Thursday, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren introduced her plan to decriminalize immigration, welcome more refugees and focus enforcement on only security threats. Her open borders approach is in stark contrast to the stance taken by the Trump administration.
Warren, a Massachusetts senator, said the Trump administration’s harsh treatment of migrants, to include separating undocumented children and parents at the border, is based on a law known as Section 1325.
It allows for criminal penalties for illegally entering the U.S. or entering legally and overstaying a visa. Warren wants to repeal the provision and indicated that she would use executive power to reduce its enforcement as president.
“We should repeal this criminal prohibition to prevent future abuse,” Warren wrote in a Medium.com post, vowing that as president she would “immediately issue guidance to end criminal prosecutions for simple administrative immigration violations” and “refocus our limited resources on actual criminals and real threats.”
So, to translate: Warren wants to allow anyone who wants to walk into this nation to do so with no consequences. She wants to give free reign to anyone and everyone. Given that she is in favor of free healthcare for those not here legally, her plan could get extremely expensive.
This plan came in conjunction with President Trump’s announcement that he will take executive action on the 2020 U.S. Census to include a citizenship question in the population count.
There are also indications that mass arrests of thousands of undocumented people are expected to begin Sunday, assuming sanctuary proponents don’t tip them all off first. Warren, like most of other Democratic hopefuls, refuses to grasp the concept that making an illegal action legal doesn’t make the inherent problems go away.
Among the other aspects that she cannot grasp, the senator is just one of the crowd when it comes to accusing the current administration of atrocities that were actually perpetrated in the Obama years. Obama’s immigration shortcomings notwithstanding, Warren said she would create a Justice Department task force to investigate what she referred to as criminal abuses of immigrants by Trump administration officials.
An excerpt from Bloomberg News states:
“In his 2016 campaign, Trump mobilized voters with an anti-immigration message focused on building a wall and removing undocumented people, successfully capitalizing on grievances about demographic and cultural changes that have made the U.S. more diverse. Warren’s plan is sure to amplify the president’s claim that Democrats are embracing an “open borders” immigration policy — most of her rivals have not gone as far.”
Warren’s plan is merely political pandering. It is aimed at a growing pro-immigration constituency in the Democratic Party, the Latino community specifically.
“Immigrants have always been a vital source of American strength. They grow our economy and make our communities richer and more diverse. They are our neighbors, our colleagues, and our friends,” Warren wrote. “President Trump sees things differently. He’s advanced a policy of cruelty and division that demonizes immigrants.”
Warren is calling for the outlawing of private detention facilities and limiting detentions to people who pose a security or flight risk, who could be tracked and monitored with technology. She wants to end ‘warrantless’ arrests and instead focus on smuggling, trafficking and spotting counterfeit products.
You have to wonder if she understands that there are a lot of people sneaking into this country via traffickers. Does she know that some of the people who are coming over illegally are smugglers and traffickers themselves?
Law Enforcement Today recently ran an article about ICE and sanctuary states. Warren, along with AOC and others are all calling for the abolishment of the very groups that were designed to management immigration.
”Sanctuary. Refuge. Harbor. Shelter. Safety. Hiding place. I read that list of words to my wife and asked her to give me one word that came to mind when hearing them. Her response: HOME. It may conjure up other places or thoughts for different people. Typically, they are associated with something good. I never thought I would see the day that those words were associated in such a negative way. The entire left coast has become a sanctuary…for rapists, murderers and other felonious sorts. More specifically, criminals with a history of criminal activity.”
At some point, Warren, and candidates like her will have to wake up and face reality. The reality is that legal immigrants do contribute to society and our way of life in this country. Further reality is that if you simply open the borders with no requirements, you will have many who come here and do not contribute, who simply ride the system. You will also have countless others who come to do us harm.
How can anyone predict that? It isn’t hard considering we already have those who do that at alarming rates, and we don’t yet have Warren-esque border with no restrictions, no riles and no consequences.
In the meantime, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other prominent politicians are ramping up their efforts to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement altogether.
But now it seems she’s leveled another attack against a major law enforcement agency — the Department of Homeland Security.
In a radio interview last week, Ocasio-Cortez called the formation of the agency a Bush-era mistake.
David Remnick, the host of the New Yorker Radio show, asked AOC whether or not she’d want to end the Department of Homeland Security.
“ICE is not under the (Department of Justice),” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It’s under the Department of Homeland Security. And so we have now—”
“Would you get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, too?” Remnick asked.
“I think so,” she said.
“I think we need to undo a lot of the egregious… a lot of the egregious mistakes that the Bush administration did. We are, at a very, it’s a very qualified and supported position, at least in terms of evidence, and in terms of being able to make the argument that we never should of created DHS in the early 2000s.”
The Department of Homeland Security employs over 240,000 people that work tirelessly to protect our nation from potential threats. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly acts of terrorism.
Our guess is because DHS absorbed the duties of the Immigration and Naturalization Service when it was formed, suddenly their function is no longer justified in the eyes of those who want open borders.
AOC doubled down on her condemnation of the border crisis, referring to the housing centers as “concentration camps”.
“The fact that concentrations camps are now an institutionalized practice in the Home of the Free is extraordinarily disturbing and we need to do something about it,” she said.
BREAKING: AOC Calls for an END to the DHS!
READ MORE: https://t.co/BCptt1zMkQ
— Neon Nettle (@NeonNettle) July 10, 2019
AOC is not the only one calling for these agencies to be abolished.
A number of presidential candidates have expressed their support in repealing agencies that pertain to the issue of immigration. More than a few have even suggested decriminalizing the act of unlawfully crossing the United States border.
Senator Cory Booker was reportedly shown escorting a group of people across the border into the United States this week in front of a massive crowd of reporters.
On Wednesday, presidential hopeful and New Jersey Senator #CoryBooker helped five migrants cross the border illegally from Mexico into the United States. The Democratic Party has made it clear for quite some time that they do not care about securing the border and making sure that immigrants legally enter the country. Because who needs laws when you can have more votes, right? Almost all of the 2020 Democratic candidates support open borders and decriminalizing border crossings, which would be catastrophic for America because it would encourage millions of people showing up at our borders and demanding tax-payer subsidized benefits. Why can’t Democrat’s support the way America has always handled immigration-the legal way? Booker broke the law and could face the possibility of arrest for his brazen act — which was undoubtedly a political stunt aimed at helping his failing campaign.
Posted by Blanka Nieves on Sunday, July 7, 2019
The New Jersey Attorney General threatened action against local sheriff’s departments for working with ICE agents.
What happened to law and order?
On the flip side, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday called the “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act”.
It would allow victims of violent crime in sanctuary cities to sue the municipalities for putting citizens in harms way.
It specifically states that it aims to:
“hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for failing to comply with lawful detainer and release notification requests made by federal authorities and jeopardizing public safety.”
The bill was introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis. It’s being co-sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, Marsha Blackburn, and Ted Cruz – all Republicans.
“It’s disturbing to see sheriffs across North Carolina establish sanctuary jurisdictions, releasing dangerous individuals back into communities while refusing to notify federal immigration officials,” Tills said.
He went on to point out that our country’s “leaders” need to own the damage they are causing.
“If politicians want to prioritize reckless sanctuary policies over public safety, they should also be willing to provide just compensation for the victims.”
The term “sanctuary city” refers to a municipality that has clearly indicated it will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities seeking to locate and detain illegal immigrants.
It’s a movement that’s spreading across dozens of cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Republicans have attacked the policy as the border is overrun and border patrol officials are unable to keep up with the wave of those coming in illegally.
The overwhelming majority of Democratic hopefuls in the presidential race aren’t just embracing the idea of “sanctuary cities” – many are moving towards an open border policy in general.
Republicans argue that legal and safe immigration is the way to deter violent criminals from attempting to enter the country, not protecting them from the law.
“We are a nation of laws,” Grassley said. “Whether you are a citizen, immigrant or even a local government, disregarding those laws should carry consequences.”
President Trump has consistently criticized sanctuary cities. He says they encourage illegal immigration, and earlier this year strongly considered flooding those cities with the immigrants not here legally.
He later changed his mind.
“We’ll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it’s a state or whatever it might be,” Trump said. “California certainly is always saying, ‘Oh, we want more people.’ And they want more people in their sanctuary cities. Well, we’ll give them more people. We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply, and let’s see if they’re so happy.”
Republicans like Cruz have continued to push for accountability for state and local authorities that work to undermine that goal.
“Sanctuary cities and their policies are a dangerous affront to the rule of law, and only exasperate the crisis at our border,” Cruz said. “I am proud to join my colleagues in holding these jurisdictions accountable, and will continue working to enforce our federal immigration laws and ensure the safety and security of the American people.”
What happened in June is a great example of the problems we face.
Police ended up on the hunt for a man who they say was released from jail in Seattle… then immediately returned to rape the same victim.
The woman’s name is not being shared, but she sat down with a local media outlet to express her anger with how King County’s been handling the case.
It started last year, when a White Center woman who is wheelchair dependent was raped by a man she didn’t know – in front of her 2-year-old child.
Francisco Carranza- Ramirez was convicted in the rape. But he served 9 months in prison before being released.
Detectives say Ramirez returned and once again attacked the woman.
“I thought he was going to kill me,” she said to Q13 News. “The way he had my throat I couldn’t breathe,” she said.
She is now in protective custody while Ramirez is on the run.
“In a case like this, the system completely backfired and failed me,” she said.
She says the King County Prosecutor’s Office failed her and lead to her being raped again.
“They file the charges lower so that they can convince or incentivize to plead guilty,” she said.
She says she asked the prosecutor’s office to go after Ramirez to the full extent and they refused.
“It’s not a justice system for victims, it’s a justice system for defendants,” she said.
Now that he’s been released, she says the courts failed her again. Prosecutors asked for community custody, but King County Superior Court Judge Nicole Gaines Phelps declined that recommendation.
A spokesman said the judge cannot speak about the case outside of court, but her office did send Q13 News audio of the hearing.
In it, you hear the defense telling the judge that all the logistics to get Ramirez to Mexico were in place. The defense then promised the judge that his ex-wife would be responsible for getting him on a plane that was booked for his native country.
It was Ramirez who requested the ability to leave for Mexico, and there was a question by the judge on whether or not he could leave the US for Mexico if he was in community custody.
In the end, the judge ruled to allow Ramirez to leave the U.S. on the condition he provide proof that he arrived in Mexico once he got there.
The penalty if he didn’t? Simply a bench warrant with no cash bail.
Of course Ramirez didn’t go to Mexico. Instead, the 35-year-old took off… and has no known address because he is homeless.
The King County Prosecutor’s Office says it’s not their fault. They argued they never negotiated her case with the other side and there was no plea deal.
“The State did not file a lesser charge to incentivize a plea – nor did anyone in our office tell the victim that we filed a lesser charge to incentivize a plea,” the prosecutor’s office said.
According to the prosecutor’s office, Ramirez pleaded guilty to the original charges during his arraignment and the charges were based on the evidence they had.
They said his case is “very unusual”, because they say most defendants plead not guilty.
The victim says the charges were all wrong. She argues Ramirez should have been charged with aggravated factors and not just rape in the 3rd degree, for which the maximum sentencing is 1 year behind bars.
That’s the sentence Ramirez got, but thanks to “good behavior”, he got out in 9 months.
The victim stresses that a harsher charge could have led to a longer jail time.
There are also questions as to why the judge in this case did not alert law enforcement to escort Ramirez to the border.
But of course thanks to lawmakers in the incredibly liberal state, attorneys and judges aren’t allowed to ask citizenship status. That means the question of whether an agency like ICE should have been alerted is not up to the courts.
Here’s what an ICE spokesman had to say:
“In this case, we were not alerted that this person was going to be released from local custody. It makes it really difficult for us to identify them when we are in local custody because prior to this law, and this law goes a step further, but prior to this law the state has effectively blocked us from accessing any sort of state law enforcement databases … We cannot access the detainees themselves in local custody, so we have to find sources of information that are available to the public to try and determine who is in the local jail. Often times we are only going to know after the fact,” said Acting Field Officer Director for ICE Bryan Wilcox.
State Rep. Dan Griffey is ripping mad.
“It’s pissing me off, and we should all be pissed off,” Griffey said.
Griffey is an advocate for reforming sexual assault laws in Washington, and he said this proves that more work needs to be done.
“A lot of times they plead cases out but there are certain cases that are so detrimental to society,” Griffey said.
He said he wants to sponsor a bill that could change the process when it comes to the most violent sexual assault cases.
“The legislation is getting to the point that we tell prosecutors that you can’t plead these cases down in certain circumstances,” Griffey said.
He did NOT weigh in on the migration topic, but he did say Ramirez’s case defies common sense.
As for the victim? She says she’s terrified to go outside with the predator still on the loose.
“I don’t want him to hurt anybody else,” she said.