WASHINGTON, DC – Multiple agencies within the Biden administration are reportedly in talks to hand of large sums of taxpayer money to illegal immigrants for the “psychological trauma” caused by being separated from family members at the border.
According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, roughly 940 families have filed claims, via the American Civil Liberties Union, against the US government for their “suffering.”
The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Health and Human Services are looking into these payments.
Some figures estimate that the average family claim consists of at least one adult and one child, and each individual could receive $450,ooo – meaning that the minimum amount of money that could be doled out would equal $846M.
Let me repeat that. The Biden administration wants to hand out at least $846M to individuals who entered our country illegally.
If even half of those claims include an additional child or adult, that total increases to $1.3B.
Other reports say that they ACLU is seeking roughly $3.4M per family affected. That math adds up to almost $3.2B.
Whether it is $846M or $3.2B, that is a lot of American tax dollars being spent to placate individuals who were breaking the law. And now the president and those who serve at his pleasure want to reward them.
Rest assured, there are plenty of people who believe that this payout will set a revolving door precedent.
Come to America illegally.
Claim to suffer some sort of trauma.
Sue the federal government.
Get paid a fortune.
Welcome to America.
You can stay.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
To make matters worse, the lawsuit details that each of these families dealt with the separation that caused their mental health issues starting in April 2018 as part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy.
Nevermind the fact that family separations of children and their parents at the border were well-documented as having been an issue going back to the Obama years and beyond.
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigrant rights project, said that not only must the government provide a monetary compensation, but a pathway for remaining in the country.
“President Biden has agreed that the family separation policy is a historic moral stain on our nation that must be fully remedied,” Gelernt said.
It is important to note that while this lawsuit focuses on roughly 45 days in 2018, family separation has been taking place for much longer than just the Trump administration.
“Under all four administrations I have worked under, we have separated families for different reasons,” former CBP Chief Carl Provost said in an interview in August of 2018.
“Obviously, the welfare of the child is of utmost concern for us. And we are still separating if that is of concern. If the parent or the guardian has a serious, criminal history, we will still separate them as well.”
Again, we must point out that this is all revolving around people who broke the law to enter our country.
Let’s compare a few things, just to stir the pot a little deeper.
Biden wants to pay illegal immigrants $450,000 for their hardship while breaking our laws.
For perspective, if a service member is killed in action, their next of kin gets an insurance payment of $400,000.
Let that sink in. https://t.co/J3kuhDhyD5
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) October 28, 2021
Texas Congressman, Navy SEAL and disabled combat veteran, Dan Crenshaw pointed out:
“Biden wants to pay illegal immigrants $450,000 for their hardship while breaking our laws. For perspective, if a service member is killed in action, their next of kin gets an insurance payment of $400,000. Let that sink in.”
Hey Congressman, that is a valid point, and should cause all of our blood to boil. But, let’s look at this a little deeper.
These payments to illegal immigrants aren’t based on giving their lives for this nation. The lawsuits specifically point out that is is due to psychological ramifications. So, we need to compare apples to apples.
It would take 311.64 months, or nearly 26 years for that veteran, who fought to defend this country, to receive the same level of compensation ($450,000) as the illegal immigrant getting paid as part of this settlement.
According to a 2017 study, there are approximately 1.8 million veterans in the US diagnosed with PTSD. Based on the above averages, it would take
But, to be fair, those “separated” at the border were not single.
So, what about a veteran with a spouse and a child? They would receive $1,656.71 per month until the child turned 18. After that, the monthly payment would go down to $1,566.71. Assuming the child was 10 upon award, that would give that family the higher payment for 8 years.
Based on those figures, it would take that veteran’s family 71.3 years to reach the same level of payment ($1.35M) as the family of 3 that broke our laws coming here.
Hopefully, this provides a little perspective on what we are talking about here.
MAKE IT MAKE SENSE!
House minority leader Kevin McCarthy may have summed it up the best, tweeting:
Pure insanity. The Biden administration is reportedly looking to pay $450,000 to illegal immigrants who knowingly broke the law.
It's a slap in the face to our law-abiding citizens who wake up, go to work, and pay their taxes.
— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) October 28, 2021
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
It begins: States fed up with the border wall being stopped sue the Biden Administration
WASHINGTON, DC – Two states are fed up with their belief that the Biden Administration’s stance on halting the construction of the border wall has violated the separation of powers and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
As a result, they have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to get the wall constructed.
Attorney Generals from Missouri and Texas have joined forces to sue the Biden administration over their concerns with border security.
Attorney General for Missouri, Eric Schmitt, and the Attorney General for Texas, Ken Paxton, believe that there is enough cause to move forward with the lawsuit. Schmitt released a statement that read in part:
“Time and again, the Biden administration has refused to take concrete action to quell the worsening border crisis, inviting the cartels and human drug smugglers to take advantage of our porous border.
Without a border wall, illegal immigrants, coyotes, and bad actors can simply march across our southern border and into the interior. The border wall needs to be built, the funds have been appropriated to continue to build the wall, and yet the Biden Administration outright refuses to do so.”
The Biden Administration created the crisis on our southern border and now they refuse to pay for the endless and ongoing damage. Texans should not have to foot this bill. #Letsgobrandon #BidenBorderCrisis https://t.co/xd69kFLIl0
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) October 25, 2021
Schmitt’s concern has to do with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 and the designation of over $1.3 billion that was to go to construct the border wall.
Additionally, the DHS Appropriations Act also slated the same amount of money for construction.
The problem is, according to Schmitt and Paxton, President Joe Biden and his administration redirected those funds elsewhere, without any further approval.
“The Biden Administration’s flat refusal to use funds that have already been set aside by Congress to build the border wall is not only illegal and unconstitutional. It’s also wrong, and it leaves states like Texas and Missouri footing the bill. I will not sit idly by while this Administration wreaks more havoc on our state.”
Both Schmitt and Paxton do have a point in as much as the funds were directed to go towards the border wall construction. Specifically, according to the DHS Appropriations Act:
“The FY 2021 funding of $1.375 billion supports the construction of approximately 56 miles of border wall system in U.S. Border Patrol (USBPD) top-priority locations as outlined in the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP).”
— Katrina Pierson (@KatrinaPierson) October 24, 2021
Paxton, during a press conference in El Paso, Texas, addressed the lawsuit with those in attendance. He said:
“I’ll just say to the President of the United States, ‘Let’s go Brandon!, we’ll see you in court.”
'We'll See You in Court!': Missouri and Texas Sue to Force Biden Admin to Finish Building the Border Wall https://t.co/L4dPS3GfZ4
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) October 25, 2021
Let’s go Brandon is a viral saying that seemingly started when NBC reporter Kelli Stavast was interviewing NASCAR Xfinity Series driver Brandon Brown after he had won a race at Talladega.
During the interview, the crowd allegedly was chanting, “Fuck Joe Biden,” and Stavast, for whatever reason, stated to the camera that the crowd was shouting “Let’s go Brandon.”
President Biden and his Administration have not made any attempts to hide their disdain for the construction of the border wall. President Biden, on his inauguration day, noted his belief that the wall was a “waste of money.”
This is not the first lawsuit that Paxton and Schmitt have filed against the Biden Administration, specifically over border control concerns, this is their seventh.
They have won at least one of their lawsuits when the courts ordered the Administration to reinstitute former President Donald Trump’s remain in Mexico policy.
The remain in Mexico policy forces those that wish to enter the country for purposes of seeking asylum to remain in Mexico while their cases are heard in court. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, who heard the case, agreed that the policy should be enforced and ordered that it be reimplemented in November.
“Re-Fund the Police”: Law Enforcement Today launches nationwide campaign for Americans to back the blue
Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”. While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers. And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.
And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.
WASHINGTON, DC – According to reports, a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier in October ordered that a lower court’s ruling be vacated on funding construction for the border wall – instructing the court to reexamine the case in light of “changed circumstances”.
On October 4th, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s decision regarding the use of Pentagon funds for construction of the border wall is vacated due to “changed circumstances”.
The SCOTUS ruling reads as follows:
“BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. – The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate its judgments. The District Court should consider what further proceedings are necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances in this case.”
In an article published by Newsweek regarding the decision by SCOTUS, the headline “Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Donald Trump’s Plan to Use $3.6 Billion for Border Wall” was crafted.
But it’s frankly unclear if that was the intention of SCOTUS, since the case was merely kicked back down to the lower courts in order to “consider what further proceedings are necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances” without mentioning what the exact “changed circumstances” are that would prompt a reevaluation.
Perhaps the most obvious of “changed circumstances” in the case is that the case was originally Trump v. Sierra Club, which the Trump administration was legally challenged by a group of NGOs that included the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition in 2019 over his attempt to reallocate funds from the DoD budget to fund border wall construction.
In May of 2019, a preliminary injunction in the Trump v. Sierra Club case was issued that blocked the funding for the border wall, and then one month later, the district court ruled against former President Trump.
In June of 2020, the 9th Circuit upheld the decision from the district court.
This of course led to the case landing in the lap of the Supreme Court, which they never offered an official decision on the case, instead only allowing wall construction to continue in July of 2020 by denying the lower courts’ rulings to go immediately into effect.
SCOTUS’ ability to block the lower courts’ decisions reached in 2019 and 2020 stemmed from an original stay SCOTUS implemented in May of 2019 as SCOTUS wasn’t sure if special interest groups, like Sierra Club, have any lawful cause of action to sue the Department of Defense over transferring funds.
Yet a change of administration came in January of 2021, which completely changed the course of the case in question.
Come July of 2021, SCOTUS then delivered in an unsigned order which was the same exact written order that was delivered earlier in October, rejecting the appeal of the case and instructing the 9th Circuit to vacate their judgement and “consider what further proceedings are necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances in this case.”
And as reports from this past July noted regarding SCOTUS’ decision to kick back the case to the lower courts, it’s because the Biden administration had informed the courts back in February of 2021 that they were going to postpone arguments on the case.
The reason for the Biden administration’s February decision to postpone arguments in the now dubbed Biden v. Sierra Club is because the administration has zero intention on fighting for a win in the case.
In short, the case has been dead since February, and SCOTUS’ decision from earlier in October is a carbon copy from the unsigned order delivered this past July over “changed circumstances”.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.