‘Obvious flight risk’: Toddler's brutal beating prompts call to withhold bail from illegal immigrants

When Francisco Javier Chavez posted bail on charges of beating a California toddler within an inch of her life in late July, there was little reason to expect the illegal immigrant, who has spent much of his adult life hopping back and forth across the Mexican border, would return to face justice.
Two weeks later, at his scheduled arraignment on Aug. 13, Chavez was a no-show. The 27-year-old career criminal had put up $10,000, or 10 percent of the amount set for his alleged crimes by California's bail schedule. His disappearance is hardly a surprise to critics who believe violent illegal immigrants are, by definition, flight risks who should be denied bail in such serious cases. They say judges, especially in border states plagued by illegal immigrant crime, are naive or worse if they expect suspects who regularly cross in and out of Mexico to take the U.S. justice system seriously.
“Frankly, judges grant bail in cases like these because they are being foolish,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer now at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “The judge can consider bail for you when you are charged with a crime, but does not have to let you out on bail. If the state can show you are a flight risk, you should not get bail. If the state can show you are a danger to the public because of a history of violence, you should not get bail.”

“Frankly, judges grant bail in cases like these because they are being foolish.”
- Hans A. von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation’

While Chavez is in the wind, his alleged victim, the 2-year-old daughter of his live-in girlfriend, is now in foster care, paralyzed from the beating that also left her with both arms and a femur broken. Well before he was arrested in San Luis Obispo County for attacking the child, Chavez had compiled a lengthy criminal record that includes assault and drug convictions and arrests for violent acts such as kidnapping, car-jacking and cruelty to a child. He was deported in February 2014, but as in previous instances, found it easy to sneak back across the border and into the U.S.
Weeks after Chavez slipped out of custody, on Sept. 1, another 2-year-old toddler named Jonathan Montez was run down and killed in San Bernardino County. Illegal immigrant Jose Enrique Vasquez, 53, an unlicensed driver who witnesses said was speeding down the child’s residential street, fled the scene, according to authorities. He was arrested two weeks later, and, like Chavez, was granted bail.
Vasquez also has compiled a lengthy criminal record under various aliases, including charges of spousal abuse, battery of a peace officer, driving without a license, driving under the influence and armed robbery. But other charges in his criminal record might have given a judge pause in considering bail according to critics, including failure to appear in court, possession of false citizenship documents and eight deportations for illegally entering the country.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Jonathan Montez was just 2 when he was run down and killed in San Bernardino County. An illegal immigrant was charged in his death.

The systems for granting bail in state courts varies from state to state. California's bail system lays out prescribed amounts for various crimes as a guideline for law enforcement and judges, but judges retain discretion to raise the amount in cases where the suspect is a flight risk or a danger to the public and the district attorney can add, drop or change the charges. Two states, Alabama and Missouri, have passed laws that preclude bail for illegal immigrants suspected of serious crimes, while judges in other states -- notably Texas -- weigh illegal status in making their decisions. But last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arizona's 2006 law banning bail for illegal immigrant suspects violated their right to due process and amounted to punishment before trial. The 11-member panel's decision called the law a "scattered attempt" to deal with the problem of chronic bail-skipping by illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the lower court's decision.
Judges everywhere maintain discretion to deny bail to anyone they believe is likely to flee justice, yet they often fail to consider illegal status as a factor, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. And critics say it should be obvious that someone here illegally and suspected of a violent crime will bolt rather than face justice, especially in border states such as California, where they can be out of the country an hour after posting bail.
“Aliens who commit acts of violence should not be released on bail, because they are clearly a danger to the public, and when we have someone with this kind of deportation history, clearly they are an obvious flight risk,” said von Spakovsky. “These judges are making mistakes granting bail to illegal aliens – reckless mistakes that endangered the public.”
The willingness of judges to grant bail to illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes compounds the ongoing controversy involving so-called sanctuary cities. Such jurisdictions, either by local statute or practice, refuse to inform federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents when an illegal immigrant is detained.
But even jurisdictions that do not implement sanctuary policies believe that two federal court rulings, the 2013 California “Trust Act,” which limits “cruel and costly immigration hold requests in local jails,” and an ambiguous White House policy all bar them from holding illegal immigrants who have posted bail until federal authorities can collect and deport them – even if ICE asks them to via what is known as a “detainer request.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued jurisdictions that attempted to honor the ICE detainers, and the Department of Justice has not intervened in the cases to underscore its support of them. As a result, local law enforcement agencies say they have no choice but to let even violent illegal immigrant suspects walk once they are granted bail.
“Yes, the judges who ignore this risk are at fault, but Congress provided ICE with a tool to address the problem -- detainers -- which the Obama administration is not allowing its officers to use,” Vaughan said.
In the cases of both Chavez and Vasquez, ICE issued detainer requests. In Chavez’s case, ICE agents did not arrive prior to bail being posted. In the case of Vasquez, ICE isn’t immediately taking custody or deporting Vasquez, so that he remains in the U.S. at least resolving the legal proceedings surrounding the hit-and-run charge.
Don Rosenberg, who, after his 25-year-old son Drew was killed by an unlicensed immigrant driver in San Francisco five years ago, began closely tracking illegal immigrant crime, said the biggest problem he sees is “people in power don’t care.” He blames judges for granting bail, but also holds law enforcement accountable for caving in to the threat of lawsuits.
“How can anyone who in law enforcement let people like this out of custody who we know will likely hurt someone badly, if not kill them, even if they are threatened with a lawsuit?” Rosenberg said. “It’s pure callous indifference. I don’t know how they live with themselves.”

Syrian Cartoon

Republican mounts uphill bid to be first Navajo in Congress

In a crowded Arizona race, one Republican quietly is trying to make history as the first Navajo elected to Congress.
His name is Shawn Redd, and he faces an uphill battle in the race for Arizona’s 1^st District House seat. Not only is he entering the GOP primary a clear underdog – in a race packed with better-known figures like local Sheriff Paul Babeu – but Navajo historically vote Democrat.
That means Redd can’t necessarily rely on their support in a primary, or a general election. As he explained to Fox News, Redd is taking a chance by running under the GOP flag.
“Republicans have been intimidated by Navajo Nation. They have been unsuccessful campaigning for votes and have given up,” Redd told Fox News. “I’m going extremely hard against the grain, because for people in the 1^st District, voting Democrat is a way of life.”
On the reservation, Redd is known as “Shawn the Republican.”
A 35-year-old small business owner born into a Navajo-Mormon family, he said many in Navajo Nation have encouraged him to run for office – just not as a Republican. But he said “that’s just not who I am.”
The congressional race opened up when Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat, announced she would challenge Republican Sen. John McCain in his quest for a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, leaving her traditionally GOP-leaning seat in Arizona’s 1^st District up for grabs.
The district is almost 25 percent Native American, and Redd claims he can pick up support from some of them.
“I know our message resonates,” he said. “With the personal relationships that I have with thousands of people among Navajo Nation and the twelve other tribes, there is no doubt that I will fracture the native vote, and if I fracture the native vote, the Democrats will not win.”
But he’d first have to win the primary. And according to Jim Small, editor of the Arizona Capitol Times, he’s an underdog with a big fight ahead.
“He’s got an uphill climb to be competitive in this race, just to put it bluntly,” Small said. “He’s an unknown running as a Republican in that district.” Small described Redd’s task as “incredibly difficult … assuming he can even raise the money to mount a credible campaign.”
Redd is running in the primary against Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu; Arizona House Speaker David Gowan; former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett; and Gary Kiehne, a 2014 candidate.
Though Redd has not held public office, he claims his legislative experience is extensive within the Tribal Council, specifically in regards to issuing license plates for Navajo Nation.
“The other candidates are established and well-accomplished,” Redd said. “But I think nationwide, the party is looking for new blood.”
Redd says he’d bridge the district’s racial divide and be a champion for economic development needed in rural Arizona.
As for Sheriff Babeu, who is a frequent commentator in the media on immigration enforcement and other issues, he’s launching his second bid for the 1^st District seat.
“I’m looking forward to a spirited race over the next year,” the sheriff told Fox News. “I will put my record as a sheriff committed to reducing crime and illegal immigration against anyone in this race. Now it’s time to send a sheriff to Congress.”
The Republican primary is not open to Democrats. So, as few in Navajo Nation are Republicans, few could actually vote in the GOP primary.
“I don’t think the Navajo Nation will be a deciding factor in the primary,” Small told Fox News. “But in the general election, they can swing it; just like they have done in the past.”

Security officials acknowledge 'risk' in admitting Syrian refugees into US

Top law enforcement and security officials cautioned Wednesday that bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees as planned carries a terror risk, with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledging background checks can only do so much and "there is no risk-free process.”
“The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process,” Johnson said at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing.
The Obama administration has committed to bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, as part of a total 85,000 worldwide refugees.
However, at the hearing on “Worldwide Threats and Homeland Security Challenges,” officials said while they are confident about their vetting process, there is a risk in terms of screening refugees who have never crossed the intelligence radar.
“If the person has not crossed our radar screen, there will be nothing to query against so we do see a risk there,” FBI Director James Comey said.
“It is not a perfect process. There is a degree of risk attached to any screening and vetting process. We look to manage that risk as best we can,” Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said.
“We may have someone who is not on our radar and someone may choose to do something bad after they get here,” Johnson said. “We can only query against what we have collected, so if someone hasn’t made a ripple in the pond, we can check our databases until the cows come home but we have no record on that person.”
However, Johnson said the system in place is “a good system,” and noted that the process also includes a personal assessment for each refugee. “It’s not just simply what’s in a public record,” Johnson said.
The testimony reflects the challenge ahead for the administration, as it tries to respond to a global refugee crisis fueled by the Syrian civil war and other conflicts. Aid groups and other governments had urged the United States to accept more refugees, who mostly have fled to neighboring Middle Eastern countries and Europe, and the administration agreed to accept more.
Republican lawmakers continued to voice concerns at Wednesday's hearing.
“My concern is that you’re relying upon them and what they say or what they write out in an application and you can’t go beyond that,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said. “So you’re having to take their word for it.”
South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan said his constituents were "very concerned about our inability to vet properly the refugees that are coming."
“I just want to encourage you all … to rethink the resettlement of refugees in this country, especially in the numbers I’m hearing," Duncan said.
Addressing the ISIS threat more generally, FBI Director Comey also said that the number of Americans going abroad to join ISIS has fallen in recent months. Comey said the FBI is aware of six Americans trying to join the group in the last three-and-a-half months, in contrast to the approximately nine each month they were seeing before that.
However, he said he could not explain the reduction, and noted the group’s use of social media has allowed them to successfully “break the model” of terror recruitment.
“ISIS has used that ubiquitous social media to break the model and push into the United States into the pocket, onto the mobile devices, on troubled souls throughout our country in all 50 states, a twin message, ‘Come or Kill,’” Comey said.

Ryan wins support of key conservative bloc for speaker run

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan gained support from a key group Wednesday night for House speaker when a supermajority of the House Freedom Caucus announced it was backing him.
In a statement, the group said Ryan "has promised to be an ideas-focused Speaker who will advance limited government principles and devolve power to the membership."
While the group held off an official endorsement of Ryan, the announcement of support could get him to officially enter the race for House speaker, and lock down the votes to win in elections next week.
Ryan said in a statement Wednesday night the move by the Freedom Caucus "is a positive step toward a unified Republican team.”
Ryan had met behind closed doors with members earlier in the day. When he left the meeting, he told reporters, “Nice meeting. We had a good chat.”
Support from the caucus was not certain, since they've repeatedly opposed GOP leaders and pushed House Speaker John Boehner to announce his resignation. Before Ryan entered the mix, the caucus previously had endorsed Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida, who said late Wednesday he was still in the running.
On Tuesday, Ryan let his Republican colleagues know that if he's to become the next House speaker, he'll do so on his own terms -- or not at all.
After initially turning down the job, the Wisconsin congressman outlined a set of significant demands that would need to be met in order for him to run:

• He wants broad support across the Republican conference, specifically the endorsement of all the major caucuses.
• He wants House rules changed to overhaul what is known as the "motion to vacate the chair" -- a parliamentary weapon members can use to try and oust a speaker.
• He wants to be able to spend time with his family, and not be on the road as much as previous speakers.

Ryan, outlining these conditions, then gave colleagues until Friday to express their views. And he made clear that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'd be "happy" to stay where he is, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
The statement put out by the House Freedom Caucus Wednesday night does not technically count as an endorsement, since members fell short of the 80 percent requirement for one. However, about two-thirds of the caucus members did come out in favor of Ryan, leading to the Wednesday night statement.
Boehner told the House Republican Conference on Wednesday that they will vote internally for speaker on Oct. 28, followed by a full floor vote on Oct. 29.
In total, Ryan or any candidate would need roughly 218 votes to win the speakership.
On Tuesday, Ryan said, "My greatest worry is the consequence of not stepping up."
He said the country is in "desperate need for leadership."
At the same time, he made clear he could back out.
"What I told the members is if you can agree to the requests, and if I can be a truly unifying figure, I'll serve," Ryan said. "And if I'm not a unifying force, that will be fine as well. I'm happy to stay where I am."
While his conditions may be steep, multiple sources told Fox News that GOP leaders and others pushed Ryan so hard that he felt he had to at least get to this point, and outline the conditions for a run.
Those same sources also say Ryan has engineered a way out if necessary, by making significant demands that are hard to meet. If Ryan ultimately does not enter the race, it's unclear who might step up to run for the job -- and more importantly, who would be able to muster 218 votes.

GOP, Democrats maneuver for position ahead of Clinton's appearance before Benghazi committee

Both the GOP and Democrats maneuvered for position ahead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's long-awaited appearance Thursday before the Benghazi panel, where she is expected to be closely quizzed about her actions during the 2012 assault in Libya that left four Americans dead.
While fireworks could erupt, Clinton will certainly try to avoid showing her frustration, as she did before a Senate panel in 2013, saying, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" referring to the motivation of the Benghazi attackers who killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.
Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy and the six other Republicans on the panel were expected to be equally measured, considering the partisan onslaught that followed House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggestion last month that their investigation had hurt Clinton’s polls numbers.
Additional comments by New York Republican Rep. Richard Henna and a GOP investigator on the committee suggesting an over-focus on Clinton has resulted in her team continuing to say the panel is a partisan tool with “zero credibility.”
Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican and former prosecutor, insists the panel has always been about getting all of the facts related to the four deaths, which includes Clinton’s actions “before, during and after” the assault.
Among the likely questions are whether she properly addressed Stevens’ email request for increased security and told U.S. military units to “stand down” during the attacks.
House Speaker John Boehner, who formed the committee in May 2014, on Tuesday defended the probe, amid accusations that it is a taxpayer waste lasting longer than the congressional Watergate investigation.
“Today, the State Department turned over 1,300 pages of printed documents from Ambassador Stevens' emails.” he told Fox News. “Today. They've been stonewalling us now for three years on giving us the documents that we need.”
He also argued Clinton was the country’s top diplomat during the attack and that the committee was set up to “get to the truth about what happened.”
Boehner, Gowdy and other House Republicans also point out that the committee discovered this spring that Clinton, as secretary of state, used a private server and email accounts for official business. They also say that repeated questions about the controversial setup are related to the attacks, not to create headlines.

Jeb Cartoon

Trump’s 9/11 sparring with Bush: The left piles on Jeb’s brother

Donald Trump’s criticism of Jeb Bush’s brother over the 9/11 attacks is resonating strongly with one group:
Liberals.
They are more than happy to seize the moment and blame George W. Bush for the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history.
Take MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who is pumped up over the Trump offensive: “The Democrats never had the stones to go out and challenge George W… because they probably felt that would be un-nice. Trump isn’t un-nice, he’s willing to be tough.”
Brad Woodhouse, a former Democratic Party spokesman, sent out an email saying “Trump is right about 9/11.” That linked to a liberal piece in the Atlantic with the same headline.
Any fair review of what happened would conclude that the Clinton and Bush administrations shared responsibility for the attacks that claimed the lives of 3,000 Americans. The intelligence failures over the al-Qaeda plot, which had been in the works for years, certainly predate Bush, who had only been in office for eight months. But it’s also true that the classified presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 warned Bush: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”—and there were other warnings as well.
In pure political terms, Trump has shifted the campaign conversation in a way that hurts Jeb. The more time that Jeb spends talking about 2001, the less time he spends talking about the future. And the more time he spends defending his brother, the more he reminds voters that he is the third Bush to seek the White House—which undermines Jeb’s “I’m my own man” theme.
This has become a Trump specialty, to jab at his rivals with a provocative comment that forces them to spend days counterpunching.
The contretemps began with a television interview on Bloomberg, when Trump said this about the 43^rd president: “I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time.”
When anchor Stephanie Ruehl objected, Trump said people could blame Bush or not, but this was a fact: “The World Trade Center came down during his reign.”
That prompted Jeb to tweet that the billionaire’s comments were “pathetic.”
Since the Trump line contradicts Jeb’s narrative that his brother “kept us safe,” Bush stepped it up on CNN’s “State of the Union,” saying Trump is not serious when it comes to foreign policy: “Does anybody actually blame my brother for the attacks on 9/11? If they do, they’re totally marginalized in our society.”
But nobody this side of the conspiracy nuts is blaming George Bush for the attacks; some are saying (which was widely reported in the following years, though little remembered now) that his administration missed important signals and that law-enforcement and intelligence agencies failed to share information.
Trump elaborated Monday’s on “Fox & Friends” and Tuesday on CNN’s “New Day,” saying his tougher approach to immigration might have kept most of the hijackers out of the country. (This is debatable, as most of them had valid student and tourist visas.)
And the new focus on what was dubbed the War on Terror enabled Trump to pivot to Iraq, saying on CNN it was “just a disastrous decision” for the former president to launch that invasion and destabilize the Middle East.
Trump also told anchor Alisyn Camerota that “they knew an attack was coming. George Tenet, the CIA director, knew in advance there would be an attack, and he said so.”
It sounded at first glance like Trump might be wading into murky waters, but the key phrase is “an attack.” Tenet was indeed worried about an al-Qaeda attack—he insisted on a meeting with Condi Rice to press the point—but he didn’t know when and where, or that planes would be hijacked.
While liberals are jumping on this Trump bandwagon, some conservatives are upset. Fox’s Dana Perino, Bush’s former press secretary, accused Trump of peddling “liberal conspiracy theories.”
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a major detractor, ran a piece titled “Trump’s 9/11 Truthing.” The headline is unfair because truthers are those who say the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.
“Mr. Trump is now trying to blunt that rebuke by distorting the truth about the hijackers and the
Osama bin Laden era…Blaming George W. Bush for the 9/11 attacks is like blaming President Obama for the recession that followed the 2008 financial panic,” the Journal says. “The rise of al Qaeda had been going on for years, and its first attack on U.S. soil was its bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.”
National Review, which is hostile to The Donald, published a column yesterday in which Jeb said Trump “echoes the attacks of Michael Moore and the fringe Left against my brother is yet another example of his dangerous views on national-security issues…
“Donald Trump simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And his bluster overcompensates for a shocking lack of knowledge on the complex national-security challenges that will confront the next president of the United States.”
‎
Perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but Mike Murphy, an 18-year Jeb adviser who runs his Super PAC, broke a long period of media silence by calling Trump “a false zombie front-runner. He’s dead politically, he'll never be president of the United States, ever. By definition I don't think you can be a front-runner if you're totally un-electable,” Murphy told Bloomberg.
So Jeb World is fully engaged. And since Bush’s interviews tend not to generate much news, maybe this has brought him more media attention than he’s gotten in weeks.
But he’s playing very much on Trump’s turf, and that has hurt. In the latest CNN poll, Trump hit 27 percent, and Bush is at 8—numbers that, however early, Jeb needs to find a way to change.