Deporting Criminal Migrants: Time for Action

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 7 weeks ago

   
   These statistics show that illegal migrants with criminal records have entered the U.S. under multiple administrations, with a noticeable increase during the Biden administration.
   
   NOTE --- Please consider that my original point is focused specifically on the deportation of illegal immigrants who have either committed crimes in the U.S. or have a history of violent crime in their home countries before arriving here. This is not about general immigration issues but about ensuring that individuals who pose a threat to public safety—whether by committing crimes in the U.S. or by having a violent criminal background in their country of origin—are removed from the country.  Please, consider sticking to this subject. 
   
   Illegal migrant crime continues to be a serious issue in the United States, and it's one that is growing more concerning with each passing year. States like Texas, California, Arizona, Florida, and New York are some of the most affected, with significant numbers of illegal migrants involved in violent crimes. According to reports, over 13,000 illegal migrants who were admitted into the country have gone on to commit murder, highlighting the dangers of a broken immigration system. These statistics show the severity of the problem, especially in states with higher migrant populations, where the criminal activities of some individuals are impacting public safety.
   
   Despite the presence of laws that are meant to keep criminals out of the country, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars individuals convicted of serious crimes from entering, the system has been consistently skirted. One of the primary reasons for this is the porous nature of the U.S.-Mexico border, where individuals can enter without being properly vetted. Many illegal migrants enter the country, sometimes through areas where border enforcement is weak, and some are simply not detained or identified. Additionally, policies like "catch and release" have allowed migrants to remain in the country while they await asylum hearings, creating opportunities for criminal activity to continue.
   
   One of the major concerns about addressing illegal migrant crime is the resistance from some state and local governments. Several states, including California and New York, have made it clear that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, particularly the deportation of illegal migrants who have committed crimes. These so-called "sanctuary states" have passed laws that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities, which complicates the deportation process. While these states can refuse to cooperate, federal law still gives the U.S. government the authority to intervene.
   
   Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1226 and Section 1231, the federal government has the legal authority to arrest and deport individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, even if state and local governments refuse to cooperate. This means that federal immigration agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have the right to enter states and remove illegal migrants, regardless of local policies. Although these sanctuary laws make enforcement more challenging, they do not supersede federal law, which allows for deportations of individuals who have committed crimes.
   
   In my view, Given the current state of affairs, it is clear that there needs to be a shift in how the country deals with illegal migrant crime. It’s time to take stronger action, and proposals like those from Donald Trump—focused on mass deportation of illegal immigrant criminals—offer a potential solution. The federal government has the legal right to remove individuals who pose a danger to communities, and it should be willing to exercise that authority to ensure public safety. It's time to confront the reality of illegal migrant crime and put solutions into action.
   
   Thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 85

      tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well presented.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      It's time to confront the reality of illegal migrant crime and put solutions into action.
      
      Why does the issue of removing those who are in the country illegally have to be framed as a migrant crime problem rather than just an effort to remove those who are here illegally?
      
      Why does it have to be framed in fear mongering terms? 
      
      What is the point of removing these people without changing the actual process in which they are let in in the first place? No point at all. I mean you do realize the limitations of vetting at the border?  Why is no one talking about improving those measures? It's all bluster about "migrant crime". Kind of misses the larger issue but oh well. Look here not there.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         "Why does the issue of removing those who are in the country illegally have to be framed as a migrant crime problem rather than just an effort to remove those who are here illegally?"
         
         None that I can see, for each and every one of them has violated our law; is a criminal.  From entering without permission to driving a car without a license or insurance, they are all committing crimes.
         
         You're right; there is no sense in deporting them in order to let more in and then deport THEM.  But our vaunted "leaders" have chosen not to lead in this area for decades and do not appear to be able to cooperate enough to do it now, either.
         
         Trump wants to end the automatic citizenship clause (which would certainly be a good thing) but he isn't going to be able to.  He wants a reasonable immigration policy and won't get that either.  Biden probably could have, but he didn't try, instead promoting a "bipartisan" package designed more to make citizenship easy than to limit immigration. 
         
         So we're stuck.  Keep deporting them until we (once more) grant amnesty to all and start the dreary, stupid process all over.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            We don't need to pretend that everyone here illegally is a murderer or currently looking to murder someone. We can simply say that we're going to focus on removing people who are here illegally. 
            
            "Biden probably could have, but he didn't try, instead promoting a "bipartisan" package designed more to make citizenship easy than to limit immigration".
            
            There was absolutely nothing that made citizenship easier in that bill.  This Congress will not be able to negotiate anything tougher than the previous bill. They need the Democrats to pass anything and we  will definitely see the kind of demands people thought were in the bipartisan bill come to actual life.   
            
            Trump wants to end the automatic citizenship clause (which would certainly be a good thing) but he isn't going to be able to. 
            
            Birthright citizenship?  Correct, he can't end it.

            replyreport
      2. 85

         Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         It’s incredibly frustrating that some people want to dismiss the very real, very dangerous impact of illegal immigration and migrant crimes. The issue isn’t about fear-mongering; it’s about protecting American citizens. Just look at the horrific crimes we’ve seen in recent weeks, committed by individuals who should never have been allowed into this country in the first place. Trump has been clear that those who break the law, whether they’re illegal immigrants or anyone else, will be removed quickly, and he’ll use common sense to make sure the process happens swiftly and effectively.
         
         As for those who are here illegally and are waiting for asylum hearings, Trump has been straightforward. While he hasn’t fully detailed how every step of the deportation will happen, he has promised that deportation will occur. The focus is on making sure we have the legal infrastructure in place to protect our country, while still allowing those who contribute to our workforce to apply for work permits, as our laws already provide. Let’s not pretend that this isn’t an issue. It’s not about framing things as fear-mongering—it’s about recognizing that our system is being abused, and the safety and security of the American people should always come first.
         
         Please don’t give your usual redundant response like “Americans commit more crimes per capita than illegal migrants.” That view sickens me. Tell the loved ones of the long list of women who have been murdered by illegal immigrants your reasoning. My reasoning is simple—ONE IS TOO MANY.
         
         Trump is committed to putting forth all new immigration laws. Perhaps we wait, and let him be sworn in.
         
         The larger point is that not one more family needs to bury a loved one that was brutalized, by someone who is in our country illegally ---  Not one!

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            How is he changing the vetting process at the border?   Will Republicans be putting together an immigration bill?   Your post circles completely around the issue of vetting.   If that doesn't change, then nothing changes.
            
            As for those who are here illegally and are waiting for asylum hearings,
            
            How are they here illegally if they're awaiting an asylum hearing? It doesn't make sense.
            
            Please don’t give your usual redundant response like “Americans commit more crimes per capita than illegal migrants.”
            
            
            That is a misquote. Replace "illegal migrants" for migrants and it would be correct. I've certainly never advocated for illegal immigration

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               "I've certainly never advocated for illegal immigration"
               
               Is knowingly and intentionally circumventing the intent of our immigration laws "illegal" even if it follows the letter of the law?  Are aliens being trained and taught loopholes around the intent thus "illegal"? 
               
               And if not, are they then "illegal" if they stay and continue to violate the intent of the law?  IMO yes they are.  It is that simple - they are violating the law with fraudulent claims that are known to be insufficient to grant asylum.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  'they are violating the law with fraudulent claims that are known to be insufficient to grant asylum."
                  
                  Again, that is back to our system. What's  Trump's plan to change the credible fear interview that is used as part of the asylum process?  Our system needs an overhaul and we need a congress who is willing to come together to do so.  The idea of Trump's Mass deportation is all bluster that doesn't address the actual issues.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "What's Trump's plan..." was an absymal failure if it was intended to respond to my post and answer the question of "Is knowingly and intentionally circumventing the intent of our immigration laws "illegal" even if it follows the letter of the law?"  Would you care to try again?
                     
                     But I will respond to your comment: yes, we desperately need an overhaul to the so-called "immigration system" and have for decades now.  And neither party wishes to take the lead in doing so; it has resulted in Obama's plainly illegal act in creating the "Dreamers" and in Trump's hated actions at the border.
                     
                     And we still have nothing but the same broken system that is costing us billions and billions every year.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                        'was an absymal failure if it was intended to respond to my post and answer the question of "Is knowingly and intentionally circumventing the intent of our immigration laws "illegal" even if it follows the letter of the law?"  Would you care to try again?
                        
                        This makes absolutely no sense. You seem to be saying that our immigration system should be based on the honesty of those showing up at the border?  No that doesn't work.  We have a system for screening for asylum at the border, if folks don't like it they really should be contacting their representatives for change. 
                        
                        Migrants showing up at the border haven't a clue about our immigration laws let alone the "intent" of them.

                        replyreport
2. 89

   wildernessposted 7 weeks ago

   Years and years ago, in about 1974, a nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH was instituted by the federal government.  Plainly overstepping states rights, the workaround by power hungry legislators was to deny any kind of road funding (repair, new work - all of it) unless states passed the 55 MPH limit for themselves and their state.
   
   So...deny any form of federal aid as long as such laws are in effect or as long as help is not forthcoming.  We have precedent for such over reach (as if federal government cared about states rights anyway) so should not be a problem.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I agree, Trump has already shared the migrant support program Biden created with his pen is all but gone. This program gave major support to the sanctuary cities to support the many needs of the illegal migrants.
      
      The Shelter and Services Program (SSP), introduced in 2023, was designed to help support the needs of migrants in the U.S. Specifically, it provides financial assistance to communities offering shelter and related services to non-citizens after their release from short-term holding facilities. In Fiscal Year 2024, Congress allocated $650 million for this program. So far, $300 million has been distributed directly to communities through this program, with plans for additional funds to be released later in the year. It's a FEMA program.  Sad to say money was budgeted out of FEMA funds... We have Americans in N. Carolina sleeping in tents that have no heat, water, or electricity. Some communities have gotten little to no help.
      
      With a bit of research, I found tons of cash Trump can withdraw if needed to collect and deport criminals.
      
      If a state refuses to cooperate with removing illegal migrants who have committed crimes, I believe the federal government, under Trump or any administration, could take several steps to deny or restrict federal aid to that state. For example, law enforcement grants, like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which helps fund local police departments, could be withheld if a state isn't cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Similarly, funding from the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, could be reduced or eliminated if the state isn't fully participating in immigration removal efforts. The federal government could also cut transportation and infrastructure funding, such as grants from the Federal Highway Administration, as a way to pressure states into compliance. I think another potential target could be Community Development Block Grants, which help fund community projects, or even education funding, particularly Title I grants for disadvantaged schools, if the state is sheltering illegal immigrants or not addressing criminal activity. Through these measures, I believe the Trump administration would aim to encourage states to comply with federal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to dealing with criminals who are in the country illegally.
      
      In my view, anyone who does not have a right to be here needs to be deported.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Why so anxious to have the Federal government reach into States? If folks in any particular state don't agree or like the manner in which their elected officials are dealing with any issue, they can simply vote them out.   Maybe they can gather signatures for ballot measures?  You know, let the voice of the citizens be heard at the local level.  And let's have the issue go to the states, I mean all legal scholars agree.   This is where people want it to be.   Many states will be different on the matter, but that's okay.  At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I’m confident many state officials in blue states will be voted out due to their handling of issues like illegal immigration. However, it’s not something that can be left to a public vote when it comes to removing illegal criminals. That responsibility falls squarely on the federal government, which has jurisdiction over these individuals. The federal government allowed these individuals into our communities, and it must take responsibility for resolving the consequences of its decisions. Migrants awaiting hearings remain under federal oversight—they are not citizens of America or the states they temporarily reside in while waiting. To suggest otherwise is hyperbolic and ignores the established legal Federal frameworks that make immigration a federal issue, not a state or public referendum.
            
            Maybe the citizens would have liked a vote on letting their state be used as a place to house illegal criminals.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Not sure it is only a federal responsibility.  We have at least 2 states I know of that have enacted a STATE law that allows state OR local cops to arrest illegal aliens AND deport them.
               
               A direct result of the feds denying their responsibility.  Even without that, though, I believe as a matter of ethics ir not actual law that states have a responsibility to share in the efforts to enforce federal law.  It might be nothing but a phone call, but it is there.  No state has the right to simply decide it doesn't like the law it exists under and therefore will not follow it, any more than an individual does.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I am happy to here s few states have taken steps to help handle this issue. I hope any states involved will step up and share the responsibility. However, we have had a few make open statements that they will not help, but try to hinder deportations. 
                  
                  I agree that no state can put itself above Federal law. However, we have seen some push the limit. Trump has claimed he will enforce the laws regarding deportation, even if it means using the military. I expect him to keep to his promise.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            According to the gun control crowd, if ALL states don't jump on the bandwagon of violating the 2nd amendment it results in guns being where they are against the state law.  Same with illegals; there is no guarantee they will work in the state they live in, no assurance they will not go next door to commit a crime or use the neighboring state's resources such as hospitals.  They might take game from next door or use their roads without paying taxes for support them. 
            
            But on top of all that, no state that willingly aids and abets people violating the law of the land needs financial payments from the rest of the country.

            replyreport
         3. 96

            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            It's time to obey the law.
            
            Federal law supersedes state law.
            
            It's called the supremacy clause. 
            
            "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,"

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

               No, the federal government cannot force states to use their law enforcement resources to enforce immigration laws: The Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal programs, like immigration.
               
               The federal government cannot force local jurisdictions to honor detainers, which are documents signed by ICE officers to request the detention of a person.
               
               States and localities can choose whether to participate in immigration enforcement by contributing their own resources.
               
               https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … 20damages.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The 10th Amendment
                  
                  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
                  
                  "The federal government cannot force local jurisdictions to honor detainers, which are documents signed by ICE officers to request the detention of a person."
                  
                  Oh, yes they can.  Should the federal agents want to pursue it, they can arrest the local jurisdiction not following their orders and charge them with insurrection.
                  
                  "States and localities can choose whether to participate in immigration enforcement by contributing their own resources."
                  
                  Oh, no the cannot.  There is even case law where federal agents can make a local jurisdiction a federal agency if necessary.
                  
                  Once President Donald Trump declares a national emergency, the federal government has broad powers to deal with the national emergency. 
                  
                  You might want to read about the The National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the 136 powers it provides during a national emergency.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                     And what exactly is the national emergency?

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                        30 million people residing within the US without permission, in direct violation of the law.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                           National emergency declarations are typically used for natural disasters and civil unrest, to activate the National Guard. But using it to enforce civil immigration enforcement would be unprecedented and quickly face legal challenges. 
                           
                           Trump isn’t likely to fulfill his promise to deport the millions of undocumented immigrants living here.   He knows that he can’t deliver on his promise to deport tens of millions of immigrants from this country. There’s no feasible way, whether you’re talking about the logistics, the cost or the impact on the economy, to conduct deportations at the scale that he’s promised.
                           
                           I believe that he deported less than 1 million in his four year term previously.  Deportations actually dropped during his term.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Total Removals (2017–2021): According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Trump administration carried out approximately 2.7 million removals (deportations) of individuals between 2017 and 2021.
                              
                              Trump and Homan have shared that the National Guard would be used to aid in several ways.
                              
                              National Guard's Role in Domestic Affairs
                              The National Guard is typically a state-based military force that operates under the control of state governors. However, the president can federalize the National Guard, meaning he can call them into active duty for federal missions, including supporting national security objectives and emergency responses.
                              
                              The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) generally limits the use of federal military forces (including the National Guard when federalized) for domestic law enforcement purposes, such as directly arresting or deporting individuals. However, there are exceptions.
                              
                              2. National Guard for Border Enforcement
                              The National Guard has been used at the U.S.-Mexico border in support roles under both Republican and Democratic presidents. For example, in 2018, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other immigration enforcement agencies. The National Guard's role was generally to assist with surveillance, logistics, and infrastructure support, rather than direct law enforcement or deportation activities.
                              
                              While National Guard troops can be deployed to assist with border security, they are not authorized to perform direct immigration enforcement actions, such as arresting or deporting individuals unless they are specifically deputized as law enforcement officers by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
                              
                              3. Limitations of National Guard in Deportation Efforts
                              Deportation is a law enforcement action that falls under the jurisdiction of federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol, not the military. National Guard troops, even when federalized, are generally restricted from participating directly in deportation actions, as this would involve law enforcement duties that are prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act.
                              
                              The National Guard can, however, support these agencies by performing tasks such as:
                              Providing logistical support (transportation, supplies, etc.)
                              Assisting with surveillance (drones, monitoring, etc.)
                              Constructing or maintaining border infrastructure
                              Offering medical or humanitarian assistance during border operations
                              
                              4. Federalizing the National Guard
                              When the president decides to federalize the National Guard, the troops come under direct federal command and are subject to orders from the president. However, this would still not automatically give them law enforcement authority to conduct deportations or arrests. The National Guard can only assist in specific ways, and their involvement in direct deportation operations would require special legal authorizations and coordination with federal immigration agencies.
                              For instance, in times of national emergency or heightened border security concerns, the president could request National Guard support for certain functions, but those functions would generally be limited to non-law enforcement duties.
                              
                              5. Practical Examples
                              Trump’s Border Security National Guard Deployment (2018): Trump did deploy National Guard troops to the border to assist with surveillance, intelligence gathering, and infrastructure maintenance, but they did not directly engage in arrests or deportations. Their mission was primarily supportive, allowing agencies like Border Patrol to focus on law enforcement tasks.
                              
                              2 million Failed Asylum Seekers have not left... Tom Homan claims they will start with them, and the criminal gang members.  It will be very interesting to see how quickly these deportations take place.

                              replyreport
                  2. 58

                     Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                     No, the federal government generally cannot arrest state and local authorities for not helping with deportation because the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws; states and localities have the discretion to choose how much they assist with immigration enforcement, and refusing to do so is not typically grounds for arrest.
                     
                     ALSO
                     
                     Trump is threatening to take away federal funds from local jurisdictions.   During his presidency, in 2017, Trump tried this. Almost immediately after stepping into office, he issued an executive order stating that “sanctuary jurisdictions” that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be eligible to receive federal grants.
                     
                     It was ultimately declared unconstitutional.
                     
                     Much of Trump's bluster, if folks don't remember his first term, was knocked away by the courts and will be again.  Much of what he says has zero chance of seeing the light of day.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                        "the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws"
                        
                        They don't have to cooperate, but they can't impede federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws.   
                        
                        8 U.S.C. § 1373 is a federal statute that prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws or policies that limit communication about “information regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The statute also prohibits restrictions on maintaining such information.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                           This is a felony.  The mayor of Denver could be put in prison.
                           
                           8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
                           
                           A)Any person who—
                           (i)knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
                           (ii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
                           (iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
                           (iv)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; or
                           (v)
                           (I)engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
                           (II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
                           shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
                           (B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
                           (i)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;
                           (ii)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
                           (iii)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
                           (iv)in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
                           (C)It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.
                           (2)Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs—
                           (A)be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or
                           (B)in the case of—
                           (i)an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
                           (ii)an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
                           (iii)an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
                           be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.
                           (3)
                           (A)Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
                           (B)An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who—
                           (i)is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title), and
                           (ii)has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.
                           (4)In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if—
                           (A)the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;
                           (B)aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
                           (C)
                           (i)aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or
                           (ii)the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.
                           (b)Seizure and forfeiture
                           (1)In general
                           Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a), the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
                           
                           (2)Applicable procedures
                           Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
                           
                           (3)Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations
                           In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
                           (A)Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien’s status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
                           (B)Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
                           (C)Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien’s status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
                           (c)Authority to arrest
                           No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
                           
                           (d)Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
                           Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
                           
                           (e)Outreach program
                           The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.
                           
                           (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 274, 66 Stat. 228; Pub. L. 95–582, § 2, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2479; Pub. L. 97–116, § 12, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1617; Pub. L. 99–603, title I, § 112, Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3381; Pub. L. 100–525, § 2(d), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2610; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60024, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1981; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, §§ 203(a)–(d), 219, title VI, § 671(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–565, 3009–566, 3009–574, 3009–720; Pub. L. 106–185, § 18(a), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 108–458, title V, § 5401, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3737; Pub. L. 109–97, title VII, § 796, Nov. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 2165.)

                           replyreport
3. 85

   Sharlee01posted 6 weeks ago

   Trump has recently threatened to impose steep tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada as part of his broader economic and immigration policy proposals. He pledged to implement a 25% tariff on all Mexican exports to the U.S. unless Mexico takes stronger action to curb what he described as an "onslaught" of illegal immigration and drugs entering the United States. Trump also indicated the possibility of escalating tariffs to as much as 100% if his demands are not met. These measures would violate the USMCA trade agreement, which he originally championed, potentially destabilizing U.S.-Mexico trade relations and prompting retaliatory measures from Mexico​.
   
   Stopping migrants from crossing Mexico into the United States and curbing the flow of illegal drugs is critically important for maintaining the security and economic stability of our nation. First, unchecked illegal immigration puts a strain on public resources, including healthcare, education, and housing, which are already stretched thin in many communities. While America is a land of opportunity, we must prioritize an orderly and lawful immigration system to protect jobs and wages for American workers, particularly in industries where they face direct competition from undocumented labor.
   
   Equally concerning is the influx of drugs, particularly fentanyl, which flows across the southern border and fuels an ongoing overdose crisis. Fentanyl alone is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually in the U.S., devastating families and communities. Much of this trafficking is conducted by cartels operating in Mexico, who exploit porous borders and weak enforcement. Ensuring that Mexico takes stronger action against both illegal immigration and drug trafficking is essential to reducing these harms and saving American lives.
   
   Trump’s tariff threats are part of his strategy to compel Mexico to address these issues. While the economic repercussions of such tariffs would be significant, including potential retaliation from Mexico and higher costs for U.S. consumers, Trump argues that the benefits of stronger border security and reduced drug trafficking outweigh these risks​.
   
   I am pleased to see he adds pressure even before stepping into the White House.  Working hard right out of the gate.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      So let me get this straight.   Instead of Congress passing a bill for needed immigration reforms,  we will start trade wars with three of our top trading partners so that nearly everything we touch here in America will cost significantly more?
      
      Let's remember the main reason that Trump was elected,   people were beside themselves that their hamburgers cost a buck more to make.   Do you think these people are going to put up with extra cost of nearly everything because of tariffs?  Lol, no not for a minute.     
      
      We are expecting reduced cost on everything, on day one.  Not this tariff BS.   It's my suspicion that the whole tariff scheme will be enacted to recoup lost revenue due to his tax plan.   You know, the middle class paying for the tax breaks for the 1%.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      On the subject of fentanyl.. the president of Mexico just had some interesting comments. 
      
      "Sheinbaum said her administration had shown Mexico's willingness to help fight the fentanyl epidemic in the U.S., that apprehensions of migrants at the border were down, and that migrant caravans were no longer arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border."
      
      However, Sheinbaum noted that criminal groups in Mexico were still receiving guns from the U.S. She said the region's shared challenges required cooperation, dialogue and reciprocal understanding.
      
      "We do not produce weapons, we do not consume the synthetic drugs. Unfortunately we have the people who are being killed by crime that is responding to the demand in your country," she said.
      
      She is correct. Americans want this drug and any other drug they can get their hands on.   It is produced for Americans and really brought over the border by Americans.   
      
      "But most fentanyl is being trafficked by American citizens, not migrants. Data from the United States Sentencing Commission shows that 86.4 percent of those sentenced for trafficking fentanyl were U.S. citizens.Sep 20, 2024"
      
      Let's put the blame where it belongs.
      
      Americans have already found a replacement for fentanyl as the crackdown has begun...nitazene. 
      
      https://www.kff.org/quick-take/most-sen … 0citizens.
      
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexican-pres … 00133.html

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         The 'facts' in her statement ring true, and she's not the first to say so.
         
         GA

         replyreport
4. 85

   tsmogposted 6 weeks ago

   Living in San Diego County drug seizures are a constant in the news whether at port of entry, by sea, or even tunnels under the border fence. But, what some to many don't know is 80% of convicted smugglers are American citizens, not illegal migrants. Also, in the area of 90% of seized drugs is at a legal port of entry or border crossing. So, I ask, how does Mexico have any control over American citizens bringing illegal drugs into the US?
   
   For a good article to familiarize oneself of the reality of how drugs arrive here in the US see . . .
   
   American citizens smuggle more fentanyl into the US than migrants, data show by KPBS (Aug 29, 2024)
   https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigr … -data-show
   
   Note: The supporting embed hyperlinks are revealing.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      A good point.
      
      A strong Border will also deter American citizens from trafficking drugs.
      
      Its a win either way... is it not?
      
      The goal should be to stop human trafficking and illegal drugs and other serious criminal activities.
      
      And then, in conjunction with that, control the flow of human migration into the country.
      
      That is what is needed... control.  A process in which millions are not flowing across the borders unchecked, undocumented, unrestricted.
      
      A process that allows for identification as well as deterrence.

      replyreport
5. 58

   Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

   This is where we are currently. Trending in the right direction. Trump can not take credit. 
   
   
   "Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released information about migration in September, the final month of the U.S. federal government’s fiscal year. It showed a 25 percent year-on-year drop in Border Patrol’s migrant apprehensions, with most of the reduction happening since January and more sharply since June. That is the result of a Mexican government crackdown on migration transiting the country, along with the Biden administration’s new restrictions on asylum access. Data also show a 26 percent drop in seizures of the drug fentanyl, the first decline since fentanyl began appearing in the mid-2010s."
   
   The federal judiciary’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court verdict finding that the practice of “metering”–posting CBP officers on the borderline to turn asylum seekers back from border ports of entry—is illegal. The decision caps seven years of litigation from migrant rights advocates. It does not directly affect the Biden administration’s current policy of turning back asylum seekers who have not made appointments at ports of entry using the CBP One app; legal challenges continue in that case. 
   
   The numbers show that Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants between ports of entry dropped 25 percent from 2023 to 2024 (from 2,045,838 to 1,530,523). The causes are a crackdown on in-transit migration that Mexico’s government began carrying out in January, and the Biden administration’s June proclamation and rule banning most access to the U.S. asylum system between ports of entry when numbers are high.
   
   If the trend holds, illegal border crossings in November will be below the 54,000 apprehensions logged by Border Patrol in September, the current Biden-era low. The last time illegal border crossings were lower was in the summer of 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic sharply reduced migration.. (Not trump)
   
   https://www.wola.org/2024/10/weekly-u-s … ion-route/

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      It’s clear that Trump’s plan is threefold: stop new migrants from entering the country, cut off the flow of drugs, and, most importantly, deport the millions Biden has essentially invited in. He’s going to have his hands full tackling all three, but I believe he’ll get it done. He’s built a team that’s absolutely determined and laser-focused on delivering results.
      
      I think we are going to see history being made.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         "stop new migrants from entering the country",
         
         Considering we have actual laws that govern immigration, how does one expect that he will prevent migrants from entering the country? 
         
         cut off the flow of drugs,
         
         Fentanyl is down.  Interdiction under Biden has been successful.  But while everyone is looking at fentanyl, nitazines are on the rise.  There are actually a host of other synthetic drugs poised to kill.    Cutting off the flow of drugs is a nice platitude or talking point but in reality it akin to catching a deluge in a paper cup.  Americans want drugs. Americans love drugs and they will do anything to get them.  It's part of our culture.
         
         "deport the millions Biden has essentially invited in."
         
         The immigration laws that Biden has had to work with will be the same laws Trump inherits in January. 
         
         If the courts declare Biden's cpb app illegal, along with border closures triggered by excessive numbers...trump's boat will be up shi*it's creek without a paddle.  Otherwise he can ride the trend and of course try to take credit for it.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            CBP One is an administrative tool created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Biden administration. Programs like this, established through executive authority, can be modified, or discontinued, with the president's pen. Which Trump has already said it will be discontinued.
            
            Oh, so we’re just giving up, huh? "Americans love drugs, and they’ll do anything to get them"? Well, that’s a refreshingly defeatist take. Why bother trying to cut off the flow of drugs when it’s "part of our culture," right? Sure, let’s ignore the lives saved by even minor reductions in supply or the impact of making drugs more expensive and less accessible. Forget about the countless interdiction efforts that have disrupted supply chains and delayed traffickers from flooding the streets with new synthetics. And while we’re at it, let’s also dismiss decades of progress in public health campaigns that have reduced demand for certain drugs—because, apparently, wanting better for society is just too much to ask.
            
            Yes, catching all the drugs is like trying to stop a deluge with a paper cup—great metaphor, by the way—but last time I checked, a paper cup can still catch a little water, and every drop caught might just save a life. But, no, let’s just throw our hands up and say, “Well, Americans are addicts, so what’s the point?” It’s not like root causes—mental health, socio-economic struggles, lack of education—are things we could possibly address. No, let’s all just sit back, let nitazines roll in, and call it "part of our culture." What a fantastic plan.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

               "Programs like this, established through executive authority, can be modified, or discontinued, with the president's pen. Which Trump has already said it will be discontinued."
               
               It would be absolute idiocy if trump discontinued the app. It is what,  in large part is responsible for the reduction in the number of people at the border.   The discontinuation would mean that instead of these folks sitting in their home country applying for asylum, they would be showing up at the border.  I am fairly confident that the courts are striking it down anyway but ending it sooner is stupid. 
               
               In terms of drugs? That's easy.  When the demand is decreased then the supply will decrease.   Reduced supply does nothing but make our drug addicts more resourceful.  The money is better spent elsewhere.  An addict gets better because they want to, not because someone forces them to.   All the well wishes and the hopes for a better life mean nothing to the addict.  These are people who know full well that every time they engage in their behavior could be their last...and they still choose to do it. 
               
               The "war on drugs" has always ignored the psychology of addiction.  That's why it's never been successful.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  While supporters of the app argue that it reduces visible border traffic by allowing asylum seekers to apply from their home countries, this approach ignores the stark reality of our immigration crisis: millions of migrants are already waiting for hearings, with wait times stretching ten years or more. Adding more applicants to this overloaded system—even digitally—compounds the problem, creating an unsustainable backlog that undermines the rule of law and public confidence in the immigration process.
                  
                  The app may reduce physical crowds at the border, but it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue of capacity. Instead, it risks giving new applicants false hope while prolonging the suffering of those already stuck in the system. The practical solution isn’t expanding the intake but addressing the backlog, streamlining case processing, and enforcing limits on new claims until the current caseload is manageable. With millions waiting, the United States cannot continue to take on more migrants without fundamentally overhauling the system first.

                  replyreport