Report: Canada offers to take illegal aliens facing deportation from U.S. detention centers


TORONTO, CANADA- According to a recent article from the Washington Post, Canada’s immigration minister is now offering Canadian residency to many migrants that are currently in U.S. detention centers and facing deportation. 

Many migrants have sought asylum in Canada over the years, however, due to the coronavirus many have been turned back by Canadian border guards and forced back to the United States where they, at times, have been arrested and detained with final orders of removal, as is the case for Apollinaire Nduwimana.

Reportedly, back in March, Canada and the United States agreed to close their border to asylum seekers at unauthorized entry points. Canadian officials allege that they had received assurances from their U.S. counterparts that the individuals they turned back would not be deported. The Post reported:

“Now at least one has been. At least eight others, including Nduwimana, are being held at a federal detention facility in Batavia, N.Y., many with final removal orders. One of them, a Ghanaian man, was pulled off a plan this month, avoiding deportation only after a lawyer obtained a temporary stay of removal.”

It added:

“Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino this month exempted five of those asylum seekers from the border restrictions, according to Kate Webster, their Toronto-based lawyer. Another application is pending. That means they will be allowed to enter Canada, if the United States releases them.”

According to reports, many illegals in the United States have already moved from President Donald Trump’s pro-American enforcement policies to seek residency in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pro-migrant Canada. 

Canadian official declined to comment on the cases or the exemptions, citing privacy rules. A spokesman for Mendicino said the immigration ministry had “in a number of exceptional circumstances” granted such exemptions to refugee claimants to enter Canada from the U.S. Spokesman Alex Cohen said:

“In each instance, these decisions were exercised in accordance with our domestic laws, international obligations towards refugees and protected persons, and in strict compliance with public health and safety protocols at the border.”

Reportedly, more than 58,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada at such crossings since 2017. Nearly 15,000 of their claims have been accepted and around 12,000 have been rejected while almost 30,000 are pending.

Under Canadian rules, the “rejected” migrants are supposedly returned to the U.S., where some have already gone through the multi-year legal process of deportation filings, reviews, and appeals.

However, deportations are bad for business, especially for immigration lawyers, so Canada’s government is bending to pressure from pro-migration groups to save U.S.-based illegal immigrants from being sent home.

Allegedly, Canada has dramatically raised immigration numbers in recent years, amid pressure and nudging by progressives, business groups, and immigration lawyers. At least 11 million foreign citizens are living illegally in the U.S.

There are even pro-American reformers that continue to celebrate Canada’s welcome for U.S.-based illegal aliens, urging the illegals in the U.S. to move to Canada as seen in the tweet below:

Webster said in a statement:

“While we absolutely welcome this decision and are very happy about it, we’re mindful that this is only a small piece of the puzzle and that the exemption on its own is not a complete solution.”

She added:

“I have very serious concerns that there are many more in these circumstances and we just don’t know about them.”

Back in March, Canada said it would screen and quarantine asylum seekers who entered at unofficial crossings. Yet, days later, officials said they would be sent back.

Advocates condemned the sudden shift and said they feared the U.S. would deport those turned back, putting both countries at risk of violating treaty commitments to non-refoulement (returning migrants to countries where they could face persecution). Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters:

“We are very much aware of the problem of refoulement. It was and continues to be important for Canada to have assurances that that would not happen to those returned to the United States.”

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.

LET Unity

Federal judge orders Trump administration to stop expelling children who illegally cross border

November 18th, 2020

HOUSTON, TX- On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to cease the expulsion of immigrant children who cross the southern border illegally, stopping a policy that has led to the expulsion of thousands of minors subsequent to rapid deportations which have occurred during the coronavirus pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the temporary injunction sought by legal groups who sued on behalf of children the government was seeking to expel before they could seek asylum or other protections under federal law.

Since March, the Trump administration has removed at least 8,800 unaccompanied children, when it issued an emergency declaration which cited the coronavirus as grounds to bar most people crossing the border from Mexico into the United States. The declaration obviously also applied to Canada.

In some cases, officers from Customs and Border Protection forced people to return to Mexico immediately, however others were held in holding facilities or hotels, sometimes for periods of days or weeks. Conversely, government-funded facilities which are meant to hold children while they are placed with sponsors have thousands of unused beds.

Sullivan’s order only refers to unaccompanied children. The government has expelled 147,00 people since March, including adults, and parents and children traveling together.

“This policy was sending thousands of children back to danger without any hearing,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU. “Like so many other Trump administration policies, it was gratuitously cruel and unlawful.”

There was no immediate indication if the Justice Department planned to appeal the order. It had appealed another federal judge’s order which barred the use of hotels to detain children.

Biden hasn’t indicated whether his administration, should he take office, will keep the program of expelling illegal aliens under public health authority intact. Biden of course has indicated that if he becomes president, he will loosen up Trump administration immigration policies, so it is reasonable to assume that he would reverse course on expelling illegals.

The Trump administration has used the COVID-19 pandemic as a means to clamp down on the border, citing the desire to prevent the infection of border patrol agents and others already in immigration custody.

The emergency declaration was initially made by Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Justice Department, on Oct. 2 cited Redfield’s position as the “nation’s top public health official” in urging Sullivan to leave the expulsion program in place.

On Oct 3, the AP reported that top CDC officials had resisted issuing the declaration because it lacked a public health basis, however Vice President Mike Pence directed Redfield to move forward on the policy anyway.

Opponents of the policy claimed that the Trump administration was using the pandemic as an excuse to restrict immigration, while noting that agents can safely screen minor children for COVID-19 without denying them protection under federal anti-trafficking law, and a court settlement that governs the treatment of children.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey recommended on Sept. 25 that Sullivan grant an injunction to bar the expulsions of children, while saying that the government was utilizing power that was “breathtakingly broad.”

Children and parents who have been expelled have reported believing they would be allowed to reunite with family in the U.S> only to be deported to their countries of origin instead.

In one case, a mother of a 12-and 9-year old discovered her children had been deported after she received a call from an official in Honduras who called her to send a relative to collect them.

Meanwhile, the father of a 1-year-old girl said border agents told him and his wife to feed the girl ice in case their temperatures were checked before boarding a flight. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has denied using ice as an artificial cooling measure.

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.

LET Unity

Last month, we reported on a Trump administration proposal which would make it harder for foreign nationals who are welfare-dependent the opportunity to obtain permanent residency status in the U.S. For our reporting on that, we invite you to:


WASHINGTON, DC – With a new proposed rule, the Trump administration continues to work toward reducing the tax burden of supporting immigrants.

In 2019, a new rule established that foreign nationals who are welfare-dependent are less likely to obtain permanent residency status in the United States.

Such a measure, according to Breitbart, is on track to save American taxpayers nearly $60 billion annually, or approximately $1600 per immigrant.

This year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Homeland Security have recently posted a new proposed rule in the Federal Register which would address the ability of sponsors of foreign nationals to provide financial support without the help of welfare programs.

At present, the proposal states, some immigrants must submit an Affidavit of Support under Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Section 213a requires a sponsor to provide support for an immigrant they want to bring in to the United States.

The new proposal clarifies how a sponsor is to demonstrate the necessary income to provide for their sponsored immigrant.  A sponsor must have an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federal poverty line, or in the case of an Armed Forces member on active duty petitioning for a spouse or child, at least 100 percent.

Sponsors who submit the Affidavit of Support must demonstrate their ability to provide support by submitting three years of tax returns, credit reports, credit scores, and bank information.

In addition, a sponsor’s previous history of using welfare benefits, as well as a history of failure to meet support obligations under a previous affidavit, will be used in determining whether a sponsor is financially able to support the immigrant.

Also, the rule seeks to limit the number of household members who execute the Affidavit of Support, as currently there is no limit.  The new proposal would permit only the spouse of a sponsor or a person with the same principal residence to execute the agreement.

Such a requirement, the proposal states:

“…will better ensure that the income a household member promises to make available to support the intending immigrant is actually available.”

Furthermore, the proposal changes how public benefit agencies can obtain information in an Affidavit of Support from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Presently, to address a sponsor’s support obligation, a subpoena is required before the USCIS can provide a copy of an Affidavit to an investigating agency.  Instead, under the proposal, a requesting party is to make a formal request, using a newly developed form, to the USCIS for the Affidavit.

In addition, the proposal seeks to allow the USCIS “flexibility to determine a more efficient mechanism for information reporting” on judgements obtained against sponsors.

The proposal also calls for the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to provide address changes of sponsors and household members to means-tested benefit agencies.

Finally, the new proposal requires the assets used to meet the required 125% threshold to be “readily” convertible to cash.

According to a report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, 63 percent of non-citizen households use at least one welfare program.  That figure represents nearly twice the welfare program use of citizen households, which the CIS reports to be 35 percent.

In addition, in households of non-citizens who have lived in this country for more than 10 years, the use of welfare programs is 70 percent.

As CIS Director Jessica Vaughn recently pointed out on Twitter:

“If your income is so low that you qualify for means-tested welfare programs, why should you be allowed to sponsor new immigrants?”

According to a 2017 Rasmussen poll, the American populace may be largely in agreement with Vaughn’s stance on welfare benefits for immigrants and their sponsors. 

Sixty-two percent of respondents to the poll favored barring new immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for at least five years, with 26 percent in opposition and 12 percent undecided.

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.

LET Unity


Here is a previous report from Law Enforcement Today on Washington State’s $40 million Immigration Relief Fund.

OLYMPIA, WA – On August 10, Gov. Jay Inslee announced the creation of a state fund to help undocumented workers during the continued COVID-19 pandemic.

In a news release, Inslee proudly spoke of the Immigration Relief Fund, which will provide $40 million to assist Washington residents who have been unable to access federal stimulus programs due to their immigration status.

Allegedly, the governor and his staff worked closely with a coalition representing 430 immigration rights and social services organizations, and labor advocacy leaders to develop the funds. He said in a statement:

“We have to ensure that no one in our state is left behind as we fight this pandemic. COVID-19 doesn’t care about your immigration status. We must support every family affected by the virus, especially those who lack the necessary means to quarantine or isolate and prevent further spread.”

He added:

“This is the right thing for the well-being of individuals, the health of their colleagues, and the safety of our communities.”

According to the news release, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services has issued a request for proposals to select the nonprofit organization that will be in charge of administering the Immigrant Relief Fund.

Allegedly, once the nonprofit is chosen it will then partner with other community organizations to manage applications and the awards of $1,000 per eligible individual or up to $3,000 per family. If all goes as planned, initial awards are expected to be made later in the fall.

Rich Stolz, executive director of OneAmerica, an immigrant rights group, said:

“Immigrant community members are facing some of the worst outcomes of this pandemic and have been systematically excluded from a social safety net for too long.

A coalition of immigrant organizations came together to develop this fund that recognizes the dignity of our undocumented community members and works to get some relief to their families during this difficult time.”

Throughout his time in office, Inslee has always strongly supported the immigrant and refugee communities within the state of Washington. He said:

“Immigrant workers are critical to communities throughout the state and are the backbone of our economy. While some have been hit by the economic downturn caused by the pandemic, others face safety risks as frontline workers.”

He added:

“And even though immigrants in the United States pay billions of dollars in taxes, they do not receive the same support when a crisis occurs. This is one way to help rectify that situation.”

The Epoch Times reports that Washington state has between 229,000 and 271,000 illegal immigrants, primarily from Mexico.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which is described as a nonpartisan research organization, said that Washington state taxpayers are free to subsidize illegal immigrants, but should think twice before committing to actions like the Immigration Relief Fund. He said:

“Washington state taxpayers should be careful what they wish for because this is the kind of thing that could incentivize even more poor illegal immigrants to move to Washington state.”

He added:

“Why would you stop at COVID-19 relief? Once people have been supported by the government, they’ve been essentially subsidized by taxpayers in the state, they’re going to want other subsidies, even when the virus emergency passes.”

Back in May, similar action was taken by the state of California. Under Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders, state officials began distributing $500 per illegal immigrant, with a cap of $1,000 per household. According to reports, officials projected that 150,000 immigrants would receive the assistance, which would amount to $75 million in funds.

At a news conference, Newsom said:

“This is a state that steps up to help those in need, regardless of status.”

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


Related Posts