You are here: Home / Archives for Crime

Crime

Senate Judiciary Committee Rejects Effort to Stop Gang Members from Being Amnestied

May 20, 2013 By 9 Comments

An amendment presented by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (#43) that would have made it more difficult for gang members to obtain amnesty, was voted down along party lines during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee mark-up of the Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

The Gang of Eight bill (S. 744) allows an illegal alien who is a convicted member of a criminal street gang to be eligible for amnesty if he renounces his gang affiliation. A renunciation is not needed for gang members under 18. (See FAIR’s Analysis of the Gang Provisions in the Senate Amnesty Bill) The Grassley amendment would have stricken this section and changed the standards of admissibility relating to aliens in criminal gangs by making it harder for those aliens to be eligible for admissibility or RPI status. It also would have switched the burden of proof from the Secretary of Homeland Security to the alien.

The amendment stated that an alien is inadmissible if they are a member of a criminal street gang unless the alien could demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know and could not have known that the organization was a criminal street gang. The amendment used this same standard for determining whether an alien would have been deportable for being in a criminal street gang and for determining whether the alien would have been eligible for RPI status.

You can view the list of amendments being debated today on the Senate Judiciary Committee Website.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Crime, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society

LA Times Editors Say Gang Members Deserve Amnesty

May 16, 2013 By 13 Comments

LA Times Editors Say Gang Members Deserve Amnesty

“The Senate Judiciary Committee is just beginning its markup of the bipartisan immigration bill, but already opponents and supporters of the sweeping legislation are fighting over which immigrants should be allowed to legalize their status and which should be deported,” the LA Times says in an editorial.

“Clearly it makes sense to refuse legal status to immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. But some lawmakers, including Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), are backing a provision that goes too far, excluding immigrants who have no criminal history simply because their names appear in a database of gang members or on a gang injunction.”

Republicans in Secret House Amnesty Group Ready to Bolt

“Republicans in the House bipartisan immigration group are threatening to leave negotiations if they don’t come to an agreement Thursday. Reps. John Carter of Texas and Raul Labrador of Idaho both separately said the time for negotiations is over,” Politico reports.

“‘I think it’s time for us to move ahead with a Republican plan if nothing happens tomorrow,’ Labrador said. He characterized such a plan as ‘conservative immigration reform.’ That the House’s eight-person bipartisan group appears to be breaking down is a major development in the immigration debate. If the House does not come out with its own plan, it will make immigration reform a lot more difficult. The theory from Republican leadership was that the bipartisan group’s product would give the House GOP buy-in.”

Immigration the Major Source of Population Growth

“Immigration will be the primary driver of population growth in the United States within a few decades, a milestone not seen in almost two centuries, the Census Bureau projected Wednesday. The Census Bureau said immigration will outstrip natural increase — the difference between births and deaths for the total population — by as early as 2027, but no later than 2038. The differing scenarios depend on how many immigrants continue coming to the U.S.” the Washington Post says.

Rubio Amendment List Leaked

“Sen. Marco Rubio’s office circulated a list this month of ways to toughen security in the immigration bill he helped negotiate, including potential amendments to cut down on chain migration, to require newly legal immigrants to show financial self-sufficiency and to build 700 miles of double-tier fencing along the border,” the Washington Times says.

“Mr. Rubio’s spokesman said the list was drafted by senior aide Alberto Martinez and was shared with some offices of senators who were interested in changing the bill. The list appears to be a debate that lays out problems some critics have raised and amendments that could be made to allay those concerns.”

ICE Union Says Obama Administration Has Abdicated Enforcement

“According to Chris Crane, the current president of the union for ICE agents, the National ICE Council, President Barack Obama, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and ICE Director John Morton have all but abdicated their leadership in the enforcement of immigration laws and the protection of U.S. borders and citizens,” the Examiner writes.

“In a letter to Congress on May 9, Crane and a number of law enforcement executives complained that while business groups, activists, and other special interests were closely involved in the drafting of the proposed Schumer-Rubio immigration reform bill (S. 744), law enforcement personnel were excluded from those sessions.”

La Raza, Islamic Groups Will Get Tax Dollars Under Amnesty

“In a recent NRO piece entitled “Saul Alinsky and the Gang of Eight,” I discussed how, if Schumer-Rubio becomes law, federal dollars devoted to “immigrant integration” will pour into left-wing and Islamist activist groups to fund their own vision of that process. Now the 844-page bill has been replaced by an 867-page bill that makes the “Alinsky section” of the legislation even stronger,” says John Fonte at National Review.

“Apparently the senators wanted to make sure that leftist and Islamist advocacy organizations (CASA, La Raza, MALDEF, and CAIR and other Islamist groups) would not simply be grant recipients themselves, but would also be entrenched on the “New Immigrant Councils” that will help guide strategy, funding, and implementation at the local level. One could guess why the four Democrats on the Gang of Eight wanted leftist and Islamist organizations with such ‘legal and advocacy’ experience in behalf of immigrants placed on the new immigrant councils, but why did the four Republicans agree to it?”

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Crime, Politics, Population

DHS Sends Incomplete, Delayed Response to Congressman Collins’ Inquiry

May 14, 2013 By 2 Comments

On March 7, Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA) along with four other Republican Members of the Georgia delegation, Reps. Lynn Westmoreland, Phil Gingrey, Tom Graves, and Paul Broun, sent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano a letter demanding answers about the Department’s decision to release detained illegal aliens supposedly for budgetary reasons. The letter included eight specific questions the Congressmen wanted answered and requested a reply by the end of March.

On May 7, DHS finally got around to replying—over one month late. Remarkably, the response failed to answer any of the questions the Georgia Republicans sought answers about.

For example, the Georgia Republicans asked “How many illegal aliens were released in Georgia and how many have criminal convictions? What are the specific crimes committed by the illegal aliens released in Georgia?” Nothing in the DHS response mentioned anything about Georgia. Rather, the response addressed the amount of illegal aliens released throughout the country (2,226) and the number with “identified” criminal convictions (622).

However, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on March 20 that “Federal immigration authorities confirmed Wednesday they have put 28 illegal immigrants back behind bars in Georgia and other states after releasing them and 2,200 others because of federal spending cuts.”

Although DHS continues to deceive the American public about the politically motivated decision to release illegal aliens, Congressman Collins has vowed to continue fighting to hold the Department accountable.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s coverage of the issue is available here (including the Georgia delegation’s March 7 letter and the DHS reply).

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Crime, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Federal Court Finds Napolitano and Morton DACA Directive Illegal

May 1, 2013 By 2 Comments

Despite Congress’ rejection of the DREAM Act, in June 2012, Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Janet Napolitano directed her agency to circumvent Congress and administratively implement the DREAM Act. (Napolitano Directive). On the same day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Director John Morton issued a memorandum directing all ICE employees to implement Napolitano’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program by refraining from arresting or placing illegal aliens who meet the DACA criteria into removal proceedings. (Morton Directive).

Shortly thereafter, ten ICE Agents filed suit against Napolitano, Morton, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Director Alejandro Mayorkas (collectively “the Defendants”) claiming Napolitano and Morton’s directives order them to violate federal law. (Amended Complaint). Specifically, the agents assert that federal law requires them to arrest or place in removal proceedings every illegal alien they encounter who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States, including DACA eligible persons. (See 8 U.S.C. 1225) This past week, a federal court in Texas agreed.

United States District Judge Reed O’Connor affirmed that Congress has plenary power to set immigration law and by adopting [relevant federal statute] expressed its intent that the government initiate removal proceedings against all illegal aliens, including DACA eligible persons. (Memorandum Opinion & Order). Consequently, Napolitano does not have the discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings, nor can she or Morton instruct their agents to do the same. (Id.)

While a victory for true immigration reformers, the court’s ruling is not final. The court has asked for additional briefing by May 6 on a technical jurisdictional issue before relief can be granted in the Plaintiffs’ favor.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Crime, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Gang Members Eligible for Gang of Eight Amnesty

April 29, 2013 By 6 Comments

At first glance, the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill appears to crack down on members of criminal street gangs. In fact, the bill adds aliens who are members of “criminal street gangs” to the list of those who are inadmissible and deportable under current law, and even contains a provision that explicitly excludes convicted gang members from gaining amnesty under the bill. (see Sec. 3701, p. 604-608)

However, upon more careful examination of the gang provisions in the bill, it becomes apparent they are nothing more than a mere attempt to appear tough. Rather, the provisions are so narrow that they will fail to keep out the vast majority of illegal aliens belonging to a gang, even allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the newly-created gang membership grounds for ineligibility.

Specifically, the bill bars gang members from receiving amnesty (“registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status) under two different sets of circumstances. The first pertains to aliens who are 18 and older who:

  • Have been convicted of a gang-related offense under 18 U.S.C. 521(a);
  • Have knowledge the gang’s members engaged in a series of offenses under 18 U.S.C. 521(c); and
  • Acted with the intention to promote or further the felonious activities of the gang or maintain or increase his or her position in the gang. (p. 607)

Delving deeper, it becomes apparent that the vast majority of illegal alien gang members will not be prohibited from obtaining amnesty under this provision. First, the provision limits gang activity to that which is committed after the alien turned 18, giving illegal aliens a free pass on any gang offenses committed under the age of majority. Next, the provision only excludes alien gang members with convictions, allowing those who have been charged or arrested, but never actually convicted, of gang activity the ability to apply. Third, the definition of offenses under Title 18 only includes felonies, leaving those who have been convicted of any misdemeanor offenses as a gang member (even those who were pled down from a felony) to apply for amnesty. Finally, the provision includes an intent requirement, allowing illegal aliens a loophole to argue they unknowingly or unwillingly participated in the gang activity, and thus should be eligible for amnesty.

As such, the above criteria is so narrow that it will only prevent a fraction of illegal alien gang members from being excluded from receiving RPI status. Unfortunately, the second set of circumstances laid out under the bill for finding illegal alien gang members ineligible for amnesty is no better. The second category is aimed at those who may not have felony convictions related to their gang membership, but for whom the Secretary of DHS is given special knowledge as to their gang activity. Specifically, the second group of aliens includes those whom:

The DHS Secretary determines by clear and convincing evidence, based on law enforcement information, that since the alien turned 18 years of age he or she has knowingly and willingly participated in a gang with the knowledge that such participation promoted or furthered the gang’s illegal activity. (p. 607-608)

As with the first group, there are several reasons as to why this provision also won’t catch the majority of illegal alien gang members. Again, the provision excludes any gang related-offenses or activity committed by the illegal alien before the age of majority, only taking into consideration gang affiliation after the age of eighteen despite the fact the majority of gang members become involved as minors. Next, the DHS Secretary must determine by “clear and convincing” evidence based on law enforcement information that the alien is a gang member. A step below the highest level of proof in the judicial system, requiring clear and convincing evidence raises the burden law enforcement officers must show DHS to protect the public from illegal alien gang members. Finally, the provision includes yet another intent requirement, again allowing illegal aliens a loophole to argue their way into an amnesty.

Perhaps most troubling is that even if the DHS Secretary were to find an illegal alien to be a member of a criminal street gang, the Gang of Eight grants the Secretary the ability to waive the gang member grounds for ineligibility. The waiver provision provides that so long as the alien renounces their gang association and are otherwise not a security threat, the DHS Secretary can waive that ground of ineligibility. (p. 608) Certainly illegal aliens, including members of the most nefarious drug cartels, will be all too happy to claim they’ve renounced their gang membership in order to gain legal entry to the United States to continue to engage in their criminal behavior.

The gang membership waiver of course is just one of hundreds of waivers granted to the DHS Secretary under the Gang of Eight amnesty bill to ensure no illegal alien is left behind, even those who have come to our country to do us nothing but harm.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Crime, Law, Politics, Population, Society

Part III: Gang of Eight Breaks Promise to Bar Criminals from Receiving Amnesty

April 26, 2013 By 10 Comments

A close analysis of the Senate Gang of Eight’s Amnesty bill (S.744) shows that its authors have broken their promise to bar criminals from receiving amnesty, called “registered provisional immigrant” status (RPI status).

At first, S.744 appears to prohibit most criminals from receiving amnesty under the bill. The bill provides that an illegal alien is ineligible for RPI status if he/she:

  • Has a conviction for a felony;
  • Has a conviction for an aggravated felony, as defined under 101(a)(43);
  • Has a conviction for 3 or more misdemeanors (other than minor traffic offenses) if the alien was convicted on different dates for each of the offenses (Sec. 2102(b)(3)(B)(i));
  • Has a conviction for any offense under foreign law that if committed in the U.S. would render the alien inadmissible or removable under the INA
  • Has a conviction for unlawful voting under INA 237(a)(6); and
  • Is reasonably believed to be engaged in, or likely to engage in, terrorist activity (Sec. 2102(b)(3)(A)(iii)
  • (Sec. 2101, INA 245B(b)(3), p.61-66)

However, when one looks at the details, one sees that these bars do not apply a wide range of criminal conduct. First, the language provides that aliens with certain “convictions” are ineligible for RPI status. This means that anyone charged with the offense and released on bond is still eligible. It also means that juvenile aliens who committed egregious offenses will not be barred from eligibility, as they are technically “adjudicated delinquent” not “convicted” of a crime. Finally, barring aliens with convictions for certain crimes ignores the fact that many individuals will “plea down” their offenses in order to turn a felony conviction into a misdemeanor conviction or a misdemeanor conviction into a misdemeanor conviction with a lesser penalty.

Next, the bill contains a glaring loophole: it allows DHS to waive misdemeanor convictions for the purposes of determining eligibility for amnesty. Indeed S.744 allows DHS to waive multiple misdemeanor convictions.(Sec. 2101, p.65) And while most people’s knowledge of misdemeanor offenses relates to traffic violations, misdemeanors span a wide range of activity. In Florida, for example, misdemeanor crimes include:

  • Assault, Fla. Stat. § 784.011;
  • Assault on law enforcement officers, Fla. Stat. §784.07;
  • Battery, Fla. Stat. § 784.03;
  • Stalking, Fla. Stat. § 784.048;
  • Human smuggling, Fla. Stat. § 787.07;
  • Unlawful carrying of a chemical weapon or other deadly weapon (non-firearm), Fla. Stat. § 790.01;
  • Unlawful placing or discharging of a bomb that results in any bodily harm, Fla. Stat. 790.1615;
  • Unnatural and Lascivious Act, Fla. Stat. §800.02; and
  • Exposure of Sexual Organs; Fla. Stat. § 800.03.

Similarly, In Texas, misdemeanor crimes include:

  • Public Lewdness, Texas Penal Code § 21.07;
  • Indecent Exposure, Texas Penal Code § 21.08;
  • Terroristic Threats, Texas Penal Code § 22.07;
  • Burglary of Vehicles, Texas Penal Code § 30.04;
  • Deadly Conduct, Texas Penal Code § 22.05;
  • Assault, Texas Penal Code § 22.01;
  • Soliciting Membership in a Criminal Street Gang, Texas Penal Code, § 71.022;
  • Soliciting Prostitution, Texas Penal Code § 43.02;
  • Unlawful Carrying of Weapons, Texas Penal Code § 46.02; and
  • Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity, Texas Penal Code § 71.02.

In New York, misdemeanor crimes include:

  • Assault, New York Penal Law § 120.00;
  • Stalking, New York Penal Law § 120.45;
  • Forcible touching, New York Penal Law § 130.52;
  • Sexual abuse in the second degree, New York Penal Law § 130.60;
  • Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, New York Penal Law § 135.05;
  • Endangering the welfare of a child, New York Penal Law § 260.10;
  • Insurance fraud in the fifth degree, New York Penal Law § 176.10;
  • Health care fraud in the fifth degree, New York Penal Law § 177.05;
  • Welfare fraud in the fifth degree, New York Penal Law § 158.05; and
  • Criminal possession of methamphetamine manufacturing material in the second degree, New York Penal Law § 220.70

S.744 also authorizes DHS to waive a broad array of criminal behavior for the purpose of determining admissibility, including convictions for:

  • Gang-related crimes (INA 212(a)(2)(F))(added to the INA by §3701)
  • Three or more drunk driving offenses (INA 212(a)(2)(J))(added to the INA by § 3702)
  • Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violation of protective orders (INA 212(a)(2)(K))(added to the INA by §3711)

Also for the purpose of determining admissibility, S.744 allows DHS to waive the following conduct, which does not require a conviction in order to make an alien inadmissible:

  • Committing crimes or of moral turpitude (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I));
  • Violating federal or state drug laws (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II));
  • Trafficking in passports (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(III))(added to the INA by §3709);
  • Providing fraudulent immigration services (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(III))(added to the INA by §3709);
  • Trafficking immigration documents, including document fraud (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(III))(added to the INA by §3709);
  • Prostitution (INA 212(a)(2)(D)(i));
  • Gang membership (INA 212(a)(2)(F))(added to the INA by §3701);
  • Misrepresenting a material fact to procure visas or other immigration benefits (if done for any purpose other than submitting an amnesty application) (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i));
  • Violating student visas (INA 212(a)(6)(G));
  • Falsely claiming citizenship (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)); and
  • Illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation (a felony)(INA 212(a)(9)(C).

When the Senate Gang of Eight unveiled S.744 at a press conference April 18th, they made repeated promises that illegal aliens applying for amnesty would have to undergo a criminal background check. While that may be true, a background check is only meaningful if aliens who committed serious crimes are actually barred from receiving amnesty and being placed on that pathway to citizenship. The specific text of the S.744, combined with its numerous waiver provisions, demonstrate that criminal illegal aliens will indeed be eligible for amnesty under the Gang of Eight plan.

Filed Under: Amnesty 2013, Border, Crime, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society
« Older Posts