President Trump shuts down policy that let countless illegal immigrant kids be smuggled into America

Share:

TUCSON, AZ- A policy over a decade old has been shut down by President Donald Trump, which not only harms the cartel’s operations of smuggling illegal immigrant children in the country, but upsets the far left as well.

The rule that has been in place for 12 years is what’s known as the “Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC),” and, thanks to the pandemic, the United States is experiencing a brief respite in ballooning populations of illegal immigrant children.

The New York Times treated this development as a sort of sad and somber moment for the United States. The outlet noted that “hundreds of migrant children and teenagers” have been removed from the country when they attempted to enter illegally.

The Trump administration’s ability to circumvent the UAC mandates that existed years before Trump taking office is thanks to the ongoing pandemic and the existing Title 42 law that permits border agents from stopping migrants crossing into the country illegally at the request of the CDC.

According to DHS Chief Chad Wolf, the CDC has proclaimed that Title 42 will be continually enforced indefinitely until the “serious danger from COVID-19 has ceased.”

There are Democrats that are completely outraged that children cannot come into the United States illegally anymore. One of them is none other than Joe Biden, where he stated the following on Twitter:

“Donald Trump is using a global health crisis as an excuse to deport children and continue separating families. It’s heartless and un-American.

People across the political spectrum rejected these policies before, and will do so again, because they know families belong together.”

 Back in 2008, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act was reupped and provided a means for coyotes to illegally smuggle children into the United States via a loophole that protected UACs from being deported.

As long as the kids were alone when crossing, they were delivered to a next of kin within the United States essentially.

Thus, creating an influx of illegal migrants into K-through-12 schools. This is the very thing that Biden seems to want to keep going on, for whatever reason.

Overall, nearly half-a-million children have made their way into the United States between 2008 and 2019, which is quite a considerable amount.

These very migrant youths that flooded into the United States were ripe for the picking with local gangs like MS-13, who typically onboard the likes of young migrants.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the 2008 TVPRA essentially made the U.S. government part and parcel to “smuggling organizations” south of the border.

Back in August of 2019, Ken Cuccinelli mirrored the sentiment that the federal government was responsible to a degree in enabling a pipeline of illegally smuggled children into the United States:

“The federal government has been the final link in the human trafficking effort up to this point.

People put children in this pipeline with a certain degree of confidence — they’re obviously willing to risk their children –– that they will end up with the parents in the end. We are helping them pull this off.”

Despite the accomplishment with temporarily shutting off the valve of the pipeline that has introduced numerous illegal immigrant minors into the United States, therein lies the still present caveats of H-1B visas and exploited B-1 visas that have harmed the likes of white-collar worker salaries for American citizens.

With a population of roughly 1.3 million H-1B visa holders that are present within the country, this has inevitably driven down wages for stateside collegiate graduates who’d wagered on higher salaries.

Not to mention, B-1 visa holders who have managed to drive down wages for an amalgamation of working-class citizens.

Of course, big businesses are fighting to keep the likes of H-1B visas moving forward, since it can save them a buck or two in the long run.

Earlier this month, proponents of illegal immigration got doled out a huge loss, as the U.S. Supreme Court decided to reinstate a law that makes it a felony to encourage illegal aliens to come to or stay within the United States.

For those who support legal immigration practices, this of course is a huge win.

The ruling was handed down on May 7th, which effectively reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision back in 2018 that struck down the law recently brought back to life.

The ruling from the Supreme Court wasn’t based on upon the merits of the law in question, but rather the manner in which the 9th Circuit arrived at their ruling in 2018.

From the perspective of the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision was tainted as they had pondered the delivered perception of the law in question from outside groups instead of considering positions articulated by the defendant in the 2018 case.

The background of the case is rather unique.

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith had been running an immigration consulting firm where she was advertising services for people who entered the United States absent of needed documentation and promised to help them obtain work visas and even permanent resident statuses.  

Her method of doing so was by means of using the United States’ Labor Certification process, which was a program that expired back on April 30th of 2001.

Needless to say, she found herself with an indictment for said practices in 2010, since the deadline for the program had long expired. Among her 10 counts, three of the charges were for violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324.

The portion of the law in question that Sineneng-Smith was said to have violated reads as follows:

“[Any person who] encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

Subsection (B) (i) of the law outlined the possible sentence against the defendant since there was the aspect of Sineneng-Smith charging her clients for said services that was in conflict with the standing law:

“In the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

The defendant didn’t get 10 years in prison for the conviction reached at the time, but she did wind up getting 18 months in prison and three years of probation.

Flash forward to December 4th, 2018, and the 9th Circuit had vacated portions of the ruling in Sineneng-Smith’s case, making the convictions essentially disappear.

The rationale behind the 9th Circuit’s ruling was because the panel felt as though the law that the defendant was convicted under is “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

The court didn’t ponder whether what Sineneng-Smith did was actually illegal, but honed in on the verbiage used in the law that led the panel to feel as though it was Constitutionally murky.

LET has a private home for those who support emergency responders and veterans called LET Unity.  We reinvest the proceeds into sharing their untold stories. Click to check it out.

Man launches home invasion using baseball bat. Gets killed by homeowner with a gun.

Clinton appointee Senior U.S. Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote the following in the court’s opinion:

“The statute potentially criminalizes the simple words – spoken to a son, a wife, a parent, a friend, a neighbor, a coworker, a student, a client – ‘I encourage you to stay here.’”

Yet, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent decision on May 7th, she noted that the 9th Circuit went overboard by taking into consideration opinions offered by parties not related to the case at all.

The court invited three groups into the appellate court case via a process known as amicus briefs, and weighed their decision solely based upon interpretations not even offered by the defense.

The three groups in question were the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

Justice Ginsburg commented on that aspect of the appellate court’s decision in the ruling:

“Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, the appeals court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question Sineneng-Smith herself never raised earlier: Whether the statute of conviction is overbroad under the First Amendment.”

Dan Stein, who serves as the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, agrees with the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, noting that it is not the role of judges to question policy issues that were never presented in oral arguments by the relevant parties in cases.

Stein also explained that judges cannot invite organizations that align with their political ideology by way of amicus briefs to subvert the legislative process:

“No effort to recruit politically allied organizations to provide friend-of-the-court briefs can empower an expansive authority that does not lie properly within the judiciary.”

Furthermore, what was obtuse in the 9th Circuit’s decision in 2018 was that the defendant wasn’t facing charges related to her alleged speech, but the actions that they took to facilitate people arriving into the country illegally while profiting off the endeavor.

Stein described the Supreme Court’s decision perfectly, when he stated:

“Not only is this a win for the Trump administration, it’s a win for the American people.”

_

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.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Related Posts