Six Illegal Immigrants Charged In MS-13 Related Maryland Murder

H/T Town Hall.

Six more reasons we need to build the wall along our southern border.

Six Illegal Immigrants Charged In MS-13 Related Maryland Murder

Source: Baltimore County Police Department

Baltimore County police announced last week that six out of seven suspects arrested in a gruesome gang related murder of a 21-year-old Maryland man were illegal immigrants.

Fox News reports that Daniel Alejandro Alvarado Cuella was stabbed to death in July by members of the Mara-Salvatrucha gang, aka MS-13. Cuella’s body was found in a Towson apartment with multiple wounds on July 31.

“We know this group of individuals was conducting surveillance on him, they were watching him, following him. We know they watched as he left the laundromat and went back across the street to the apartment complex and that is where some of those individuals accosted him,” Baltimore County Police Officer Jennifer Peach told local media. “We know they used knives and multiple people stabbed him multiple times.”

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed that the federal agency has issued six immigration detainers in this case, but did not divulge the suspects’ names related to their requests.

According to Fox, all suspects currently reside in Maryland:

They have been identified as Jonathan Escobar-Hernandez, 20, of Towson, Md.; Marlon Leonardo Fabian-Flores, 20, of Manchester, Md.; Edwin Edgardo Garcia-Martir, 18, of Middle River, Md.; Hugo Portillo-Chavez, 31, of Cockeysville, Md.; Jose Fausto Rivera-Coreas, 19, of Cockeysville, Md.; Odaliz Rosas-Yanez, 20, of Cockeysville, Md.; and Leonel Alexander Velasquez-Hernadez, 16, of Cockeysville, Md.

The Baltimore Sun reports that police believe the victim was killed due to rival gang violence between the 18th Street and MS-13 gangs. Police are investigating whether or not Cuella was a member of the 18th Street gang. Accordingly, all suspects in this case are being held without bail in the Baltimore County Detention Center.

President Donald J. Trump has long called attention to the problem posed by MS-13. In 2017, he promised to deport every MS-13 gang member from the country:

“To any member of MS-13 listening, I have a message for you,” the President said at the time. “We will find you, we will arrest you, we will jail you, we will throw you the hell out of the country.”

Advertisements

Dems Furious as Trump Admin Finds Billions for Wall, Sets Early Construction Date

H/T Western Journal.

I hope construction on the wall gets going real soon.

It’s no secret that one of President Donald Trump’s primary campaign promises was to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In fact, he stuck to the promise from the very beginning of his campaign. Since then, the debate over building the wall has taken on a life of its own, becoming a cultural phenomenon in the process.

Yet three years after Trump’s election, there has been very little progress on the wall. But that’s about to change as early as January, according to CNN.

After repeated failed attempts to convince a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives to allocate funds for construction, Trump has apparently found a way to piece together a wall, much to the chagrin of his liberal counterparts.

That route is through the military. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has authorized the diversion of $3.6 billion in construction funds for 11 different wall projects on the border.

The proposed projects will result in approximately 175 miles of new border barriers.

Predictably, Democrats are not pleased

“This decision will harm already planned, important projects intended to support our service members at military installations in New York, across the United States, and around the world,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

“It is a slap in the face to the members of the Armed Forces who serve our country that President Trump is willing to cannibalize already allocated military funding to boost his own ego and for a wall he promised Mexico would pay to build.”

What Schumer doesn’t seem to understand is that fulfilling campaign promises hardly constitutes “ego,” nor does authorizing the military to secure our border constitute “a slap in the face.”

On the contrary, the military’s purpose is to secure our homeland from foreign threats.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also jumped on the hate train.

“This isn’t just an attempt to shift funding, it’s a bid to shift power away from Congress to the president. Clearly, this administration is trying to circumvent Congressional authority and this ill-advised attempt should be legally challenged and struck down by the courts,” he said.

No, Sen. Reed, it is just an attempt to shift funding. The Pentagon has the authority to fund military projects, and I’m sure securing our leaky border is more urgent than constructing a new building at West Point.

Nevertheless, the American Civil Liberties Union is intent on following through with Reed’s challenge to sue, as it announced Tuesday that “it would seek a court order blocking use of the funds as part of its lawsuit challenging the president’s abuse of emergency powers to secure funds for a wall Congress denied.”

In the meantime, the construction, in conjunction with its start date of January 2020, will no doubt provide a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters heading into the election in November.

The project looks to be a massive disappointment for the left and a massive win for America.

But I repeat myself.

Joe Biden on Migrant Detention Centers: ‘Close Them Down!’

H/T Breitbart.

In spite of what Slow Joe The Gaff Machine says we need more detention centers.

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — Former vice president Joe Biden told an town hall at Clinton College in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on Thursday afternoon that he would close down migrant shelters and detention facilities at the border.

Biden was asked by a Clinton College student what he would do to improve and help migrants in the facilities reunite with their families.

“Close them down!” Biden declared, to loud applause.

“No, no, no, no, no, no,” he continued. “We don’t need them. We [meaning President Barack Obama and himself] found that, when we were in office, in fact … [when] we finally got things under control, you have to report back for a hearing on such-and-such a date, people show up!”

Biden neglected to mention that many of the migrant shelters and detention facilities were opened under the Obama administration (or, as Biden refers to it, the “Obama-Biden administration”), after a massive surge of unaccompanied minors to the border.

Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security recently reported to Congress that as many as 90 percent of so-called “asylum-seekers” failed to show up for their court hearings.

Other Democratic presidential candidates have also called for the facilities to be closed, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

It is not clear how Biden and the other candidates propose to care for unaccompanied minors who cross the border illegally, or for others arrested (or rescued) at the border.

Thousands Returned to Mexico Under Trump Immigration Policy

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

This is what securing the border looks like slowing illegals from crossing our border.

Records show ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy is cutting illegal immigration.

Thousands of would-be illegal immigrants are being returned to await asylum hearings in Mexico as part of a program the Trump administration has credited with curbing the recent wave of family migration at the southwestern border.

The Migrant Protection Protocols—more colloquially known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy—are regulations issued by former secretary of homeland security Kirstjen Nielsen in December 2018. Under the MPP, a subset of individuals who claim to be seeking asylum after being apprehended at the border now must await the results of their immigration court hearings in Mexico, rather than being detained—or, more often, released on their own recognizance—in the United States.

Asylum seekers, especially from non-contiguous countries, pose a unique challenge to the immigration system. Preexisting laws and regulations mean that asylum seekers can only be detained for so long before being released, while the large immigration court backlog essentially guarantees that these time thresholds will be passed. The result is a system of de facto catch-and-release, in which an individual can simply claim asylum at the border and then disappear into the interior while his or her case is processed.

The stated goal of the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the time of its implementation was to curb the then-swelling crisis at the southwestern border, which was in no small part a product of this asylum loophole. Individuals apprehended seeking asylum would await the results of their hearings in Mexico, meaning that they could not abscond into the United States before their application is denied. Nearly 90 percent of applications are denied.

How effective have the MPP regulations actually been? New data released Monday by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show that the program has taken off in recent months. Nearly 12,000 people were returned to Mexico in July, compared with about 5,000 in May, and just 15 at the start of the year.

MPP cases make up a small share of the immigration court’s total backlog, just 2.7 percent, according to TRAC. But it made up a substantial proportion—22.3 percent—of new cases added to the docket in July. A third of those apprehended traveled from Honduras, 28 percent from Nicaragua, and 22 percent from Guatemala.

The new data support Department of Homeland Security claims that a substantial drop in monthly apprehensions in June and July is partially attributable to the implementation of the MPP. While the protocols have been in place since January, ramped up implementation in May, and their expansion to the Laredo and Brownsville ports of entry, likely drove the dips evident following May’s peak.

Notably, the “Remain in Mexico” policy does not work by stopping individuals before they enter at the southwestern border, only returning them back once they cross. This means that to the extent the policy is effective, the MPP reduces immigration by deterring would-be crossers, who may not attempt to enter because they know they are less likely to be able to stay in the country.

The MPP’s success suggests two conclusions. One is that at least some individuals migrating north and seeking asylum are doing so explicitly because they know they will likely be able to abscond—a sign that the loopholes in America’s asylum rules are known south of the border. The other is that these data supply tentative evidence that immigration reduction policies—such as the administration’s now-withdrawn “zero tolerance” prosecution approach—actually work.

Mexican Government Wants El Paso Shooter Extradited

H/T Bearing Arms.

I say he should be extradited to Mexico so he does not get sent to some cushy mental hospital.

Let him know what being punished is all about in a Mexican jail.

When we hear the word “extradition,” it applies to someone breaking a law in one place, then going to another jurisdiction in hopes of avoiding prosecution.

It doesn’t really apply for a law broken in one country when the suspect was arrested right there.

However, it seems that Mexico wants the El Paso shooter extradited to their country.

Mexico’s president wants [the alleged El Paso shooter] — accused of slaughtering 22 people at an El Paso Walmart — extradited and tried there as well as in the US, he announced this week.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador made the call during a Wednesday speech in the southern state of Oaxaca.

In the past, Mexico and the US have had an arrangement in which a suspect convicted in one country can immediately be extradited for trial in the other, and then serve a sentence in either nation. El Paso is a predominantly Latino city that borders Mexico.

Except, that’s not what happened.

The alleged gunman in El Paso didn’t break any laws in Mexico. We don’t know that he’s even been to Mexico.

What Obrador is doing is demanding that someone who broke American laws on American soil be sent to Mexico simply because he allegedly targeted Mexicans. If we’re going to play that game, then perhaps all the Americans who have been targeted for various crimes in Mexico simply because they were American should be tried in the United States? There are reasons why the U.S. might prefer this. After all, the criminal justice system south of the border isn’t known for its integrity. How many criminals have gotten off due to the right bit of cash crossing the right palm?

Obrador needs to understand that this isn’t how it works. You don’t get an American citizen charged with a crime on American soil just because he targetted citizens of your nation. Especially when he knows there’s sufficient outrage in this country to ensure he gets a fair trial.

Then again, I think he does. I think he knows he won’t get this guy, but he also thinks the people of Mexico will respond to his demands. He figures it will buy him some domestic goodwill.

I get that Mexicans are outraged. Their people were reportedly targeted by a deranged gunman simply because they were Mexicans. I’d be outraged as hell, too.

But the rule of law is still a thing, and Obrador would, at best, have to wait his turn. After all, while El Paso claimed eight Mexican lives, it also claimed 13 Americans and a German…and again, all on American soil.

He’ll be tried unless he pleads out. If he does stand trial, don’t be surprised if he gets the death penalty. Texas is famous for its executions, after all. So, he’ll be tried, likely convicted, possibly executed, and then, maybe just because, we can send his corpse to Mexico so they can try him again.

Obrador might have a point if there was a chance the suspect wouldn’t get a vigorous prosecution here in the United States, but that’s not likely to be an issue. The only issue is Mexico trying to flex on this when there’s literally nothing they can do to the United States that wouldn’t ultimately end up working out better for us anyway.

Let the Blame Game Commence: Attacker Fires Shots Into San Antonio ICE Office

H/T Godfather Politics.

The blame for the attacks on ICE Offices lays at the door of DemocRats and especially Alexandria Occasional-Cortex(Delusional-NY).

A man has been arrested in San Antonio, Texas, and charged with firing shots into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office (ICE) there.

Police in San Antonio are questioning a man who they suspect of firing into the downtown office building early on Tuesday morning, according to KSAT.

The man was accused of firing shots into the building from across the street. Fortunately, no one was hurt and officials said that the building was nearly empty at the time, in any case.

Keep Texas Red@VoteRedTexas

: Shots fired at ICE facility around 3 am this morning. Shots came from across the highway and hit the 14th floor. No one was injured and the suspect has been caught. The name of the suspect has not been released.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
72 people are talking about this

Anna Giaritelli

@Anna_Giaritelli

“They have a 24/7 command center in there so there were people in the building” when the shooting started around 3 a.m. local time. https://washex.am/2OWTfSg 

Police ICE.jpg

Shots fired into ICE office in San Antonio: ‘There were people in the building’

Police in San Antonio arrested a man early Tuesday morning in connection with gunshots fired through the windows of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in the city, according to local media…

washingtonexaminer.com

22 people are talking about this

NBC 4 reported that the shooting occurred at around 3 AM on Tuesday.

“I don’t think there’s a question that they knew which floors the ice offices were,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Chris Combs told the media on Tuesday.

“All of the shots that we have found are on the floors where ICE had offices,” Combs added. “This is no question a very targeted attack. It’s not a secret facility, you can go online, it’s out there. So they did some research, they knew what floors ICE was on, they knew what buildings they were and they hit those.”

Neither the San Antonio Police nor the federal government were interested in confirming that the ICE offices were an actual target of the shooter. But the investigation continues into the man’s motives.

But ICE ERO San Antonio Field Office Director Daniel Bible denounced the shooting.

“This attack at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office in San Antonio is completely without justification,” Bible in a statement. “Political rhetoric and misinformation that various politicians, media outlets and activist groups recklessly disseminate to the American people regarding the ICE mission only serve to further encourage these violent acts. ICE officers put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our communities safe. This disturbing public discourse shrouds our critical law enforcement function and unnecessarily puts our officers’ safety at risk.”

The FBI’s Combs also added that it was important to discourage copycats.

“We are concerned that there could be additional attacks, we have to stop that,” Combs said. “We cannot allow political discourse to lead us to the point of violence, where federal employees, innocent people doing their jobs are put in harms way.”

Trump Ending Welfare-Dependent Immigration, Saving Taxpayers Billions

H/T Breitbart.

I applaud President Trump for making this bold move.

You can not get into Mexico if you are going to be on welfare there.

I look for the DemocRats and their ilk will file lawsuits.

If you can not support yourself we do not need or want you.

 

President Trump is set to save American taxpayers billions of dollars as his administration announces a new rule on Monday that will essentially ban welfare-dependent legal immigrants from permanently resettling in the United States.

A new regulation set to be published by the Trump administration will ensure that legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using subsidized healthcare services, food stamps, and public housing.

The regulation will be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.

The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.

A recent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) study notes that about 63 percent of noncitizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of taxpayer-funded welfare, while only about 35 percent of native-born American households are on welfare. This means that noncitizen households use nearly twice as much welfare as native-born American households.

In California — with the largest noncitizen population in the country at almost 11 million or nearly 30 percent of the state’s total population — more than seven-in-ten, or 72 percent, of households headed by noncitizens are on at least one form of welfare. Compare that to the findings that only about seven-in-twenty, or 35 percent, of native-born households in California are on welfare.

(Center for Immigration Studies)

Preventing Americans from being forced to foot the bill for welfare for newly arrived legal immigrants is hugely popular among U.S. voters. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in 2017 revealed that more than six-in-ten voters, or 62 percent, said they would support a plan that bans legal immigrants from receiving welfare for at least the first five years of their residency in the country. Roughly 67 percent of swing voters and nearly 60 percent of black Americans said they would support such a plan.

Another 76 percent of U.S. voters said welfare users should be mandated to prove that they are not in the country illegally before being allowed to obtain public benefits, including 74 percent of black Americans, 77 percent of swing voters, and 63 percent of Democrat voters.

Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year are low-skilled legal immigrants who compete against working and middle-class Americans for jobs.