Trump’s asylum action will help ease the border crisis

by Washington Examiner  | July 16, 2019 10:44 PM

This week, the Trump administration continued its efforts to bring order to the southern border by imposing new rules on the asylum-seeking process. This is what was needed.

On Monday, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced that migrants wanting to claim asylum in the U.S. must first do so in either their home country or another country before coming to the U.S. Under the new rule, anyone who crosses illegally into the U.S. to claim asylum, without having already applied from outside, would be ineligible.

Word has gotten out south of Texas that anyone hoping to flee violence or poverty in their own country need touch American soil, find a Border Patrol agent, and turn oneself in, requesting asylum. The vast majority of migrants who do this are breaking the law when they float the short distance across the Rio Grande and come ashore without authorization. But that crime is effectively canceled out the moment they say “asylum.” Moreover, 90% of the time, the asylum claim, no matter how frivolous, grants them the right to remain in the country while they await a court hearing that may not come for up to five years.

That is an abuse of American generosity intended to offer refuge for people abroad genuinely fearing for their lives and persecuted by their governments.

 

We understand why these men and women from Latin America want to be in the U.S. Ours is the land of opportunity, and many of our neighbor countries lack the capitalist economies and robust property rights needed to provide such opportunity.

But the asylum law was not supposed to be an invitation to unlimited economic migration. But that is how the law is currently functioning, with Central Americans making their way here by the tens of thousands every month. They have learned exactly how to push the system’s buttons in order to secure long-term permission to be inside the U.S., and this is why detention centers near the border are overflowing.

Congress has shown no sense of urgency to fix the problem. Democrats oppose every measure to halt or even reduce the gush of migrants crossing into the U.S., many of them deathly ill from the arduous, 2,000-mile journey from their home countries.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that the administration’s new directive violates the law and will be “swiftly and successfully challenged in court.” This, even though just last week the California Democrat signaled that she could support “initiatives” that would more or less do what the new rule does.

At a press conference on Thursday, Pelosi said, “There are some initiatives that suggest that some review of asylum-seekers’ status could be done in [their] country instead of traveling here, and that’s one thing that I think would be appealing to the administration.” She even said that it wouldn’t be a matter of having to “change the law.” This makes her new objections seem puzzling.

The White House has issued other rules for asylum-seekers crossing illegally into the U.S., such as requiring them to pay a fee and denying them work permits until their claim is approved. Some of the new directives are already in effect and some are not. Even so, it is important that the administration take every action it can to stop this law’s abuse, at least until the flow at the border reaches a manageable level.

There are too many people coming into the country at once seeking refuge. It’s straining the resources of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It has created a crisis at the border, and it is literally putting more lives in danger. We have long called on Trump to take action on this within the law and to get Congress involved as much as he can. This action is a step in the right direction.

— Read on www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/trumps-asylum-action-will-help-ease-the-border-crisis

Trump is winning on Immigration

The Monitor | COMMENTARY | Scott Martelle

Trump winning on immigration

Two down, one to go.

Federal judges in three separate circuits issued injunctions — two nationwide, one limited to the 9th Circuit — against President Trump’s pending “public charge” rule, which would make immigrants ineligible for green cards if they sign up for certain public benefits.

On Monday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., joined fellow jurists in the San Francisco based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in lifting injunctions after the federal government persuaded them that it likely had the legal authority to adopt the new restrictions.

That leaves the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which is mulling an appeal of a nationwide injunction issued in October by a district court in New York City, as the last barrier.

The lower court decisions hinged on complaints by immigrant advocates and several state attorneys general (including California) that the government violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by adopting an “arbitrary and capricious” policy that exceeded its authority under immigration law. But two appellate courts now say the government likely had the authority to do what it did.

Even if that is true, that doesn’t make the new rule good policy. Much like the government’s effort to require potential immigrants to prove they could cover anticipated health care costs (that also has been held up in the courts), the public charge rule is clearly aimed at reducing the number of poor people admitted to the country and increasing the ranks of the wealthy. You know, fewer people from those infamous “s—-hole countries” in Africa, South American and the Caribbean, and more from wealthier nations in Europe, such as Trump expressed favorite, Norway (good luck with that, as my colleague Paul Thornton once pointed out).

In typical fashion, the White House used the Monday decision as a point of attack.

“The 4th Circuit’s lifting of the lawless nationwide injunction imposed against the administration’s public charge immigration regulation is a major step forward

for the rule of law,” the White House said. “It is our hope that the 2nd Circuit will, like the 9th and 4th Circuits have already done, lift the meritless nationwide injunction a New York district court has imposed against the rule so that it can be enforced, consistent with the plain letter of the law, for the benefit of all citizens and lawful residents of this country.”

But the “public charge” rule is not a benefit to all. It makes life tougher for people who have already immigrated and who are hoping to be joined by their families — allowed under decades of U.S. policy — and it counters our national economic interest.

As The Times editorial board wrote in September when the proposed rule surfaced: “The government estimates that the new regulations would negatively affect 382,000 people, but advocates say that is likely an undercount. And the rules would keep people from coming to the country who economists say are vital for the nation’s future economic growth. President Trump’s xenophobic view of the world stands in sharp contradiction not only to American values, but to the nation’s history. We are a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and as a maturing society we will rely more and more on immigration for economic growth. Research shows that even those who start out in low-wage jobs, and thus are likely to get some financial help from the government, often, over time, learn or improve skills that move them into higher income brackets and help the overall economy.”

So in the administration’s efforts to reduce immigration of all stripes, it continues to push policies that appease Trump’s narrowing base while working against our collective national interest.

Scott Martelle is a member of the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board.

Martelle

In 2013, Castro Praised Obama ‘Enforcement’ on Immigration

‘Everyone agrees that we need to secure our border’

By David Rutz | The Washington Beacon | Sep. 16, 2019

https://freebeacon.com/issues/in-2013-castro-praised-obama-enforcement-on-immigration-called-open-borders-extreme/

2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro (D.) has one of the most liberal platforms in the field on immigration, but in 2013 he strongly backed Obama-era immigration policies and said the notion of “open borders” was too extreme to consider.

Castro, the former Obama Housing and Urban Development chief, has set a far-left marker for the 2020 primary candidates on immigration. He has called for decriminalization of illegal border crossings, taking down some sections of existing border barriers, and providing free health care to illegal immigrants, the Texas Tribune reported.

Castro attacked other candidates in the field as insufficiently progressive on the issue, including former Vice President Joe Biden at last week’s debate, when left-wing journalist Jorge Ramos challenged Biden on the Obama administration’s deportation of three million illegal immigrants.

Castro, who drew criticism for attacking Biden’s memory in the same debate, accused Biden of being unwilling to take responsibility for the deportation policies despised by liberals.

But as mayor of San Antonio, Castro lauded the Obama administration’s “enforcement” of immigration law during questioning by House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) on Feb. 5, 2013.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to them unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to them unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“That’s a great question,” Castro said. “I do believe that enforcement, both in terms of active enforcement on our borders—and under this administration there has been tremendous progress with regard to enforcement. In fact, the triggers in the 2007 proposal have just about all been met. But going forward, of course, enforcement is part of the conversation.”

“Both in terms of border security and interior security, comprehensive immigration reform gives us the opportunity to make this work better at every single juncture,” he added later.

“Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and a pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?” Goodlatte asked.

“Well, let me say that I do believe that a pathway to citizenship should be the option that the Congress selects,” Castro said. “I don’t see that as an extreme option. In fact, as one of the representatives pointed out, if we look at our history, generally what we found is that Congress over time has chosen that option, that path to citizenship. I would disagree with the characterization of that as the extreme. The extreme, I would say, just to fill that out, would be open borders. Nobody agrees with open borders. Everyone agrees that we need to secure our border.”

Castro now refers to the idea of “open borders” as a “right-wing talking point,” but former Obama Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson used that phrase in June to describe Castro’s position on decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” Johnson said. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

Castro spokesman Sawyer Hackett told the Texas Tribune Castro was not demonstrating support for all of Obama’s policies during his testimony in 2013.

“He was applauding the administration’s effort to prioritize immigration enforcement, not their efforts to deport mass numbers of immigrants,” Hackett said.

Castro resigned the mayoralty in 2014 upon joining the Obama administration at HUD. He is considered a long shot for the Democratic nomination, but leading candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) share his position on decriminalization of illegal border crossings.

House Republicans demand details on Dems’ mysterious trips to Mexico | Fox News

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are calling on their Democratic colleagues to provide more details about a series of trips taken into Mexico while staff were touring border detention facilities – amid reports that at least one Democrat has been involved in “coaching” migrants there on how to exploit U.S. immigration law.
— Read on www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-trips-to-mexico-democrats

In a letter to Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., obtained by Fox News, ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said there were at least two committee staff trips into Mexico in August — one of which required Border Patrol agents to provide a special escort back into the U.S.

DHS BARS DEM STAFFERS FROM VISITING BORDER FACILITIES AFTER ‘RUDE’ AND ‘DISRUPTIVE’ BEHAVIOR

“Although you have the authority to direct Committee staff to travel internationally on official committee business, you have not explained why you authorized this travel into Mexico or what you sought to learn through these trips,” Jordan wrote, adding that Republicans were not notified of the trips.

Jordan went on to accuse Democrats of seeking “to delegitimize the administration’s border security efforts and vilify the men and women who protect our border.” He said GOP members are concerned the trips “could continue to result in misleading information about the administration’s border security efforts.”

Fox News has reached out to Cummings’ office for a response to Republicans’ claims.

Specifically, Jordan highlighted a report that said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, was in attendance on one trip to Tijuana on Aug. 21. Escobar, who is not on the Oversight Committee, has been a vocal advocate of left-wing policies on illegal immigration.

According to The Washington Examiner, staff from Escobar’s office recently coached migrants in Ciudad Juarez on how to exploit federal immigration law — including telling would-be border crossers to pretend they cannot speak Spanish to exploit a loophole that would let them enter the U.S.

Escobar responded by calling the article “fabricated” and “fueled by xenophobia and misinformation.”

ON THE BORDER, OFFICIALS SEE DIVIDENDS FROM TRUMP’S DEAL WITH MEXICO

This Hispanic voter supports Trump, but doesn’t talk about it

Hey! Check out this article I just read on the new Rush Limbaugh App..
View in RushLimbaugh.com

July 16, 2019

Caller to Rush Limbaugh talk radio show.

RUSH: This is James, Pueblo, Colorado. Glad you waited, sir. You’re next on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, first thing I want to say, I’m a 38-year-old union worker, Hispanic, and I’m conservative, and I vote Republican. And there’s a lot of people out here that have the same views as I. We kind of fly under the radar. And it’s kind of insulting to hear some of the liberal community wanting people like us to be victimized. And we don’t want that. We want to be let to do what we want, let us work, let us take care of our families. So it’s insulting to people like me when I hear, for example, the press conference last night, that was a big insult to people like me.

RUSH: You mean The Squad’s press conference?

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

RUSH: It was an insult to you because of why? They were claiming to speak for you when they don’t?

CALLER: Well, they want people, brown people, black people, like me, I’d be considered a brown person to them —

RUSH: Oh, that. The Pressley babe. Yeah. Brown people need to speak up for brown people, black people for black people, Muslims for Muslims, and — she said it — queer for queer. LGBTQ for LGBTQ, the trannies. And so you felt offended being in included in that as though you’re mindless?

CALLER: Exactly. I’m smart enough to know, to see through the nonsense, and a lot of people are. We just fly under the radar. There are a lot of people that are Trump supporters here in southern Colorado that just kind of mind their own business because, you know, life’s not that bad, life is good, ’cause we make it that way. We don’t need someone —

RUSH: Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. (crosstalk)

CALLER: — that I’m a victim.

RUSH: This is really key. This is really important. People like you — you said you’re Hispanic — people like you, you support Trump, but you keep your mouth shut and you mind your own business. I take it from that — and correct me if I’m wrong — that you’re trying to escape being a target of these people. You don’t want them targeting you, coming after you, focusing on you, your family or whatever. So you’re out there quietly going, “Yeah, yeah, yeah,” when Trump does this stuff, but you’ll call here under the cloak of anonymity because you don’t want to be noticed otherwise. Right?

CALLER: Exactly. And any conversation that would come to it would be honestly a waste of my time, to get into a conversation with someone else.

RUSH: With who? One of these people?

CALLER: Yeah, anybody that opposes what I think, it’s a waste of my time because I have better things to do than argue a mindless point.

RUSH: And so you don’t even think you could succeed in persuading them that they’re wrong, you think it’d be a waste of time for you to even entertain that?

CALLER: Yeah. Well, there’s a few conversations I’ve had, there is no persuading them, it becomes a waste of my time.

RUSH: You know why? Because you’re dealing with robots. You’re dealing with people that are not thinking. They have been propagandized. They’re incapable of thinking. It’s the whole point. They have been indoctrinated, propagandized. They can’t explain why they believe what they believe. All they can do is tell you that you’re a pig or you’re a racist or worse.