an offensive stereotype,” Fozzie fired back.
Cue the laugh track.
In this new telling of the Muppets, Kermit and Miss Piggy have broken up and Kermit is dating a curvy new oinker named Denise. 
“What can I say?” Kermit says in one promo. “I’m attracted to pigs.”
And then there’s Time Magazine’s faux interview with “international celebrity” Miss Piggy, titled, “Is Monogamy Over? Breaking Up With Kermit Made Me Wonder.”
Conservative writer (and Fox News contributor) Erick Erickson reminded his readers that Miss Piggy came out as a pro-choice feminist during an MSNBC interview.
“At a time more and more parents are concerned about family oriented television, we get a puppet character loved by kids weighing in on abortion and monogamy – both to the left and on the leftwing MSNBC,” Erickson wrote.
ABC hopes children watch the show and predicted they would enjoy some of the humor. But I’m not so sure about that.
How many parents want to explain the punchline of the interspecies dating scene to their five-year-old?
However, if the adult version of “The Muppets” is successful, don’t be surprised to see the edgy side of other cartoon characters.
I could foresee a made-for-television drama about Wile E. Coyote serving hard time for the attempted murder of Road Runner. Or how about a reality series based on Daffy Ducky’s time in a mental institution?
And Lifetime should be all over the heart-pounding miniseries, “I Married a Rabbit: The Elmer Fudd Story.”
After folks have a chance to watch the first episode of these progressive and politically-charged Muppets – I suspect a lot of viewers will feel like Muppet Sam the Eagle.
Sam once uttered these prophetic words:
“Following that last piece of material, I am disassociating myself from this whole, weird, sick show.”

Elusive crime wave data shows frightening toll of illegal immigrant criminals

The federal government can tell you how many "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders" stole a car, the precise number of "American Indian or Alaska Natives" who were arrested for vagrancy or how many whites were busted for counterfeiting in any given year. But the government agencies that crunch crime numbers are utterly unable -- or unwilling -- to pinpoint for the public how many illegal immigrants are arrested within U.S. borders each year.
In the absence of comprehensive data, FoxNews.com examined a patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life. The explosive figures show illegal immigrants are three times as likely to be convicted of murder as members of the general population and account for far more crimes than their 3.5-percent share of the U.S. population would suggest. Critics say it is no accident that local, state and federal governments go to great lengths to keep the data under wraps.
"There are a lot of reasons states don’t make this information readily available, and there is no clearinghouse of data at high levels," said former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams, who has conducted exhaustive research on the subject. "These numbers would expose how serious the problem is and make the government look bad.”

“They should have been sent back to their home country instead of being allowed to stay here and have the opportunity to kill Americans.”
- Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies

Adams called illegal immigrant crime a "wave of staggering proportions." He and other experts noted that the issue has been dragged into the spotlight by a spate of cases in which illegal immigrants with criminal records killed people after being released from custody because of incoherent procedures and a lack of cooperation between local and federal law enforcement officials. The murders, including the July 1 killing of Kathryn Steinle, allegedly by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, have left grieving loved ones angry and confused, local and federal officials pointing fingers at one another and the voting public demanding secure borders and swift deportation of non-citizen criminals.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

San Francisco shooting suspect Francisco Sanchez and victim Kathryn Steinle are shown in this composite photo. (Associated Press)

“Every one [of the recent cases] was preventable through better border security and enforcing immigration laws,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “They should have been sent back to their home country instead of being allowed to stay here and have the opportunity to kill Americans.”
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement told FoxNews.com that comprehensive statistics on illegal immigrant crime are not available from the federal government, and suggested contacting county, state and federal jail and prison systems individually to compose a tally, a process that would encompass thousands of local departments.
FoxNews.com did review reports from immigration reform groups and various government agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and several state and county correctional departments. Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Critics say better border security is needed to keep illegal immigrants out, but those caught committing crimes here must be imprisoned and deported. (AP) (Reuters)

There are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.
In the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals are being deported. In 2014, ICE removed 315,943 criminal illegal immigrants nationwide, 85 percent of whom had previously been convicted of a criminal offense. But that same year, ICE released onto U.S. streets another 30,558 criminal illegal immigrants with a combined 79,059 criminal convictions including 86 homicides, 186 kidnappings, and thousands of sexual assaults, domestic violence assaults and DUIs, Vaughan said. As of August, ICE had already released at least 10,246 criminal aliens.
David Inserra, a policy analyst for Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at The Heritage Foundation, said letting illegal immigrants convicted of crimes go free while they await deportation hearings is putting the public at risk.
“While it is not certain how many of these individuals were here illegally, most of these individuals were in deportation proceedings and should have been detained or at least more closely supervised and monitored until their deportation order was finalized and executed,” Inserra said.
Adams opened a rare window into the dearth of public data when he obtained an internal report compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety and revealed its contents on his Pajamas Media blog. The report showed that between 2008 and 2014, noncitizens in Texas -- a group that includes illegal and legal immigrants -- committed 611,234 crimes, including nearly 3,000 homicides. Adams told FoxNews.com that other states have also closely tracked illegal immigrant crime, especially in the wake of 9/11, but said the statistical sorting “is done behind closed doors.” States closely guard the statistics out of either fear of reprisals from the federal government or out of their leaders' own insistence on downplaying the burden of illegal immigrant crime, he said.
"There are a lot of reasons states don’t make this information readily available and there is no clearinghouse of data at high levels," Adams said. "These numbers would expose how serious the problem is and make the government look bad."

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, (l.), and Jose Fernando Villagomez, (r.), allegedly broke into the home of Marilyn Pharis on July 24. (Santa Maria Police Department)

A smattering of statistics can be teased out of data made public in other states heavily impacted by illegal immigration, although a full picture or apples-to-apples comparison remains elusive.
■ In Florida, there were 5,061 illegal immigrant inmates in state prison facilities as of June 30, but neither the state Department of Corrections nor the Florida Department of Law Enforcement track the number in county prisons, spokesmen for those agencies told FoxNews.com.
■ In Illinois, where state prisons house 46,993 inmates, some 3,755 are illegal immigrants, according to Illinois Department of Corrections figures. Once again, state officials do not compile figures for county jails, although a Cook County official estimated that nearly 6 percent were illegal immigrants.
■ In Arizona, neither state public safety officials nor the governor’s office could produce figures showing the number of criminal illegal immigrants held in county jails, but state prison figures released by the Arizona Department of Corrections show out of 42,758 prisoners held in state facilities in July, about 10.8 percent were illegal immigrants.
■ In California, there were 128,543 inmates in custody as of Aug. 12, but the state, which has been criticized for its leniency toward illegal immigrants, no longer keeps track of the citizenship status of inmates. As of July 31, 2013, the last time figures were documented, there were as many as 18,000 “foreign-born” citizens in California state prisons of 133,000 incarcerated. The Board of State and Community Corrections provided figures to Fox News from 2014, showing there were 142,000 inmates in 120 county prisons, but while everything from mental health cases to dental and medical appointments are closely tracked, the number of illegal aliens -- or even non citizens -- is not.
“Frankly, this is something every state should track, but they don’t. Not even ICE publishes this much information on offenders and immigration status,” Vaughan said.
Several pro-immigration groups contacted by FoxNews.com declined to comment on the outsize role illegal immigrants play in the U.S. criminal justice system. One group that did insisted that even illegal immigrants provide a net benefit to the U.S.
“Immigrants, regardless of their legal status, make valuable contributions to our economy as workers, business owners, taxpayers and consumers,” said Erin Oshiro, of Asian Americans Advancing Justice. “We need an immigration system that that keeps families together, protects workers, and prioritizes due process and human rights."

Round 2: GOP rivals try to ding Trump at debate – front-runner hits back

Donald Trump once again found himself the lightning rod of the Republican presidential race Wednesday, as he tangled with a debate stage full of rivals trying to position themselves as the best alternative to the GOP front-runner.
The second Republican primary debate veered into serious policy territory – covering everything from Iran to Russia to Planned Parenthood to immigration. But, at times to the visible frustration of candidates trying to stick to those issues, few segments passed without a sparring session between Trump and one of his opponents. Almost every time, Trump hit back – and it was unclear whether any candidate would be able to dent his front-runner status.
The candidate perhaps most eager to knock the billionaire businessman down a peg was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who lost his lead to Trump over the summer. Repeatedly, Bush challenged Trump on his record and past comments.
He told Trump to apologize to his wife for suggesting her being from Mexico makes Bush more sympathetic to Mexicans – Trump refused.
LIVE BLOG: THE REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE
He accused Trump of once giving him money as he sought casino gambling, unsuccessfully, in Florida.

More on this...

• Debate expectations for Republican presidential hopefuls

Trump denied it, and when Bush criticized Trump for bragging about demanding Hillary Clinton attend his wedding, Trump teased him, saying: “More energy tonight, I like that.” (Bush answered back at the end of the debate – asked what his Secret Service codename would be, Bush said, “Very High Energy, Donald,” and the two shared a high-five.)
Trump also blamed Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, for President Obama’s election.
“It was such a disaster those last few months that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected,” Trump said.
Bush responded that his brother “kept us safe.” Trump answered, “You feel safe right now?”
Some of the most heated exchanges at the CNN debate also came between Trump and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, both business leaders.
After Trump called her former company a “disaster,” she cited his repeated bankruptcy filings and questioned why America should trust him to manage its finances.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie interjected and said middle-class Americans “could care less about your careers.” He told the two to “stop this childish back and forth.”
Fiorina also got her chance at the debate to respond to Trump’s controversial jab at her, where in a magazine article he said: “Look at that face – would anyone vote for that?”
Asked to respond, she said, “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”
Fiorina received loud applause for the line, and Trump added, “I think she’s got a beautiful face, and I think she’s a beautiful woman.”
Despite all the attention on Trump, his dominant lead in the polls means his rivals may be battling at this stage for runner-up, for now.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson currently holds that status after vaulting into second place in the polls – yet was able to avoid the fray for most of Wednesday’s debate.
He took one light-hearted jab at Trump, after Trump discussed his views on vaccines and said there are cases of children getting sick – and having autism – after getting them.
Asked about Trump’s medical opinion, Carson said, “He’s an okay doctor” – in reference to a comment Trump recently made about him. Carson went on to say there’s no documented association between autism and vaccines, but doctors are probably giving too many vaccines in a short period of time.
After the exchange about George W. Bush, Carson also noted that he did not want Bush to “go to war” in Iraq. He added that radical jihadists now are an “existential threat to our nation” and leaders can’t “put our heads in the sand.”
Aside from the sparring with Trump, the candidates did have a chance to stake out their positions on a range of policy issues.
Fiorina, in an impassioned moment in the debate, appealed to Congress to defund Planned Parenthood following videos exposing organ harvesting from aborted fetuses.
“This is about the character of our nation. And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us,” she said.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee slammed a federal judge for temporarily jailing Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, saying the U.S. has made religious “accommodations” for Guantanamo detainees and the Fort Hood shooter, but Davis is facing a “criminalization of her faith.”
And Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said of the agreement with Tehran, “I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich urged against going that far.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also focused on foreign policy, warning about China’s military build-up, and “gangsters in Moscow” meddling on the world stage.
On this, Rubio challenged Trump’s global affairs knowledge. Trump vowed, “I will know more about the problems of this world” as president. And he criticized Rubio for missing votes.
Trump’s fitness to be commander-in-chief was a common theme for his rivals.
Fiorina said, when asked if she’s comfortable with Trump controlling America’s nuclear weapons: “I think Mr. Trump is a wonderful entertainer.” She said “judgment” and “temperament” will be revealed “over time and under pressure” in the race.
Trump answered: “I may be an entertainer. … but I will tell you this. What I am far and away greater than an entertainer is a businessman.”
Trump also went after Sen. Rand Paul, saying he shouldn’t even be on the stage.
“There’s a sophomoric quality that is entertaining about Mr. Trump,” Paul answered, but he added he’s concerned about him being in charge of nuclear weapons. Paul chastised Trump for his “visceral response,” including attacking people on their appearance which he likened to “junior high.”
Trump said he never did that to Paul, quipping: “Believe me there’s plenty of subject matter right there.”
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also zinged Trump, saying: “We don’t need an apprentice in the White House. We have one right now.”
Walker and Bush have both seen their polling numbers drop in recent weeks as Trump, and now Carson, have risen. Walker is trying to refocus his campaign on his record as governor, and record battling labor unions; the latter issue did not surface much during Wednesday’s debate, though. In his closing remarks, Walked vowed that as a leader, “I won’t back down any day, any way, anyhow.”
An unexpected clash also broke out at the end, when Paul made a veiled reference to Bush having smoked marijuana years ago as Paul challenged federal marijuana policy.
Bush acknowledged Paul was talking about him and said: “40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it.”
Paul then claimed people with “privilege” don’t go to jail for marijuana, but others do.
The main stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Wednesday night featured the 11 top-polling candidates. It followed an earlier undercard debate of four lower-polling candidates.
Fiorina, while rising in the polls, is still averaging just over 3 percent nationally, according to RealClearPolitics. Bush, once the front-runner, is at about 8 percent. Walker is down to 3 percent. Cruz and Rubio remain in the middle of the pack, trailing slightly behind Bush.
But with Carson and Trump attracting the support of roughly half of primary voters, the other 14 candidates are fighting for relative scraps. Trump’s national lead now tops 30 percent.
At the earlier undercard debate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., tangled often with his GOP rivals, positioning himself as an experienced, practical lawmaker not beholden to conservative activist causes. He focused squarely on the need to defeat radical Islamic terrorists, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal focused at that debate on religious freedom issues.