It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States.
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
On February 10, as the raids kicked off, an ICE executive in Washington sent an “URGENT” directive to the agency’s chiefs of staff around the country. “Please put together a white paper covering the three most egregious cases,” for each location, the acting chief of staff of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations wrote in the email. “If a location has only one egregious case — then include an extra egregious case from another city.”
The email indicated the assignment was due that night, but a day later, an agent at ICE’s San Antonio office sent an internal email saying the team had come up short. “I have been pinged by HQ this morning indicating that we failed at this tasking,” the agent wrote.
As the hours passed, the pressure on local agents to come up with something grew more intense. “As soon as you come in, your sole focus today will be compiling three egregious case write-ups,” an assistant field office director at the agency’s Austin Resident Office wrote to that team on February 12, noting that the national and San Antonio offices were growing impatient. “HQ and SNA will ping us in the afternoon for sure.”
Then the agent added that a team of officers had “just picked up a criminal a few minutes ago, so get with him for your first egregious case.”
In fact, ICE’s attempts to provide “egregious” examples of criminals being apprehended in the raids were lagging, the emails suggest. On February 11, an official responded to a colleague’s list of egregious cases by pointing out that they were unrelated to the ongoing operation.
“The arrest dates are before any operation and even before the EO’s. What is up with these cases?” the official wrote.
As a reader of The Intercept pointed out, the email’s subject line — “Due Tonight for S1 – URGENT” — meant that the request had been made by the secretary of Homeland Security himself, referred to as “S1” in department shorthand.
Kelly was at the helm of the department at the time, before he was appointed in July to replace Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff.
The White House and DHS did not respond to requests for comment. ICE issued a statement in response to The Intercept’s original story, but did not answer questions about what officials meant by “egregious cases” and why they felt the need to highlight such cases in the media.
originally posted by: Tempter
Just sat down with the team today to go over outstanding issues and next year's budget. I asked the team to provide me with five examples of incidents across the enterprise which could help she'd light on our upcoming budget request for 2018.
I told them I wanted the most significant examples.
This is standard stuff man.
He said "criminal aliens" accounted for 38 percent of murder convictions in five states between 2008 and 2014.
In fact, the presentation offered numbers for 2005 to 2008.
That's not the only issue. The presentation’s author, James Simpson, told us he had emailed Breitbart about Tancredo’s use of his presentation. "(Tancredo) quoted the whole thing incorrectly," Simpson told PunditFact.
Simpson’s report includes findings from two separate sources: an article that describes 2008-14 data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and his digest of a 2011 Government Accountability Office report, which uses 2005-08 numbers.
The real figure may be impossible to know; Texas appears to be the only one of the five states that actually keeps track of convictions of criminal aliens. The "criminal aliens" label applies to noncitizens who have either legal or illegal immigration status. (It is incorrect to consider all of them as illegal immigrants.)
With various estimates floating around in Tancredo’s article, it’s useful to start with the solid numbers out of Texas.
The Texas Department of Public Safety continuously updates its tally of criminal aliens booked into local jails, tracking the charges filed and whether the person was convicted.
The agency’s latest report covers June 1, 2011, to July 31, 2015. In that time, 344 noncitizens were convicted of homicide. In about the same period, Texas had 4,571 murders. (There’s a difference between calendar and fiscal years, but as of this writing, the differences balance out.) So based on counts of actual cases, criminal aliens account for 7.5 percent of all homicides in Texas.
That figure is striking because it is one-fifth as large as the number Simpson gave in his presentation. Simpson said, "Illegal aliens have committed 35 percent of all murders in Texas since 2008."
Simpson told us he had not seen the official Texas report. He had relied solely on an article for PJ Media.
The researchers detailed a host of caveats: At the state level, it’s possible that some people are counted twice if, for example, they are first kept at a county jail and are then transferred to a state prison. And the margin of error for the overall tally of homicides, as well as other crimes, was +/- 20 percent.
Second, Ms. Zimmerman misreported the definition of a criminal alien which she claimed were all illegal immigrants. The GAO report claims that there were 55,000 criminal aliens in federal prison in 2010 and it defines criminal aliens as “[n]oncitizens who are residing in the United States legally or illegally and are convicted of a crime.” This is an important distinction because there were about 22.5 million foreigners living in the United States in 2010 without citizenship but only about half of them were illegal immigrants. By lumping them together, Ms. Zimmerman makes illegal immigrants seem more crime prone and legal immigrants less crime prone.
Third, the 296,000 figure was the estimated total number of incarcerations of illegal immigrants over the course of the entire year of 2009, not the number of illegal immigrants incarcerated. An example will help illustrate this point: If a criminal alien was incarcerated for 10 short sentences, released after each one, and then incarcerated after each one then that single alien would account for 10 incarcerations under the SCAAP figure.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian
So in essence, the fact that illegals are committing heinous crimes in the US isn't up for debate, you've tapped out on that... now we're stuck arguing the thresholds for "crisis" and "eggregious" and how those thresholds are approached. Gotcha.
What I don't get and likely never will is how any American reaches the point where they want our doors held wide open to the direct detriment of themselves, their family, and their country. Is there some sort of brownie point system I'm unaware of at play here... commit 10 acts of valor signalling and get a free churro? It's not even a partisan thing anymore, either... seems to be occurring on all sides these days, the vilification of age old national protectionist laws and regulations. I simply don't get it.
At what point does ANY level of criminal activity not call for a response?
More than half of American adults — or 52 percent — have smoked pot, according to a new Marist Poll that was conducted in partnership with Yahoo! News.
And in a sign that marijuana is becoming more socially acceptable, the poll also found that nearly half — or 47 percent — of parents who smoke weed at least once or twice a year have consumed marijuana in front of their (predominantly grown) children, shared it with them or done both. Meanwhile, more than 1 in 4 pot users say they’ve smoked in front of or with their own parents.